In Matthew 19:9 Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” What is the significance of this phrase “except it be for fornication”?
Based largely on his interpretation of this phrase, a 16th century theologian named Erasmus propagated a theory which gave permission for the “innocent party” to remarry in the case of adultery. This theory was later rationalized by the explanation that the Old Testament penalty for adultery, committed by a married woman, was death. In the New Testament, since we do not put the offender to death as before, we may instead simply treat this woman as though she were dead. Thus there are two ways to effectively dissolve a marriage—death or adultery—and either one will leave the "innocent party” free to remarry. This teaching was soon expanded, however, to include actions other than adultery as grounds for divorce. Eventually it has come to the point where almost any action by either spouse can supposedly open the door for divorce, and virtually any divorce will leave both parties free to remarry.
The early church view, by contrast, was that remarriage was always wrong while the former spouse was still living. The exception clause, they believed, never gave permission for a remarriage, but only for the divorce itself. It was simply permission for a husband to separate himself from a wife who was persisting in the sin of adultery with another man, lest he himself “be joined to a harlot” and thus become guilty with her in her sin. While the New Covenant teaches that it is generally wrong for a man to put away his wife, this phrase gives the one exception to that rule.
Through the rest of this chapter, the question we are seeking to answer is this: does the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 give permission to remarry, as Erasmus believed? Or does it only give limited permission to dissolve the first marriage, as the early Christians believed?
(There are a number of other interpretations of the exception clause, such as the betrothal view and the preteritive view, which we will not take the time to examine here. Suffice it to say that the only prominent view which allows for remarriage after divorce is the Erasmian view; all the other views agree that remarriage is adultery regardless of the reason for the divorce.)
_______________________
If we were to look at Matthew 19:9 alone and the words used in it, we could conceivably draw either one of the two conclusions mentioned above. This verse, by itself, could reasonably be used to support either the early church view or the Erasmian view. We should therefore look again at the other New Testament verses to see if they shed any light at all on this question.
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (Luke 16:18)
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:11-12)
These passages both make divorce with remarriage absolutely wrong, but do not mention the possibility of divorce without remarriage. Thus it appears that they would clearly conflict with the Erasmian view, yet be in perfect harmony with the early church view.
Some Christians teach that the absolute statements above were never meant to be taken as absolute. Rather, Jesus meant for the exception clause to be understood in these passages, even though it was not explicitly stated as it was in Matthew 19. They say that Jesus assumed that His Jewish audience would, because of their culture, automatically understand that there was an exception to the rule He was giving (and that this exception applied both to the divorce and to the remarriage.)
The problem with this logic is that the teachings of Jesus had repeatedly contradicted many of the well-established Jewish customs. He had so often and so clearly taught things contrary to what they were teaching that they knew His doctrine could never be interpreted accurately by trying to look through the eyes of their culture. Whatever this radical Teacher from Nazareth meant to say, He would have to say it Himself, and say it clearly. It was apparent to everyone that He was introducing a morality that was significantly different from anything that they had ever known.
_______________________
Let’s continue our search by looking again at the words of Paul. Do these verses seem to support the Erasmian view or the early church view? Do they seem to support the idea that remarriage (with a former spouse still living) is sometimes an option, as Erasmus believed? Or that it would always be adultery, as the early Christians believed?
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. (Romans 7:2-3)
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)
A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:39)
These verses seem to be totally consistent in saying that there is only one thing—death—that can set a married person free to marry someone else. To divorce and then remarry for any other reason, including for the cause of fornication, is adultery.
_______________________
In addition to Matthew 19:9, there is one more place in the New Testament where the exception clause is mentioned: it is in Matthew 5:32. Take a close look at this passage to see whether it sheds any light on the all-important question: did Jesus intend that the exception clause give permission to remarry? Or was He only giving permission (in very limited circumstances) for divorce?
But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
_______________________
Until Erasmus propagated his theory in the 1500’s, the early church’s rejection of remarriage after divorce remained the standard doctrine of the western church (even though there were many abuses in practice). Yet the Erasmian theory has seemingly influenced almost every non-Catholic branch of the church since that time, including, at first, the Anabaptists. Although certain groups eventually rejected this theory and returned largely to the early church position, the damage had already been done. Today’s pandemic of divorce and remarriage in America can be traced almost directly to this man named Erasmus and his humanistic philosophies.
In light of the lack of Scriptural support for the Erasmian theory, coupled with the fact that this interpretation was not developed until the 16th century A.D., it is truly amazing that any serious Bible student would accept it as plausible. Yet the fact is that the vast majority of today’s Protestants are still buying into this theory without questioning it, and are using its various forms to justify nearly unlimited permissiveness regarding remarriage after divorce. The numerous twists this idea has taken have basically rendered meaningless any prohibition to remarriage that Jesus may have intended to give.
Two questions that we really ought to be asking ourselves are as follows: First, what has been the true motivation for this blind acceptance of the Erasmian theory? Second, what will the end result of it be?
Be the first to react on this!
