DIVORCE (כְּרִיתוּת, H4135; a cutting off; ἀποστασίον). Divorce is a legal term for the act of removing the obligations of a marriage contract. Most societies have made some provision for the dissolution of a marriage when it does not prove satisfactory. Normally a divorce also allows the parties involved to contract a subsequent marriage.
Knowledge of the practice of divorce among the ancient Hebrews is quite sketchy. The primary references to divorce in the law (Deut 22:18-29; 24:1-4) are “case laws” referring to particular situations. No general law on divorce is present. Only Deuteronomy 24:1 alludes to the procedure to be followed. Several Biblical stories recount divorces (Gen 21:8-14; Judg 14:19, 20; 15:2, 6; 1 Sam 18:12-17). Much discussion has focused on whether Deuteronomy 24:1-4 refers to divorce because of adultery or for some lesser reason of incompatibility. However, since the law called for adultery to be punished by death (Deut 22:22), the latter is likely. Of course, many Heb. men in actual practice used divorce as a merciful response to an unfaithful wife (Matt 1:19).
Hebrew marriage was a legal contract binding a man and a woman and their families to perform certain socially prescribed roles. The contract covered the lifetime of the contracting parties; the male, however, as senior partner appears to have had the right of preparing a “bill of divorcement” and thereby terminating the arrangement.
It is important to realize that divorce is essentially a socio-political concept. Religion has been concerned primarily with challenging its abuse and with ministering to the suffering which it causes. Religiously, divorce, as Jesus later explained, lay outside God’s will. Politically, it had to be allowed. A reading of OT laws concerning marriage and divorce suggests the importance of responsibility in one’s family life.
The post-OT writings of the rabbis shed some light on the divorce issue. Two schools of thought emerged concerning the grounds for divorce. Rabbi Shammai restricted divorce to cases of adultery—conservative, but a liberalization of Mosaic law. Rabbi Hillel allowed divorce for almost any grievance, no matter how trivial. There is evidence that divorce was rather common in Jesus’ day.
The basic ethical questions asked by Christians in discussions of divorce are: (1) Is a Christian ever justified in seeking a divorce? (2) Once divorced, may a Christian remarry?
Jesus’ own teachings on the subject of divorce appear in Matthew 5:27-32; 19:3-12 and parallel passages (Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18). The first passage appears in the Sermon on the Mount. Here Jesus is depicted as going beyond Moses, making even more strict demands. The issue for interpretation is whether Christ was giving a “new law” for Christians or stating the extent of God’s perfect will for mankind so that all might realize they are sinners in need of God’s grace. Is this law or hyperbole? The second passage records Jesus’ response to a rabbinical question concerning possible “justifiable” grounds for divorce. Here Jesus declares that marriage forges a unity between the couple. To dissolve this unity is contrary to God’s will. Again, law or hyperbole?
In the history of Christian ethical thought two different approaches to ethics have been taken: (1) casuistry; (2) law/grace. Each takes a different approach to these teachings. The casuistic approach has been the more popular one. It sees Jesus as a new lawgiver. His teachings on divorce are the law for Christians. This law is normative and is to be applied to marital problems occurring in the life of individual Christians. The “except for fornication” clause (Matt 19:9) has been variously interpreted when applied to problems of justifying divorce under certain circumstances. Examples include subsequent discovery of premarital unchastity, extra-marital sex relations, and failure to perform marital responsibility. In Roman Catholic ethics this process becomes very elaborate. The new situation ethics is also casuistic. It glosses over Jesus’ teaching on divorce and focuses on the law to love. The situationalist may justify divorce in a specific case as being “the loving thing to do.” Essentially the casuistic approach seeks to determine if justifiable cause for a divorce action by a Christian can be found. This approach is often condemned on two grounds: (1) it is legalistic and devoid of the grace proclaimed in the Gospel; (2) it eases one’s conscience allowing him to feel justified in his actions without suing for God’s forgiveness.
The alternate approach finds Jesus’ teachings to be an attack on the “cheap grace” of the Pharisees and their casuistry. Jesus’ teachings on the commandments of God (Matt 5:17-48) radicalize them, removing any justification for one’s doing less than the ideal. The Christian measures his actions by the ideal. Anything less is sin. Sin can be atoned only by the gracious forgiveness of God. Specifically, divorce is not the will of God; it is evil. Divorce hurts the husband and wife, the children, the families, the Church, and the community. The damage of divorce is irreparable. To divorce a woman, Jesus taught, is to brand her as unfaithful. If a man marries a divorcee, he becomes suspect. This approach finds no “justification” for divorce. Subsequently when the Pharisees challenged Jesus’ authority to go beyond the commands by appealing to Moses, he responded that Moses was simply accommodating God’s perfect will because of the sinfulness of the people. Moses was giving laws for the state; and the laws of the state can never be as demanding as those of the faith. This approach questions the validity of the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, since it does not appear in Mark and Luke. How does a radical ethic respond to those situations where divorce appears to be the “lesser evil,” where divorced people wish to remarry or where a divorced person wishes to hold a place of leadership in the church? Here the emphasis shifts from law to grace. Although divorce is always wrong, God is gracious and will forgive (1 John 1:9). God forgives; Christians forgive; divorce is not the unpardonable sin. This approach to Christian ethics counsels repentance and faith.
Two passages from Paul, the “Pauline Privilege” (1 Cor 7:12-15) and the qualifications for bishops (1 Tim 3:1-7) should also be mentioned. The first is sometimes interpreted to mean a Christian can divorce an unbelieving spouse without sinning. The latter is interpreted as disqualifying divorced men from the ministry and the deaconate. Both interpretations are questionable.
In summary, the emphasis in the Bible is on contracting a successful marriage. At best, divorce is not in keeping with God’s will. The family today is in a state of flux, undergoing many changes. Christians must hold fast to the “one flesh” concept and see divorce as a disruption of this relationship. Christ was right in seeing divorce being caused by the “hardness of our hearts.” See Marriage.
Bibliography C. Cavesno, “Divorce,” ISBE, II (1915), 863-866; R. Patai, Sex and Family in the Bible and the Middle East (1959), 112-121; D. S. Bailey, Sexual Relations in Christian Thought (1959), 32-97, 103-110, 211-229; O. Piper, The Biblical Views of Sex and Marriage (1960), 140-151; O. J. Baab, “Divorce,” IDB (1962), 859.