“You have heard it said, ‘Whoever sends away his wife, he must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who sends away his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31–32)
When Christians read Jesus’ words about divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, we almost instinctively ask: Under what circumstances is divorce permissible?
It’s an understandable question. These are difficult words, especially for those whose lives have been touched by divorce. For centuries, Christians have debated what Jesus meant, particularly regarding the exception he mentioned.
But something interesting happens when we listen through first-century ears. We discover that people in Jesus’ day were asking essentially the same question.
And Jesus seemed determined to change the conversation.
The Debate Behind the Debate
This is the third of six statements in the Sermon where Jesus began with some variation of “You have heard it said…” followed by “But I tell you…”
He had already addressed murder, anger, and contempt, followed by adultery and lust. In each case, Jesus challenged his listeners to reconsider what righteousness looked like.
Remember, Jesus had said their righteousness needed to surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). Not simply more religious behavior, but a deeper righteousness – doing right by God and others; treating people with dignity.
Now he turned to divorce.
Behind his words was a debate about Deuteronomy 24:1, which described a husband giving his wife a certificate of divorce after finding something “indecent” about her. The Hebrew phrase was ‘erwat dabar, which could be roughly translated as “the nakedness of a matter” or “something indecent.”
What exactly did that mean? Two prominent first-century schools of Jewish interpretation disagreed.
The school of Shammai interpreted the phrase narrowly, generally limiting legitimate divorce to serious sexual misconduct.
The school of Hillel interpreted it much more broadly. A husband could divorce his wife for almost any reason that displeased him. Later Jewish tradition suggested that a man could divorce his wife for something as trivial as burning dinner – or because he found someone else more attractive.
Though the argument was ostensibly about the meaning of two Hebrew words, someone’s life hung on how those words were interpreted.
Who Gets to Decide?
Modern readers can easily miss something important about this debate. Both schools focused primarily on the husband’s rights.
In the Jewish legal framework being debated, a husband generally had the authority to initiate divorce. His wife did not enjoy the same legal freedom. And the consequences were rarely equal.
For a woman in first-century Jewish society, being sent away could mean losing her home, economic security, and social standing. Without independent resources or family support, her future could become precarious.
The divorce certificate offered some legal protection, allowing her to remarry. But it did not erase the vulnerability of being dismissed.
When a discussion centers on the rights of the person with power, it’s remarkably easy to overlook the person who must live with the consequences.
And that brings us back to Jesus.
“He Makes Her…”
Look again at Jesus’ wording: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery.” Victim!
New Testament scholar Jeannine Brown draws attention to the Greek grammar of this statement. The verb commonly translated as “makes her commit adultery” is passive. In other words, Jesus seemed to be highlighting what was primarily happening to the woman, the victim.
The husband could claim he had followed the proper legal procedure. He had given her the required certificate. Everything was technically legitimate.
But was it righteous? Was it faithful? Had he done right by the person to whom he had made a covenant commitment?
Jesus Refused the Loophole Question
Later, in Matthew 19, the Pharisees approached Jesus with a familiar question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Matthew 19:3)
There it was – the debate that divided the schools of Hillel and Shammai. They wanted Jesus to weigh in.
Instead, Jesus took them somewhere unexpected. He went back to the beginning. He reminded them that God created humanity male and female and that, in marriage, the two become one flesh (Genesis 1–2).
When they pressed him about Moses permitting divorce, Jesus made an important distinction. Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts. He had not commanded it. And that concession was not God’s original vision for marriage.
“But it was not this way from the beginning,” Jesus said (Matthew 19:8).
Jesus’ restriction on divorce sounded closer to Shammai’s position than Hillel’s. But he was doing more than choosing the stricter side of a legal argument. He was challenging the assumption behind the argument itself.
They wanted to know where covenant loyalty could legitimately end. Jesus reminded them why covenant loyalty existed in the first place.
The Person on the Other Side of Our Decisions
Our 21st-century question, “Under what circumstances is someone allowed to divorce?” closely mirrors the question debated in Jesus’ own day. Jesus seems determined to make us ask a better question: “What is happening to the person being sent away?”
That question fits with everything Jesus had been saying.
When he addressed murder and anger, he challenged the contempt that diminishes another person’s humanity. When he addressed adultery and lust, he challenged the tendency to reduce another person to an object of desire.
And when he addressed divorce, he challenged a system that let one person exercise a legal right while leaving another to bear the consequences.
In each case, Jesus directed attention toward the dignity of the other person.
This should sound familiar as we think back to the Beatitudes. Jesus had announced good news to people with little status, influence, or leverage. The poor in spirit. Those who mourn. The meek. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
Now he was describing what that righteousness looked like in ordinary human relationships.
Of course, these words are not a complete treatment of divorce, nor should they be used to pressure someone to remain in an abusive or dangerous marriage. Covenant loyalty is not a license to exploit another person. Jesus’ concern for the vulnerable must inform how we hear his words.
But neither should we lose the force of what he was saying. Jesus called his listeners back to the beginning – to God’s vision of human beings created for covenant relationship with him and with one another.
Covenant loyalty is never just about keeping promises. It’s also about the person on the other side of the promises.
Greater righteousness refuses to turn another human being into collateral damage in the exercise of our freedom.
