On Divorce

Three options for understanding the Matthean Exception;

1. The Easy Route:  Divorce+Remarriage is allowed in cases of sexual immorality.  The end.  Carson and R.T. France.  Jesus is just a Shammai proponent.
2. The Illicit Marriage Route:  Jesus is making a clarificatory remark to maintain the permissibility of “dissolving” illicit “marriages,” such as ones involving incest.  Popular with Roman Catholic commentators.
3. The Moderate Route:  Divorce but not remarriage in the case of sexual immorality.  “Divorce” is just shorthand for separation.  Donald Hagner and Fee are proponents of this move.  

Each has problems. 

(1.) violates the thrust of the passage, its unqualified statement in Mark and Luke, the shock of the disciples, and makes Jesus out to be teaching something in line with pharisees when Jesus explicitly claims “that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees . . .  you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus’s statement would also not be truly answering the question of the pharisees as the question was precisely to explain what is meant by “sexual immorality.”  Watching porn becomes grounds for an easy divorce.

(2.)  This just seems like an ad hoc interpretative maneuver.  Do we really think that Matthew thought it necessary to include this explanatory aside?  

(3.)  is my favorite.  Its biggest problem is that “divorce” seems to include the right to remarry, especially in the first century Jewish conception of divorce. So it must be argued that Jesus is introducing an innovation by proposing the possibility of divorce without the permissibility of remarriage.  Can this be maintained?  I think so.  “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.“  It seems that it is precisely this innovation that is being given by Jesus.  

Once we swallow that relatively large pill, the passage works with ease and coheres well with the response of the disciples and the spirit of Jesus tightening Mosaic law.

The Pauline Privilege

1. Mixed-Marriage Route:  Marriages between two unbelievers constitutes only a “natural” marriage and can be dissolved + allow for remarriage.  Only Christian Sacramental marriages are truly indissoluble.  Catholics take this option.  
2. Desertion Route:  The divorce+remarriage is allowed, not because the marriage is mixed, but because the partner deserted.  It is the desertion that gives grounds for the divorce+remarraige.  Blomberg takes this route.
3. The divorce permitted between unbelievers and believers does not allow for remarriage.  Divorce is, once again, code for “separation.” Supported by: “But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”

Important quote: But does the referential denotation mean: not... in slavery to remain with the former spouse, or not in bondage to the marriage tie which would prevent freedom to remarry? The latter way of understanding Paul has come to be known as “the Pauline privilege.” Fee argues forcefully against this latter “Pauline privilege” interpretation. He argues (i) that since the general thrust of the chapter is against remarriage, it would be strange if Paul sought to make room for it in what was virtually a throwaway line; (ii) the use of the Greek word meaning “to enslave,” is not a usual way of describing marriage, even in Paul; (iii) in 7:39 it appears that only death can break the marriage bond; (iv) remarriage is disallowed in v. 11, which has parallels; and (v) the general argument in ch. 7 is to remain as one is without actively seeking a change in status. Witherington expresses this view cautiously: “It is doubtful that there is a ‘Pauline privilege.’”