The Church Fathers’ View – This view essentially prohibits remarriage after divorce regardless of whether the reasons for divorce were considered to be legitimate or not. It is based on their understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where Moses explained that a woman whose husband had “found some uncleanness in her” and subsequently divorced her was prohibited from remarrying her if she had married another man, even if her second husband later died. In such a case the woman was “defiled” and their remarriage would be an abomination before Yahweh. Why exactly would she be defiled? According to this view, it was because she was still related to her spouse’s family, even after the divorce, and therefore a return to her original partner would be a kind of incest. In other words, as Gordon Wenham put it, “to seek a divorce is to try and break a relationship with one’s wife that cannot really be broken.”
And thus Jesus was saying in Matthew 19:9 that divorce was allowed in cases of adultery, but remarriage was never acceptable. Furthermore, this exception for adultery was based on the fact that the Jews understood adultery to be first and foremost a sin against God, which, in OT times was to be punished by death. The faithful husband had no right to pardon his wife, since she had violated God’s law and must be held to account by the community. So Jesus would not hold his disciples guilty of breaking the prohibition on divorce in cases of adultery, but this was an accommodation to the Jewish culture in which they lived. With this understanding, neither divorce nor remarriage would be allowed today, since the specific circumstances to which Jesus was speaking cannot be duplicated in the modern world.
The Reformers’ View – This view is based on a very simple logic. It assumes that both Moses in Deuteronomy 24 and Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19 had adultery in mind when they spoke of “some uncleanness” or “sexual immorality.” For Jesus, this would require that he was using the term porneia (fornication) to refer to adultery rather than the term that actually means adultery, moicheia. In ancient Israel, if a person committed adultery, he was to be stoned to death freeing the faithful spouse to remarry. Though this penalty is not enacted in the NT church, it is believed that the adulterous partner is viewed as though dead in God’s sight, thus adultery is considered to be sufficient grounds for a legal and morally acceptable divorce. Remarriage for the innocent spouse is allowed, since he is to consider his unfaithful spouse as being dead to God and to him.
The Augustinian View – This view argues that the commonly accepted translations of the exception clauses in Matthew are incorrect. When Jesus said “except for sexual immorality” in Matthew 5, he meant “setting aside the discussion of sexual immorality.” This translation of the word “except” is valid, as it is used this way in Acts 26:29 where Paul told King Agrippa that he wished he could become as he was, “except for” or “apart from” his chains. It is also used this way in 2 Corinthians 11:28 where Paul says that “except for” or “apart from” his physical hardships he also endures daily the burden of concern for the churches under his care. Applied to the words of Jesus, he was saying that whoever divorces his wife, setting aside the discussion of sexual immorality or uncleanness from Deuteronomy 24, exposes his wife to adultery.
In Matthew 19, the language is slightly different. The phrase includes a negative term, a preposition, and the noun fornication. If it is translated consistently with its use in the rest of the book of Matthew, it would be “not on the basis of fornication,” meaning that fornication was not involved, thus bypassing the debate between the two schools of Hillel and Shammai altogether. According to this view, the reason for divorce (and whether it is justified) does not matter, remarriage is forbidden by Christ. And this also helps explain the disciples’ reaction in v.10. They said, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” This response makes little sense in the Reformers’ view, since in that case they would not be bound to an adulterous wife, but would be free to divorce her and marry again.
Jesus answered the disciples by saying, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given.” Then he elaborates by identifying three distinct classes of eunuchs: eunuchs from birth, eunuchs made so by men (that is, by force), and eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (that is, by choice). That he expects his disciples to be in this third category is clear when he concludes with “He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” He is not instituting the monastic life of celibacy, as so many throughout church history have wrongly believed, but is prioritizing the kingdom of God above all other concerns. A. B. Bruce helpfully summarizes: “It is not a question of intelligence, nor of a merely natural power of continence, but of attaining to such a spiritual state that the reasons for remaining free from married ties shall prevail over all forces urging on to marriage. Jesus lifts the whole subject up out of the low region of mere personal taste, pleasure, or convenience, into the high region of the Kingdom of God and its claims.” If indeed, Jesus was prohibiting remarriage in every case, then only the high calling of the pursuit of God’s kingdom will suffice to enable a man or woman, once divorced, to remain single without sin.
There are still two views to examine. We will turn to those next.