Why was Herod’s marriage “unlawful”?

Saint John Reproaches Herod and Herodias, Baptistery of Florence,
 ca. 1240–1310. Photo: Courtesy Győző Vörös.

Mark 6:17-18, “For Herod himself had sent and arrested John and bound him in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’”¹

 

Historical Background

 

The Herodian family tree is quite complicated, so for our purposes we will simply note that Herod (Antipas) and Philip were half-brothers, sharing the same biological father (Herod the Great) but different mothers. Herodias was their half-niece by another half-brother, Aristobulus.²

 

After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, his kingdom was divided among three of his sons: (a) Archelaus became ethnarch of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea (Matt. 2:22) but was replaced by a Roman prefect in AD 6; (b) Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (Matt. 14:1) until he was exiled in AD 39; (c) Philip was tetrarch of the northeastern Hellenistic territories (Luke 3:1) until his death in AD 34.

 

Philip married Herodias and they had a daughter, Salome. Herod Antipas married Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, but divorced her when he developed affections for Herodias, who divorced Philip in order to marry him (reported by Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1, 4).³ So what was it about the second marriage of these divorcees that compelled the Jewish prophet John to declare to Herod Antipas, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife”?

 

Was it unlawful to marry a former sister-in-law?

 

According to the Law of Moses: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it [is] your brother’s nakedness” (Lev. 18:16); “And if a man takes his brother’s wife, it [is] an unclean thing; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless” (Lev. 20:21). These injunctions, however, must be qualified, because they obviously do not apply if the man’s brother has died (Deut. 25:5-10). They rather pertain to adulterous relations. Adultery is committed when at least one of the person’s involved is married to someone else.⁴

 

It follows that if a divorce occurs without divine sanction, God does not recognize the dissolution of the marriage. The issue with the unlawful union of Herod Antipas and Herodias was more than the mere fact that she was his brother’s wife. Rather, she was his brother’s wife. The problem was “on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her.” Under Roman law, one could not marry someone else’s spouse without a legal divorce. A person was allowed only one spouse at a time. It was not civil law but a prophet of God who declared this marriage of a divorced man and a divorced woman, “unlawful.”

 

Was it unlawful to marry a half-niece?

 

Since Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, the half-brother of Herod Antipas and Philip (all having different mothers), did this constitute incest? In Roman society an uncle marrying his full-niece was uncommon and considered improper, but there was no law against it (Tacitus, Annals 12.6).⁵ Technically, however, Herodias was the half-niece of the two half-brothers, and the respective marriages were apparently sanctioned under Roman law. John did not seem to be bothered that Herodias was “the wife” of Philip, so the issue with the other brother’s marriage does not appear to have been a question of incest.

 

Unlawful Divorce and Unlawful Remarriage

 

The teachings of Jesus provide the best commentary, enabling us to understand what is “lawful” (divinely sanctioned) and “unlawful” (without divine sanction) in regard to marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and what was wrong with the situation John bravely confronted that cost him his life.

 

The ministry of John the baptist was mostly “beyond the Jordan” (John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40), the territory governed by Herod Antipas.⁶ A couple of years after John’s death, Jesus was “beyond the Jordan” when some Pharisees publicly asked him about the legality of a husband divorcing his spouse for any cause (Matt. 19:1-2; Mark 10:1-2). This was in the political jurisdiction of Herod Antipas, a divorced man married to a divorced woman, wielding the power of life and death. The trap they were attempting to set makes the straightforward and courageous response of Jesus even more impactful. Like John, he implicitly regarded such a relationship unlawful.

 

Have you not read that the One having created from the beginning made them male and female … On account of this the man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will be one flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God united together, let no one separate…. Moses, due to your obstinacy of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not this way. But I say to you, whoever has divorced his wife, except for sexual infidelity, and has married another, is committing adultery …” (Matt. 19:4-9).⁷  

 

Conclusion

 

While Roman law permitted divorce and remarriage for any number of reasons, God’s marriage and moral laws are not as lax. According to Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39, death severs the marriage bond, so the widow or widower does not commit “adultery” in a subsequent marriage. Otherwise, unless a divorce is caused by sexual infidelity, it is without divine sanction and therefore another sexual union is adulterous. This most clearly explains why the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias was unlawful.

 

--Kevin L. Moore

 

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. The entire incident is recorded in Mark 6:14-29, with parallel accounts in Matt. 14:1-12; Luke 3:18-20; 9:7-9. 

     ² The mother of Herod Antipas was Malthas (a Samaritan), the mother of Philip the tetrarch (Philip I or Philip II?) was Cleopatra of Jerusalem, and the mother of Aristobulus was Mariamne I (of the Hasmonean dynasty).

     ³ The historian Flavius Josephus was a Romanized Jew who divorced three previous wives and was married to a fourth. He reports: “Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas; and had lived with her a great while …. However he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s [Philip’s] wife …. One article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce [ἐκβαλεῖν] Aretas’s daughter …. But Herodias, their [Aristobulus and Agrippa’s] sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great …. Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced [διαστᾶσα] herself from her husband, while he was alive, and was married [γαμεῖται] to Herod [Antipas], her husband’s brother by the father’s side. He was tetrarch of Galilee” (Ant. 18.5.1, 4). 

     ⁴ Biblically defined, adultery involves voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse (cf. Lev. 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Prov. 6:32; Matt. 5:28; John 8:3; Heb. 13:4).

     ⁵ In 49 Claudius married his full-niece Agrippina the Younger, which earlier had sparked a debate in the Senate on the legality and propriety of such a union. Vitellius argued on the emperor’s behalf: “This is quite alien to the propriety of our day. Rather let a precedent be now set for the taking of a wife by an emperor. But, it will be said marriage with a brother's daughter is with us a novelty. True; but it is common in other countries, and there is no law to forbid it…. Custom adapts itself to expediency, and this novelty will hereafter take its place among recognized usages” (Tacitus, Annals 12.6).The Senate then passed a decree legitimizing uncles marrying nieces (Cassius Dio, Hist. 61.31.6-8). Later Domitian divorced his wife Domitia and then lived with his niece Julia “as husband with wife” (Cassius Dio, Hist. 67.3.2).

     ⁶ See K. L. Moore, “Beyond the Jordan,” Moore Perspective (9 June 2021), <Link>.

     ⁷ Note the transition in the Greek text of v. 9 from the aorist tense (completed action: “divorced … married”) and the present tense (continuing action: “is committing adultery”). The Byzantine Majority Text continues, “and the one having married her who has been put away is committing adultery.” See also Matt. 5:31-32; Mark 10:1-10; Luke 16:18. 

Works Consulted:

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, in Josephus Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980): 382-83.

George Long, “Incestrum,” in William Smith, ed., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1875): 633.

Brent D. Shaw and Richard P. Saller, “Close-Kin Marriage in Roman Society?” New Series 19.3 (Sept. 1984): 432-444.

Susan Treggiari, “Roman Incest,” review of P. Moreau’s Incestus et prohibitae nuptiae, in The Classical Review 54.1 (March 2004): 203-205.

Related Posts: Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Part 2) 

Image credit: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/artistic-representations-of-herods-royal-throne/

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 3 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

9. 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Paul responds to a letter the Corinthians had written, asking for his advice on various matters including marriage (v. 1). He states in v. 2 that marriage is to be monogamous, between a man and a woman; sexual relations are confined to the marriage relationship, and sexual activity in any other context constitutes immorality. He further affirms that the marriage bond is for life (v. 39). “Now to the married…” (vv. 10-11) is in contrast to the unmarried (v. 8), applicable to the general state of marriage.¹ Paul can give an apostolic directive (paraggéllō) because the Lord himself gave general marriage instruction during his earthly ministry (see Part 2). A wife is not to chōrízō = “depart from” (NKJ), “separate from” (RSV) or “leave” (NAS) her husband (v. 10b). This could be synonymous with divorce,² as the separated state is described as “unmarried” (v. 11). The parallel admonition to the husband is to not “send away” or “divorce” (aphíēmi) his wife (v. 11), while “abandon” is also a possible nuance (cf. Mark 14:50). “But even if she does depart” (i.e. ignore the injunction) or ‘if she is separated’ (i.e. already in this state), there are only two scriptural options: (a) remain unmarried, or (b) be reconciled to her husband (v. 11, cf. v. 39). The husband likewise is not to “send away” or “divorce” or “abandon” his wife (v. 11c).

     “But to the rest [loipós, cf. 11:34],” i.e. the rest of the situations the Corinthians were asking about, viz. specific cases of believers married to unbelievers (vv. 12-16). “I, not the Lord, say…” Jesus did not specifically address religiously-mixed marriages, about which the Corinthians had particular concern, so Paul does. They had misunderstood Paul’s teaching about not associating with immoral people (5:9-10), so some were probably wondering if a Christian married to a non-Christian should get out of this marriage; after all, the Law of Moses forbad religiously-mixed marriages (Ex. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-4). Paul says that a Christian is not to “divorce” or “abandon” (aphíēmi) an unbelieving spouse, assuming the unbeliever is willing to remain in the marriage (vv. 12-14). The unbeliever is ‘sanctified’ by his/her spouse (in the context of the marriage), i.e. the unbeliever is set apart from other worldly persons (e.g. fornicators) by the simple fact that he/she is married and is thus not committing immorality in this relationship (v. 14a). Paul gives reassurance that this union is sanctioned by God by the simple fact that your children are ‘clean,’ ‘holy,’ i.e. not illegitimate or born out of wedlock (v. 14b).

     “But if the unbeliever departs” (NKJ) or “leaves” (NAS, NIV) or “separates” (ESV) [chōrízō, cf. vv. 10, 11] (vv. 15-16), let him go, assuming that he is taking the initiative and is determined to leave (cf. vv. 10-13); “the brother or the sister is not [ou] under bondage³ [dedoúlōtai, from doulóō = to ‘enslave’] in such [cases/matters]”; “In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved …” (ESV). The word doulóō occurs 133 times in the NT and is never used with reference to the marriage bond; it refers to the bondage of slavery (cf. v. 23). The word for marriage bond, used twice in this chapter (vv. 27, 39), is déō (cf. Rom. 7:2). The perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai conveys the sense of a past action with continuing results = the brother or sister ‘stands in a position of not having been enslaved,’ i.e., he/she is not now nor has he/she ever been in the bondage of slavery (to this spouse).

     This verse does not say that a deserted Christian spouse is automatically loosed from the marriage bond and is therefore free to marry someone else. This common misinterpretation is known as “the Pauline privilege,” i.e., Paul supposedly gives an additional reason, to what Jesus had specified (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), for the acceptable dissolution of marriage. But this is incompatible with the following: (a) remarriage is never considered in this chapter except in the case of a widow (vv. 8-9, 39); (b) if Paul is giving another exception, he is at variance with Jesus; (c) Paul never says the marriage bond is dissolved (N.B. v. 39, “a wife is bound [déō] by law as long as her husband lives”); (d) the divine rule for marriage is no severance at all, but if it happens anyway the only scriptural options are to remain unmarried or be reconciled (vv. 10-11); (e) the perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai shows that enslavement to the spouse is a state the abandoned Christian has never been in; but this person has been married, therefore ou dedoúlōtai cannot be a reference to the termination of the marriage bond.

     This verse does say that a Christian who is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is not enslaved as in a master-slave relationship; i.e. you are not obligated to keep your spouse from leaving no matter what the cost. “But God has called us/you to peace” = the Christian is to gracefully accept his/her situation even if he/she has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse (cf. Rom. 12:18). ‘How do you know whether you will save your spouse?’ (v. 16). In view of v. 15, Paul may be suggesting here that instead of trying to force an unbelieving spouse to stay with you, it is better to keep the peace by letting him/her leave, since it is unlikely that you will save him/her. In view of vv. 12-14, Paul may be suggesting here that if possible one should stay with an unbelieving spouse in the hopes of saving him/her (cf. Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:1), but v. 15 shows that it is not always possible. This could be a double nuance, to be applied to whatever situation is relevant.

Concluding Statement:

     If for sexual infidelity, divorce is a divinely-granted dissolution of marital obligations for the one who has been cheated on, thus freeing him/her to marry another eligible person. On the other hand, divorce is a human innovation if for any reason other than sexual unfaithfulness; it is void of divine sanction and therefore terminates none of the marital responsibilities of either husband or wife.⁴ The sexual sin of adultery is therefore committed when one so divorced enters into a marital union with someone else.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Because of what follows, many commentators try to limit this instruction to a marriage in which both partners are Christians. However, to reach that conclusion one must read further down in the text, draw this conclusion, then go back to vv. 10-11 and make that application (no doubt very confusing to those who first heard this passage publicly read!). Since it would be more natural for a writer to specify a particular type of marriage if that were his point (as in vv. 12 ff.), the general phrase “to the married” is most obviously inclusive of all marriages.

     ² In Mark’s account of the Lord’s teaching, the woman as well as the man may initiate the divorce (10:11-12), which is consistent with Roman law. At Corinth some may have been considering divorcing their spouses in order to live a celibate life.

     ³ Or “bound” (NIV, N/RSV, REB), “under no compulsion” (NEB) or “obligation” (McCord).

     ⁴ Edwin S. Jones, “The Biblical Definition of Divorce,” in Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, ed. Jim Laws (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1992): 254-67.

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 2, Preventing Divorce, Premarital Decisions About Non-optional Matters

Image credit: http://www.mccartylawoffices.net/sites/default/files/pictures/FamilyLawDivorce.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 2 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

4. Matthew 5:31-32. This is a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in the context of “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (4:23), wherein Jesus opposes the lax attitudes of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees toward the divine will (5:20).¹ The Lord’s contrasting statement in 5:32 is in response to what had been “said” (and heard) about divorce among these Jews. While it was not the time to teach exclusively Christian doctrine or set aside the Mosaic Law (5:17-29; 7:12), it was necessary to address the fallacies of their hypocritical leaders (5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 7:15-20, 29) and prepare the way for the coming kingdom (cf. 6:10, 33; 7:21). Jesus is contrasting the traditional misinterpretations of the Law vs. the loftier conduct expected in God’s kingdom. The Law did not justify unrighteous anger, or lust, or divorce for any or no reason, or questionable oaths, or senseless retribution, or hatred, irrespective of what others had “said” to the contrary. The current Jewish attitude toward divorce (succinctly stated in 5:31) had apparently become as lax as their attitude toward other moral issues discussed in this chapter. Jesus affirms that adultery (illegitimate sex) is committed in a second marriage following a divorce for any reason other than sexual infidelity. Divorce and subsequent marriage is implicitly allowed to the one betrayed by the other who violates the very heart of marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-9).

5. Matthew 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-10 [parallel accounts]. The Lord’s directives were prompted by hostile questions within the circle of Judaism. Matthew’s Gospel was written with a Jewish audience in mind,² whereas Mark’s account was recorded for a Roman audience,³ which helps explain why Mark incorporates into his record certain parts of the Lord’s discourse that are omitted in Matthew, and vice versa.⁴ Jesus affirms that while it is sinful for a man to divorce his wife, it is not adultery; the sin of adultery is added to the sin of divorce if the man goes on to marry someone else (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11). The words "except for sexual immorality [fornication]" in Matthew’s account (19:9; cf. 5:32) are absent from Mark. The exceptive phrase would have had greater significance to Matthew’s audience, seeing that in Judaism infidelity warranted the death penalty (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) and had become a cruel weapon of ruthless men in their mistreatment of women (cf. John 8:3-5). Among the Romans this was already understood as sufficient grounds for divorce.

     Mark’s inclusion of the phrase “against her” (10:11b) is intriguing. Both the Jews and the Romans understood adultery as sexual intercourse with a married woman. Accordingly, when a woman committed adultery it was against her own husband, and when a man committed adultery it was against the woman’s husband. Jesus, however, informs his Jewish listeners, and Mark in turn informs his Roman readers, that from the divine perspective adultery is also committed against the innocent wife.

     Matthew omits the following words that Mark has recorded in 10:12, “and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she is committing adultery.” Within the context of Judaism, since only the husband could initiate a divorce and not the wife, the applicability of this statement would have been lost among Matthew’s readers. On the other hand, under Roman law the marriage could be terminated by either party, so Mark’s inclusion of the statement is most relevant.

     Adultery (moichaō) involves voluntary sex between a married person and someone other than his/her lawful spouse. The two verbs “divorces” (apolusē) and “marries” (gamēsē) are in the AORIST tense and therefore naturally describe punctiliar (completed) action. In contrast, the verbal tense is changed to the PRESENT when “commits adultery” is mentioned, suggesting a different (incomplete/ongoing) time reference. As long as sexual activity continues in the second relationship, the adultery continues.

6. Mark 6:17-19. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 BC to AD 39). John the baptizer had confronted the tetrarch about his unlawful marriage to Herodias, resulting in John’s execution (Matt. 14:3-12; cf. Luke 3:19-20; 9:9). Antipas had divorced his wife Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, in order to marry Herodias, who had previously been married to his half-brother Philip I (see Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1, 4).⁵ When Jesus is later asked whether it is “lawful” for a man to divorce his wife, he is “across the Jordan” in the region governed by Herod Antipas (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1), i.e., a divorced man married to a divorced woman, a union deemed “unlawful” by John.

7. Luke 16:18. Jesus is speaking to antagonistic Pharisees, and his directives are in opposition to their lax attitudes toward the divine will (vv. 14-15; cf. Matt. 5:20, 31-32; 15:1-3). Once again Jesus affirms that adultery is committed in the second marriage following a divorce. The “except for fornication” phrase (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is omitted here, probably because those to whom Jesus was speaking on this occasion were teaching, condoning, or practicing divorce for other reasons.

8. Romans 7:2-3. To the saints at Rome Paul affirms that marriage is for life, whereas the marriage bond is broken when a spouse dies. If a woman marries another man while her husband is still living, “she will be called an adulteress.” But if her husband is dead, adultery is not committed in a second marriage.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Jesus is not taking issue with or negating the Mosaic Law but rather opposing wrongful interpretations of it. Note, “You have heard that it was said ...” (vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), NOT “It is written …” For example, the Law never states, “… hate your enemy” (v. 43b), but apparently that’s what these Jews had heard from their teachers (cf. 15:1-3).

     ² See K. L. Moore, Matthew's Audience.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, Mark's Audience.

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage.

     ⁵ Josephus: “Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas; and had lived with her a great while …. However he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s [Philip’s] wife …. One article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas’s daughter…. But Herodias, their [Aristobulus & Agrippa’s] sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great …. Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced her self from her husband, while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband’s brother by the father’s side. He was tetrarch of Galilee” (Ant. 18.5.1, 4). 

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 3,  Preventing Divorce, Why was Herod's marriage unlawful?

Image credit: http://jmmwealthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Divorce-Planning_services-2.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 1 of 3

Definition and Clarification of Terms:

1. Marriage is the lawful union of a husband and wife (1 Cor. 7:2), ordained by God (Matt. 19:4-6) and consummated according to the legal system to which the couple is amenable, as long as it does not conflict with the divine will (Rom. 13:1-5; cf. Acts 5:29). However, not all “marriages” are sanctioned by God even if recognized by civil law (e.g. Mark 6:17-18; 10:11-12).

2. Divorce is the dissolution of marriage. The NT Greek verb apolúō (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9) means to “let go, send away, dismiss … divorce” (BAGD 96). The verb chōrízō (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11a, 15, 16) means “to sever, disunite … to dissociate one’s self, to part” (H. K. Moulton, Lexicon 441); “act. divide, separate … pass. separate (oneself), be separated [of divorce]” (BAGD 890). This particular Greek term may simply refer to a separation, or it could be synonymous with divorce, as the separated state is described as “unmarried” (1 Cor. 7:11b) and is parallel to aphíēmi (v. 11c). However, “abandon” is also a plausible nuance (cf. Mark 14:50). The verb aphíēmi (1 Cor. 7:11c, 12, 13) means to “let go, send away … divorce … abandon” (BAGD 125-26). As with marriage (above), a divinely authorized divorce would have a fundamentally different meaning than a divorce God does not approve (e.g. Matt. 5:31-32).

3. Adultery involves voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his/her lawful spouse. The noun moicheía (John 8:3), the verb moichaō (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12), and the verb moicheúō (Matt. 5:27; 19:18; Rom. 2:22) are all related. The secondary sense, used figuratively of spiritual adultery, is applied to the relationship between God and his erring people (cf. Jer. 3:6-9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 3:1; 4:12; Jas. 4:4), but when used with reference to a man and a woman, it refers to illegitimate sexual intercourse (cf. Lev. 20:10; 18:20; Deut. 22:22; Prov. 6:32; Matt. 5:28; John 8:3; Heb. 13:4).

4. Fornication or Sexual Immorality (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is translated from the Greek noun porneia, used generally “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse” (BAGD 693). In its singular form it refers to the specific sex act, whether with a woman, man, child, horse, etc. Under this broad umbrella term would be specific types of porneia, such as adultery, incest, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. The bottom line is that porneia is any kind of sexual intercourse that is not within the context of marriage as defined above. While the English word “pornography” is derived from the Greek porneia, viewing pornographic images does not constitute the sexual intercourse that is required for porneia to have occurred.¹

Relevant Scriptures:

1. Genesis 1:27; 2:24. These are the passages Jesus quotes in Matt. 19:4-5, demonstrating God’s design for marriage from the beginning involving the joining together of a man and woman for life in a monogamous relationship. Becoming “one flesh” indicates a sexual union that establishes an intimate connection between two previously unrelated individuals. This “one flesh” bonding is the basis of God’s categorical denunciation of all other types of sexual activity (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16-18; 7:2).

2. Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This is an example of casuistic or case law (“if … then”): the case is presented in vv. 1-3, and the ruling is given in v. 4. This passage assumes the prevalence of divorce among the Israelites at the time of writing (cf. 22:19, 29; Lev. 21:7, 13, 14), and only the husband could initiate the divorce. However, the provision of divorce was not a divine injunction but a concession due to “obstinacy” or “hardness of heart” (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:5). The certificate of divorce served to protect women from unscrupulous husbands and the precarious charge of adultery, but it went far beyond God’s intended purpose (cf. Gen. 2:24; Mal. 2:16). Centuries later the rabbis debated the meaning of the expressions “no favor” and “some indecency” in Deut. 24:1; the school of Shammai insisted that sexual impurity was the necessary prerequisite for divorce, while the school of Hillel maintained that any trivial offense was sufficient grounds. Jewish opinion was heavily divided in the days of Jesus, prompting the question in Matt. 19:3. Nevertheless, they were focusing on and debating what Jewish men of the past were doing rather than the stated will of God.

3. Malachi 2:11-17. Between the first return from Babylonian exile (538 BC) and the second return (458 BC), Israelite men (including priests) had married local pagan women and were then compelled to put them away with what appears to have been divine approval (Ezra 9–10; cf. Neh. 13:23-30). But the background is that they had divorced their lawful wives to marry these pagan women (Mal. 2:10-17). From Malachi 2 we learn that God “hates divorce”² (v. 16) because it (a) is contrary to his original plan (v. 15); (b) results from profane desires and weakens a nation (v. 11); (c) breaks covenant vows (v. 14); (d) involves betraying the innocent spouse (v. 14); (e) causes separation from God (vv. 12, 13); and (f) accompanies spiritual self-deception (v. 17). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ Although pornography is not “fornication,” it is still sinful, not only because of its addictiveness and the other immoral thoughts and behavior it inevitably leads to (Rom. 6:19; Jas. 1:14-15; 2 Pet. 2:18-19), but its inherently selfish, lustful, lewd, objectifying nature is utterly contrary to the mental and moral purity that God expects of his children (Matt. 5:28; Gal. 5:16-17; Eph. 4:17-20; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Tim. 2:19-22; 1 John 2:15-17).
     ² This reading is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text (cf. ISV, N/ASV, N/KJV, N/RSV), whereas the LXX, Targum, Arabic versions, and Latin Vulgate read, “but if he should hate [and] send her away” (cf. ESV, HCSB, NIV). 

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 2, Part 3, Premarital Decisions, Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage, Delusion of Gay Marriage, If God hates divorce, what about Ezra 9-10?

Related articles: Wes McAdams' Moving in Together

Image credit: http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-460/h--/q-95/sys-images/Money/Pix/pictures/2008/07/10/divorce460.jpg