As Lutherans we have a tendency to divide between the law and the gospel, between God’s requirements and God’s glad tidings, in a way which doesn’t account for all of what Jesus said. Let me just mention that in the gospel of John Jesus five or six times says: “He who loves me, will obey my commands. He who does not love me, will not obey my commands.” (John 14.15-24, 15.10+14). The main theme of St. John’s gospel – all the way from the prologue: “…and the Word was God,” etc. – is the divine nature of Jesus, with Thomas’ confession as its climax: “My Lord and my God!” And the main conclusion we find in John 21.15-19: “Peter, do you truly love me more than you love these?” It is Jesus himself we shall love “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” How? By obeying his commandments. How do we keep his commands? Doing what he commands is the Holy Spirit’s work in us – it is a holiness we receive, in the same way as faith is a gift from God. A holiness which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit, not our own achievement. But even though we cannot keep his commandments in our own strength, neither can we turn away from them and say that we neither can, shall or will keep them. If we do that, we do not love him.

There is also a seeming contradiction between God being good, and Jesus’ uncompromising words on divorce and remarriage. But regardless of how hard his words may seem from our point of view, applied to a difficult situation, we must remember that not only are his thoughts higher than ours, but he has created us. He knows his creation. He created us man and woman. He knows what we are meant to be, and he knows what in the end is good for us. Even though keeping his commands in a given situation may to us look like a tragedy. And he knows what is bad and destructive for us, even that which in our time may be regarded as good.

Jesus was even in his own time in opposition to the commonly accepted ethics and practice. His commands on divorce and remarriage flew in the face of orthodox Jewish teaching and understanding of Old Testament law. (Which tells us that Jesus and Paul in other questions too, for instance the ordination of women, were not bound or influenced by the views of their time.) Jesus spoke into a time which in many ways was (almost) as corrupt as the West today, and his words on divorce and remarriage met strong reactions, even among his closest disciples. It is only to be expected that they should meet comparably strong reactions today – also within the church.

In Matthew 19.6 and Mark 10.9 Jesus says: “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Here he is referring to his own order of creation – not to any Christian wedding ritual. This applies to all men, Christian or not. For all men and in all cultures there are three things which together constitute a legitimate marriage: the marriage vow, the public announcement and the consummation. A marriage between non-Christians, or before one becomes Christian, is just as binding as between Christians.

The main message about “what God has joined together” is repeated, substantiated and explained in six commands/statements of Jesus (plus 2 duplicates) on divorce and remarriage in the New Testament. I will quote all six, and try to give the meaning of the Greek text as accurately as possible. The translation is a bit clumsy, because the words we normally use in translating don’t fully correspond to the meaning of the Greek (and Hebrew.) Among other things I’m using the word adultery and deliberately avoiding the term “breach of marriage,” as one in Norwegian (or German) could assume the implication that the marriage thereby may be broken, and stopped. Such a meaning is not found in the Greek word “moixeia”/”moixeuw”, “na’af” in Hebrew, as used by Jesus.

Mark 10.11: “He who divorces his wife and marries another, he keeps on committing adultery against her.” (This is said at the same occasion as Matthew 19.9, but is a separate statement.) And 16.18: “Anyone (all) who divorces his wife and marries another, keeps on committing adultery.” (This is not said at the same occasion as Mark 10.11).

Mark 10.12: “If she (a wife) divorces her husband and marries another, she keeps on committing adultery.”

Matthew 5.32b: “He who marries a divorced woman keeps on committing adultery.” and Luke 16.18b: “He who marries a woman who is divorced from her husband, keeps on committing adultery.”

Matthew 5.32: “Anyone (all) who divorces his wife for any other reason than “adultery,” (“porneia,” whatever that word means), he causes her to commit adultery.”

1. Cor. 7.10: “A woman shall not separate from her husband. But if se does, she shall live unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” Here it is Jesus who speaks through Paul, and Paul himself emphasizes his words in the strongest way possible: “not I, but the Lord.”

1. Cor. 7.11: “A man shall not divorce his wife.”

“Keeps on committing adultery” is more or less the correct translation of the present tense “moixatai” or “moixeuei”. Present tense in Greek usually describes a continuous activity, in contrast to the aorist tense which normally describes the activity as such. In a few cases the Greek present tense also can describe an action as one-off, especially historic present tense, and a couple other special cases – most especially verbs which in their root meaning are one-off – but there is nothing in our texts to show that this may be possible here. Compare Matthew 5.28, where the aorist is used, with Matthew 5.32c, Matthew 19.9, Mark 10.11+12 and Luke 16.18, where the present tense is used.

In Mark and Luke and in 1. Cor.7.10-11 the ban on divorce and remarriage is absolute. There is no trace of any exception for what often is called the innocent party. This is clear in the texts which above are listed as I, II, V and VI. But what about the gospel of Matthew? Let us first look at Matthew 5.32: “Anyone (all) who divorces his wife for any other reason than “adultery”, (“porneia”, whatever the word means), he causes her to commit adultery.”

The first part of verse 32 may also be translated: “He who divorces his wife who has not committed “porneia,” he causes her to commit adultery.” The exception for any other reason than “porneia” clearly means only that the man does not cause her to commit adultery. The sentence unambiguously says that an innocent divorced woman commits adultery (if she remarries.) This is confirmed just as clearly in the next sentence in verse 32: “He who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” That many (also the reformers) have taken Matthew 5.32 to mean that the innocent party in a divorce is free to remarry, is an intopretation, not an interpretation of the text. Regardless of how one interprets Matt. 19.9, Matt. 5.32 clearly says that a woman who is thrown out by divorce, is driven to adultery (implied: if she has to remarry) and it says just as plainly that he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.

What then does Jesus say in Matthew 19.9? Does Matthew 19.9 give the man the right to remarry, if he is the innocent party in a divorce, if his wife has committed “porneia”? There are several attempts at interpretation which will take too long to discuss, but we know that the early church did not understand this verse to give the innocent man the right of remarriage. Church tradition and practice in the first centuries is very clear. We could mention several wellknown names from the early church, but Hermas is of special interest. According to Hermas the man has an absolute duty to forgive and take back a wife who has been unfaithful in the very worst way – the text implies that she has become a prostitute – but then repents. Here Hermas gives the correct and in the early church accepted interpretation of Matthew 19.9., and since then the Roman Catholic Church has never left the tradition and interpretation of the early church and the apostolic fathers – that a legitimate marriage is indissoluble.

What then does Matthew 19.9 say? There are many interpretations, but the main issue is always what the word “porneia” means. In fact the whole argument for that remarriage may be accepted for the innocent party, rests on this one word. So what is the most probable meaning of “porneia”? We shall take closer look in part 3.

 

Copyright  © The M28 Foundation. Permission granted for copying and web posting, as long as no changes are made to the text.