Did Jesus say people should not divorce?

[Michael BG]

Mt 5:31-32

[31] "It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
[32] But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Lk 16:18

[18] "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Mk 10:2-12

[2] And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
[3] He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
[4] They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."
[5] But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
[6] But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.'
[7] `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
[8] and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
[10] And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.
[11] And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;
[12] and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Again I have made two basic assumptions Jesus lived and the early Christians were interested in knowing about what he said and did and so wanted to pass this information on.

It is possible that both are creations of the early Church and multiple-attestation in the gospel traditions (Q and Mark) may not negate this idea. However it seems Paul is aware of a tradition about Jesus speaking about divorce.

1 Cor 7:10-11

[10] To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Paul uses “χωρισθηναι”, which is normally translated as “separate” and not “divorce”, while Mark has “απολυση”, which can be translated as “loose from” or “dismiss” or “divorce”. Luke and Matthew have “απολυων” and “απολελυμενην”.

The context in Matthew is simpler than the one in Mark and so might be more historical, but it comes in a section which Matthew has introduced sayings of Jesus in an antithesis structure “it was said …” “But I say to you”. However Matthew may have found this structure in his source M, because here he has “It was also said …”, but in verse 21 he has “You have heard that it was said to the men of old” and in verse 27 “You have heard that it was said”. If the introductions were all the same it is likely that Matthew created them that way, but because they vary they could come from his source. However just because Matthew is using an older list with an antithesis structure does not mean that structure goes back to Jesus.

It is accepted that Matthew added “except for unchastity” in Mt 19:9 in his version of Mk 10:11 and so it is likely he added “except on the ground of unchastiy” in Mt 5:32.

The Lucan version appears to be from Q like Matthews but it has no context, it just appears in Luke in a group of three Q sayings between sections from Luke’s own source – L.

Mk 10:11

[11] (a) And he said to them, (b) "Whoever divorces his wife (c) and marries another, (d) commits adultery (e) against her;

Lk 16:18

(a) Every one who divorces his wife (b) and marries another (c) commits adultery,
(d) and he who marries a woman divorced (e) from her husband (f) commits adultery.

Mt 19:9

[9] (a) And I say to you: (b) whoever divorces his wife, (c) except for unchastity, (d) and marries another, (e) commits adultery."

Mt 5:32

[32] (a) But I say to you that (b) every one who divorces his wife, (c) except on the ground of unchastity, (d) makes her an adulteress;
(e) and whoever marries a divorced woman (f) commits adultery.

Matthew’s “whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery” (Mt 19:9b, d-e) is identical to Mark (Mk 10:11b-d) in the Greek, while “every one who divorces his wife” (Mt 5:32b) is identical to Luke (16:18a) in the Greek, This means that there were two versions one in Mark and one in Q. However Mt 5:32d “makes her an adulteress” does not match either Luke 16:18bc or Mk 10:11cd. Lk 16:18b-c “and marries another commits adultery” matches Mk 10:11c-d but it is not identical in the Greek. If Luke has the Q version it seems strange for Matthew to change it here but not in Mt 19:9 and so it seems more likely that Matthew has the Q version - “makes her an adulteress” (Mt 5:32 d) and Luke has changed his to match the Marcan version.

Matthew has “every one” and “who ever” (Mt 5:32) Mark “who ever and “she” (Mk10:11,12) and Luke has “every one” and “he” (Lk 16:18). It seems likely that Matthew has changed his “he” to Mark’s earlier “who ever” and therefore I think Luke has the Q opening for the second part of the saying. I don’t think that “from her husband” (Lk 16:18e) is needed in the saying, and it is likely a Lucan addition and so Matthews “divorced woman” is likely to have been the Q version. Both Luke and Matthew agree on “commits adultery”.

Therefore I think it is likely that the Q version was:

"Every one, who divorces his wife, makes her an adulteress;
and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Matthew correctly gives the position in Jewish law that the man has to give the woman a certificate of divorce. Under Jewish law only the man could grant a divorce; a woman could not divorce her husband unlike under Roman law. Therefore Mark verse 12 is unlikely to go back to Jesus because it reflects the Roman law situation of Christians in Rome and not Jews in Palestine during the time of Jesus.

It seems that adultery was when a married women had sex to somebody who was not her husband and not when a married man had sex with a single woman. Therefore it seems unlikely that Mark verse 11 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her;” goes back to a Jewish setting. The Old Testament records many people who had more than one wife as Josephus states “It is an ancestral custom of ours to have several wives at the same time”. Also I think Herod the Great had more than one wife at a time.

The Marcan quote from Genesis is word perfect for the Septuagint.

Mk 10:7-8a
ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ
προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ,
καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν:

LXX Genesis 2:24
ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.
It is not very likely that Jesus would have quoted the Septuagint and this is very likely to be either an addition of Marks or of the early Christians and so verse 7 should be seen as an addition.

We are left with:

[2]And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
[3] He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
[4] They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away."
[5] But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.

This alone makes little sense as it is the context for the rest of the saying. Therefore none on Mk 10:2-12 is likely to go back to Jesus.

However the Q version:
"Every one, who divorces his wife, makes her an adulteress; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” might go back to Jesus and might be the basis from which the Marcan version was created. The Q saying has the man and woman committing adultery and this might have led the early Christians in a Roman law environment to create the parallel saying where both the man and woman could grant a divorce. It is also possible that Paul’s version is a development from the tradition behind Mark’s version, again not in a Palestinian setting.

[Ben C. Smith]

Therefore Mark verse 12 is unlikely to go back to Jesus because it reflects the Roman law situation of Christians in Rome and not Jews in Palestine during the time of Jesus.

The bounceback for this position has always been that the female half of the saying could have been aimed, not at Jewish practice in general, but rather at the actions of one particular woman of high profile: Herodias.

(I am not committed to any position on this; I mention it only because Herodias has to be addressed when determining whether an historical Jesus could have uttered such a logion.)

Ben.

[Michael BG]

Therefore Mark verse 12 is unlikely to go back to Jesus because it reflects the Roman law situation of Christians in Rome and not Jews in Palestine during the time of Jesus.

The bounceback for this position has always been that the female half of the saying could have been aimed, not at Jewish practice in general, but rather at the actions of one particular woman of high profile: Herodias.

(I am not committed to any position on this; I mention it only because Herodias has to be addressed when determining whether an historical Jesus could have uttered such a logion.)

Ben.

According to Josephus Herod the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea goes to Rome and stays with his half-brother Herod and falls in love with Herodias and she promises to leave Rome and join Herod the tetrarch and he will divorce Aretas’ daughter. It is therefore possible that Herodias got a Roman divorce in Rome.

Before Aretas’ daughter is divorced Aretas defeats Herod. (Ant 17:5) It is likely this happened when Vitellius was governor of Syria, which is normally dated to 35-39 CE. However in the previous chapter (17:4) Vitellius removes Pontius Pilate from being the governor of Judea, which is dated to c 36 CE. Therefore it is likely that Herod Antipas did not marry Herodias until after Pontius Pilate left Judea. This also means that John the Baptist was not killed by Herod until after Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

So if Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate before Herod Antipas married Herodias then if this saying does refer to Herodias that is more evidence for it not having been said by Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

Therefore Mark verse 12 is unlikely to go back to Jesus because it reflects the Roman law situation of Christians in Rome and not Jews in Palestine during the time of Jesus.

The bounceback for this position has always been that the female half of the saying could have been aimed, not at Jewish practice in general, but rather at the actions of one particular woman of high profile: Herodias.

(I am not committed to any position on this; I mention it only because Herodias has to be addressed when determining whether an historical Jesus could have uttered such a logion.)

Ben.

According to Josephus Herod the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea goes to Rome and stays with his half-brother Herod and falls in love with Herodias and she promises to leave Rome and join Herod the tetrarch and he will divorce Aretas’ daughter. It is therefore possible that Herodias got a Roman divorce in Rome.

Before Aretas’ daughter is divorced Aretas defeats Herod. (Ant 17:5) It is likely this happened when Vitellius was governor of Syria, which is normally dated to 35-39 CE. However in the previous chapter (17:4) Vitellius removes Pontius Pilate from being the governor of Judea, which is dated to c 36 CE. Therefore it is likely that Herod Antipas did not marry Herodias until after Pontius Pilate left Judea. This also means that John the Baptist was not killed by Herod until after Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

So if Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate before Herod Antipas married Herodias then if this saying does refer to Herodias that is more evidence for it not having been said by Jesus.

I think you will agree that there are a lot of contingencies ("if", "likely", "possible") in that assessment. It may all be correct; it may not be. As I have mentioned, I have no horse in that race; but a discussion of the historicity (or even the historical background) of the saying should always bear Herodias in mind. I thank you for addressing that matter.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

I think you will agree that there are a lot of contingencies ("if", "likely", "possible") in that assessment. It may all be correct; it may not be. As I have mentioned, I have no horse in that race; but a discussion of the historicity (or even the historical background) of the saying should always bear Herodias in mind. I thank you for addressing that matter.

Ben.

I am interested in historicity, but I was not there, so I can’t say this happened or this didn’t happen. We rely on the texts we have and we have to consider them and the theories we are presented with or present and rationally we have to decide which conclusion we think is most likely. All my conclusions are what I think, at this moment in time, is the most likely. In the civil court all is needed is the balance of probabilities and that is what I aim for. Tomorrow or next week or next year I may decide that what I thought was most likely is no longer most likely.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am interested in historicity, but I was not there, so I can’t say this happened or this didn’t happen.

Somebody needs to invent observational time travel.

[Peter Kirby]

I am interested in historicity, but I was not there, so I can’t say this happened or this didn’t happen.

Somebody needs to invent observational time travel.

Technically we have that... it's just not pointed at anything super-interesting or very old (unless you're a fan of old stars).

[Ben C. Smith]

I am interested in historicity, but I was not there, so I can’t say this happened or this didn’t happen.

Somebody needs to invent observational time travel.

Technically we have that... it's just not pointed at anything super-interesting or very old (unless you're a fan of old stars).

I am a bit of a fan of old stars and supernovae and such, but let me rephrase. Somebody needs to invent observational terrestrial time travel.

[John2]

Howard notes that the divorce issue (like the issue of swearing) is pro-Torah in the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEB ... rd&f=false

As for whether or not Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew is relevant to the first century CE, I think Howard makes a good case that it at least predates Shem Tov (e.g., given his comments throughout the text) and that it can exhibit superior readings, e.g., Mt. 23:2-3: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them"; a variant of the Hebrew version says to do all that "he" (i.e., Moses) says and not to follow the Pharisees, as discussed in the following link and in detail by Gordon in his book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. The Greek Jesus.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/nichols357923.shtml

[jayraskin]

Hi Michael BG,

I am wondering what the word "adultery" meant. Did it mean having sex or did it mean being unfaithful?

Jeremiah 3:8
HEB: אֹדוֹת֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר נִֽאֲפָה֙ מְשֻׁבָ֣ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל
NAS: that for all the adulteries of faithless
KJV: Israel committed adultery I had put her away,
INT: the causes after adulteries of faithless Israel

Jeremiah 3:9
HEB: אֶת־ הָאָ֑רֶץ וַתִּנְאַ֥ף אֶת־ הָאֶ֖בֶן
NAS: the land and committed adultery with stones
KJV: the land, and committed adultery with stones
INT: polluted the land and committed with stones

Warmly,

Jay Raskin