The context for this passage is the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus raises the bar on the demands of the Law for salvation. It is in this context that he raises the bar on the ethics for divorce and remarriage, citing Deuteronomy 24:1.
(Mt. 5:31-32) It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
“Unchastity” (porneia) is a biblically ethical reason for getting a divorce. The usage of the term covers “various kinds of sexual irregularity”[1] or “any sort of sexual activity not involving one’s spouse.”[2]
“…except for the reason of unchastity…” The most natural way to understand the “except” clause is “that divorce is wrong because it generates adultery except in the case of fornication.”[3]
Does this make divorce mandatory? No. In fact, we disagree with commentators who hold this view.[4] While adultery permits a believer to get a divorce, forgiveness is also an option. “…makes her commit adultery…” Does this refer to “stigmatizing” the woman as an adulteress—even if she isn’t? No. The Greek uses a verb (cause and commit), rather than a noun.[5] It uses the passive infinitive, which renders the statement “makes her commit adultery.”[6] (cf. Mt. 19:9) This doesn’t mean that a man forced his ex-wife to commit adultery. Rather, in ancient times, women had to remarry because “this was often the only way a divorced wife could survive.”[7] Note, however, that Jesus blames the man—not the woman—for this adultery.[8] Mark states that the man “commits adultery against her” (Mk. 10:11).
[1] France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew (p. 209). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co.
[2] Turner, D. L. (2008). Matthew (pp. 171-172). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
[3] Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, p. 153). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
[4] R.T. France argues that adultery was “simply the recognition that the marriage had already been terminated by the creation of a new union, and as such was mandatory.” He cites the current rabbinical view that adultery “demanded the termination of a marriage” (e.g. Mishnah Yebamoth 2:8; Sotah 5:1). France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 128-129). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[5] Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, p. 153). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
[6] Carson, D. A. (1984). Matthew. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Vol. 8, p. 417). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
[7] See footnote. France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, p. 127). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Hagner agrees, “The husband who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery because in the culture of that day, unlike ours, a single woman could hardly survive on her own, except through prostitution.” Hagner, D. A. (1993). Matthew 1-13 (Vol. 33A, p. 125). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
[8] France, R. T. (1985). Matthew: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 1, p. 128). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
