3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
The most natural reading of this passage tells us that there is at least one exception for divorce and remarriage in the eyes of Jesus that does not lead to adultery. But before we examine this exception, it's noteworthy that this question is brought up by Pharisees who are asking whether it's lawful or not to divorce your wife for any and every reason. Jesus doesn't dispute their understanding of the Law of Moses, unlike what some people suggest. He simply tells them that Moses permitted them to divorce their wives because their hearts were hard. Notice that Jesus doesn't mention the "for any and every reason" part here, because it would be unnecessary and redundant. It doesn't mean that he's not addressing the same question or that he disagrees with their understanding of the Mosaic Law. So it's clear that the Law of Moses permitted men to divorce their wives for any and every reason. This Law comes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 since this passage is the only passage in the Torah which talks about the certificate of divorce. Let's have a look at this passage as well.
24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Notice that verse 4 says that her first husband is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled! In other words, remarriage to your first wife after she has had sexual intercourse with another man is not permitted under the Law of Moses. Now would this law apply in case of adultery during marriage? I think it would and the reason the Mosaic Law does not mention this is simply because an adulterer or an adulteress was stoned to death! Jesus is also warning his followers against adultery in his statement about divorce and remarriage. In other words, adultery is the most natural exception that one could possibly think of, when reading this passage, simply because there is no point for Jesus to warn his followers against committing adultery after divorce, if they've already committed adultery during marriage. This should give us an insight into examining the exception, which is translated as "sexual immorality" in most translations that we have today.
Some argue that the exception is only mentioned in the gospel of Matthew and not in Luke or Mark and therefore, there should be more to the exception than meets the eye. But this is not really a good ground to argue from. Take the same account in the gospel of Mark for instance. The question from the Pharisees in the gospel of Mark doesn't include "for any and every reason". Whether this question is asked by different Pharisees or whether it's the same account and the author in Mark is simplifying things, it not only makes sense why Mark doesn't include the exception but also means that the exception must be something natural or inherent as I explained the case with adultery before divorce which would nullify the marriage anyway.
Critics argue that the word used for the exception in Greek is "porneia" which means fornication, and that the Greek word for adultery used in the same verse is "moicheia" and therefore, the exception cannot be adultery otherwise Jesus would have used the same word. But "porneia" or fornication, which is generally translated as sexual immorality, which is the word from which we get the word "pornography" from, simply means sexual intercourse with someone you're not married to and as a result, it naturally includes not only adultery but also homosexuality since marriage is defined in Genesis 2:24 as the union between one man and one woman. Paul uses the same word, "porneia", in 1 Corinthians 5:1 to refer to someone in the church who's having sex with his father's wife! Paul refers to this act as "porneia" or fornication, not adultery, even though the woman in this context is committing adultery. The reason Paul refers to this as fornication is because it's more than adultery! It's also incest!
These same critics also argue that "porneia" or fornication refers to sex before marriage and the exception is referring to a divorce that takes place during engagement, and not after marriage. This view not only fails to make sense of how Paul uses the same word in 1 Corinthians 5:1 in reference to an adultery as well as incest, but also fails to make sense of the most natural reading of this passage as I explained above. These critics point out to Joseph wanting to divorce Mary in Matthew 1:19 to support their case. However, the relationship that Jesus is addressing doesn't allude to an engagement even in a Jewish context or tradition. Because even in the Jewish context or tradition, a man would not leave his father and mother and join his wife and become one with her as Genesis 2:24 states, after engagement but rather after marriage or the wedding ceremony. So "porneia" or fornication or sexual immorality in my view, is simply sexual activity outside of the marriage bed, and so not only includes adultery, but also incest, homosexuality, polygamy, and even consuming pornography because lusting after people you're not married to, is adultery in the heart, as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:27-30.
Another passage that these critics like to use to support their argument is 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 where Paul seems to repeat what Jesus has said, without including the exception clause. He says, "10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." But Paul doesn't say that this is the case "for any and every reason." In fact, two chapters before, he's already said this in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11: "9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."
In other words, Paul has already made it clear for believers that they're not to even eat with anyone who claims to be a believer, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Notice that the word "sexually immoral" here is again the same Greek word that Jesus uses in his exception clause for divorce and remarriage, and also notice that Paul does not mention adulterer in his list because he thinks that the word "porneia", which means fornication or sexual immorality, already includes adultery as well. Paul says that this is not about dissociating yourselves from the unbelievers, because then you'd have to leave the world, meaning almost everyone in the world is guilty of these sins. But he then says that if someone claims to be a brother or sister in Christ, yet commits these sins, then you must not associate with them. Am I saying that Paul contradicts Jesus by adding even more exceptions? Not really. I'm only saying that just because Paul does not mention the exception clause in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and just because neither Mark nor Luke mention the exception clause either, it doesn't mean that they're addressing divorce "for any and every reason," unlike Matthew 19:3 where the question from Pharisees explicitly mentions the words "for any and every reason."
Not only that, Paul also gives his own command or permission(I, not the Lord) for remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15-16 in case an unbelieving husband or wife of a believer leaves. He first says that the believer should remain in the marriage and pray that God saves their spouse. But he then says that if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believer is not bound anymore. He uses the same word here that he uses in Romans 7:2 to refer to how a believer is no longer bound to their spouse after their spouse dies, meaning they can remarry. In Romans 7:3 he says, "So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man."
Another argument for divorce and remarriage leading to adultery under any circumstance is that our marriage is supposed to represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as in the metaphorical marriage of Christ with His Church. And since Christ forgives His Church for even adultery in a metaphorical sense, so should we forgive one another for even adultery. This is not a direct argument from scriptures but I personally have nothing against forgiveness and reconciliation. It's a beautiful thing and if anyone who's been cheated on has the grace should totally at least try it. The other party however may not even ask for forgiveness or seek reconciliation and may divorce and remarry, in which case I think the believer is no longer bound and the first marriage is annulled, and in case of a divorce in the second marriage, going back to the first marriage would be an abomination to the Lord, as we read in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Also, in the old covenant, adultery in a metaphorical sense, was breaking the first commandment. Thou shall not have any other god before me. It was a serious sin and punishable by death. In the new covenant, since we're not under the law, but under grace, and since the law of grace requires faith, and not works, as scripture says in Romans 3:27-28, while all of our sins are forgivable, there remains one sin that is unforgivable in a sense which is the sin of unbelief. Or in other words, lack of faith. It's the very means by which we are saved. We need to put 100% of our faith in Jesus alone for our salvation. If we mix this percentage and put even 1% of our faith in ourselves or in another god or in anything other than Jesus, are we still saved? I don't think so. This could be seen as committing adultery in a metaphorical sense under the new covenant, which leads to Jesus saying "I never knew you," on the day of judgement, as depicted in Matthew 7:21. This is a very important topic normally known as the faith vs. works dichotomy which I have already written about before.
To recap, let me be clear that God hates divorce and so do I. And in fact, as a single, and never-married bloke, I always tell God that I would rather remain single and die single, than end up in a broken marriage. Because I know that a broken marriage is devastating even though I have not personally experienced it myself. A divorce and then remarriage would be even more devastating unless you don't really love the person you marry. But legalism is not the answer here; if it were, or as apostle Paul says in Galatians 2:21, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" If you're in a marriage and you're considering divorce, or if you've divorced already and you're considering remarriage, let me advise you to take a step back and pray about it and do everything you can to restore your marriage. Remember what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says as well because you cannot restore your marriage if you divorce and marry someone else.
The reason I say this is because often times, critics like to blame people like me for divorces and remarriages. I don't think this is fair because I'm doing my best to stay true to the scriptures. Even if my understanding of this topic is wrong and divorce followed by remarriage is adultery for any reason, I would still like to point you to God's grace and ask you to rest in the fact that your salvation is not based on your works, but based on God's grace alone, through your faith alone, apart from the works of the law. So regardless of what the scriptures teach on this topic, if you have gone through a divorce and remarriage already, you can be rest assured that the blood of Jesus covers everything! If you're not sure about the blood of Jesus covering all of your sins both past and future, I would like to advise you to study the faith vs. works dichotomy first, because that topic is a much more important topic and it concerns your salvation regardless of your holiness. As Paul says in Romans 3:28, "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."
