The Hope of Divorce and Remarriage

In the Gospel of Mark, some Pharisees approach Jesus and ask, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (Mark 10:2). Summarizing His answer, Jesus states,

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery” (Mark 10:11–12).

This appears to be an absolute statement denying any legitimacy for divorce and remarriage of any kind. The Gospel of Matthew clarifies the question asked, which differs from Mark’s version. Matthew’s Gospel provides a fuller version of the question, thereby placing Jesus’ answer in its proper context. According to Matthew, the Pharisees tested Jesus by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” (Matthew 19:3–9). In other words, Mark’s account seems to present the question as a general inquiry about divorce, while Matthew’s version stresses that the Pharisees were specifically asking about the legitimacy of divorcing a wife for “any reason”—a practice that had become increasingly popular among some Pharisees. This distinction is crucial for understanding Jesus’ response and the context of the debate.

Due to the sinfulness of humanity, the Law of Moses justifiably made concessions for divorce in extreme circumstances, when life together for an Israelite couple would become unbearable. Divorce was not approved or commanded but permitted.

The background of the question asked

The collection of the Holy Hebrew scriptures we today call the Old Testament was the Bible Jesus read. The collection of later writings we today call the New Testament was never meant as an alternative to the Old Testament (Mat 5:17-18). This is very important. The entire Bible is the Word of the Living God. Therefore, to understand Jesus, we must start from his Bible. The key biblical text concerning divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24. (Those interested in a far more detailed analysis, please consult David Instone-Brewer’s work “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context” and “Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities.”) 

Understanding this text and the Rabbinic debates about its interpretation—debates current in Jesus’ time—is of utmost importance if we hope to understand Jesus’ words in response to the question.

There we read:

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, ervat davar) in her, that he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her away from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife.” (Deut 24:1-4)

Rabbinic materials reveal two main Pharisaic approaches to divorce, attributed to Shammai and Hillel. The debate is documented in the Mishnah (m. Gittin 9:10). Both lived some time before Jesus. Shammai insisted that ervat davar (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר) referred only to sexual immorality. Hillel taught that ervat davar (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר) in Deuteronomy 24:1 could mean anything displeasing to the husband. The Hebrew phrase ervat davar (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר) is very difficult to make sense of. Literally, it may mean something like “nakedness of a thing.” Some translations emphasize the sexual aspect, rendering it as “sexual immorality” or “sexual uncleanness.” For example, the Gospel of Matthew refers to ervat davar (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר) as Greek “πορνείᾳ, porneia.” Others take a broader view, translating it as “something indecent” or “something unseemly,” suggesting it could refer to any behavior or circumstance that the husband finds unacceptable, not necessarily sexual. For example, in the pre-Christian Jewish Septuagint translation (LXX), ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα (aschēmon pragma, “unseemly/indecent matter”) is used. This translation becomes the basis for the “any reason” divorce that Jesus will staunchly oppose.

Jesus’ response to the question asked

To grasp Jesus’ sharp words, we must see the Pharisees’ question in its original context. Essentially, some pharisees asked him, “Which school of Pharisaic thought on divorce do you endorse—Shammai’s ‘strict immorality’ standard or Hillel’s ‘any reason’ divorce?”

Jesus’ response first states that those Pharisees that interpreted ervat davar (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר) in Deuteronomy 24:1 in such a loose way have forsaken the sacred Torah teaching about the creation of Adam and Eve:

“…For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” (Matt 19:5-6)

The Pharisees that were asking their question challenged Jesus back:

“Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (Matt 19:7)

Jesus continued his argument and defense of the Pharisaic school of Shammai over against Hillel’s:

“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt 19:8-9)

Jesus first evokes the sinful condition of humanity as the only reason Moses’ law permits divorce at all but endorses Shammai’s conservative view: ervat davar (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר) can only mean “sexual immorality”—it cannot possibly refer to anything that the husband does not like about his wife in general. The key takeaway here is that Jesus did not condemn all divorce and remarriage but specifically the divorce and remarriage propagated by some Pharisees during his time. Jesus made a clear and simple statement: anyone who has not obtained a divorce on biblical grounds remains married. Therefore, if such a person “remarries,” they are clearly guilty of adultery.

Other biblical grounds for divorce

In Exodus, we read about a law that God enjoins upon a husband who marries a slave woman. This law helps us understand God’s heart on the matter, and it has to do with neglect and abuse in marriage. We read:

“If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. But if he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go free for nothing…” (Ex 21:10-11)

The three provisions of food, clothing, and conjugal rights in Exodus 21:10-11 form the foundational obligations a husband owes to his wife. These reflect God’s concern for justice and dignity within marriage. They reveal a broader principle: marriage is a covenant of mutual care and respect, where each spouse is entitled to basic needs and intimacy.

This principle underscores that marriage is not merely a legal contract but a relationship rooted in love, provision, and mutual honor. These duties apply to both husbands and wives.

The law lets a wife leave without punishment if her husband doesn’t do his duties, and the same goes for the husband. This affirms her right to freedom and protection. Thus, Exodus 21 demonstrates that neglect, specifically the failure to meet these basic marital obligations, constitutes a legitimate reason for divorce, even beyond the explicit grounds in Deuteronomy 24.

Furthermore, physical abuse is generally regarded as a violation of marital obligations and a justification for divorce that safeguards the vulnerable. This understanding refers not to isolated incidents but to ongoing, systematic abuse or neglect, especially when all efforts to restore the marital covenant have been ignored for a prolonged period. The rules in Exodus serve as the basis for marriage duties. They show that God’s law recognizes several valid reasons for divorce.

This principle is also in 1 Corinthians, which prioritizes justice and the oppressed’s welfare. The Apostle Paul, deeply familiar with Mosaic law as a trained Pharisee under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) and aware of pre-Jesus rabbinic debates, addressed early Gentile Christian believers in Corinth. These believers were considering leaving their pagan spouses. Paul instructs believers to remain married if the pagan spouses consent to live together peacefully. Worshiping a different God is not biblical grounds for divorce. However, if the unbeliever (pagan) leaves, the believer “is not bound” (οὐ δεδούλωται, ou dedoulōtai), literally not enslaved. In this case, the believer is free to remarry (1 Cor 7:10–15). This “Pauline privilege” echoes Exodus 21’s release from neglect, treating willful abandonment as a dissolution of the covenant. Paul’s statement that a valid marriage lasts until death is also applicable: “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives…” (Rom 7:2; 1 Cor 7:39). The apostle presupposes that no biblical grounds for divorce exist in the scenarios he addresses.

In other words, Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ are in complete sync on this important matter. Divorce is permitted only for grave breaches like sexual immorality or abandonment (abuse or neglect), not preference.

Does God hate divorce?

The often repeated claim that “God hates divorce” rests upon an inadequate translation of Malachi 2:16. The Hebrew reads:

כִּי-שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח, אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכִסָּה חָמָס עַל-לְבוּשׁוֹ, אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת:

Literally the Hebrew states something like:

For he hates, he sends, says LORD, Israel’s God. And he covers with violence his clothes, says LORD of armies.

Some translations, such as NASB in this case, do not stick to the original Hebrew; they switch from the third person to the first, presumably to improve readability.

“For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with violence,” says the Lord of armies. (NASB)

However, some translations, such as NIV, in this case, adhere closely to the original Hebrew:

“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty. (NIV)

Context reinforces an NIV-style translation. Malachi condemns treacherous divorce by Israelite men who abandoned covenant wives for foreign women (Mal. 2:14–15), violating the marriage covenant that God Himself witnesses. The sin is not divorce per se, but unjustified divorce—violent abandonment that, in this case, harms an undeserving, vulnerable woman.

But that is not all.

The Biblical Hebrew verb soneh (שֹׂנֵא), typically translated “hate,” implies lesser love rather than absolute loathing. Biblical precedents clarify this: God “loved” Jacob and “hated” Esau (Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:13), meaning He chose one over the other, not that He despised Esau (God’s treatment of Esau shows that He loved Esau too). Similarly, Jesus’ call to “hate” one’s parents (Luke 14:26) demands prioritizing Him above family, not real emotional hatred toward parents. In Malachi, soneh (שֹׂנֵא) refers to a husband who prefers a younger foreign woman to his probably older Israelite wife by callously divorcing her. In the Hebrew text, it is the husband, not God, who does the hating.

In short, “God hates divorce” oversimplifies a nuanced text. He hates the violence that breaks covenants, not the lawful dissolution of marriage. He established regulations to protect the oppressed.

Conclusion

In the sacred tapestry of marriage, woven by God’s own hand from the dawn of creation in Genesis, we observe both an unbreakable covenant and compassionate grace amid human frailty. Jesus’ words in Mark 10:11–12 appear absolute at first glance, yet Matthew 19 unveils the true target: the Pharisees’ “any reason” divorce championed by Hillel’s school. Affirming Shammai’s stricter view, Jesus rejects Hillelian divorces that have risen in popularity. Exodus 21:10–11, though not addressed by Jesus since the question concerned only Deuteronomy 24:1, echoes the heart of the Torah by granting freedom from systematic neglect, abuse, or denial of food, clothing, and conjugal rights—covenantal breaches that destroy the vulnerable. Paul harmonizes this in 1 Corinthians 7:15, releasing the believer from bondage when an unbeliever abandons the marriage.

Yet even when divorce occurs outside these bounds—when hardness of heart leads to unjustified separation, when ervat davar is misapplied or ignored—God’s grace remains astonishingly wide. The cross of Christ does not grade sins by severity; it covers them all. The same blood that forgives idolatry, murder, or greed forgives the sin of an unbiblical divorce. Peter’s denial, David’s adultery and murder, Paul’s horrific persecution of early Jesus followers—none were beyond redemption. Neither is this. Repentance turns the heart back to God, and His forgiveness is complete, restoring the sinner to fellowship with Him and His people.

Beloved, if betrayal, cruelty, desertion, or unrepentant neglect have shattered your marriage on biblical grounds, hear this good news clearly: God understands your pain. Full stop. He prioritizes your dignity and safety above a toxic bond that has gone irreparably wrong. Remarriage, on these biblical grounds and after exhaustive efforts at restoration, is not adultery but a doorway to healing, wholeness, and new covenant love under God’s blessing.

And if the divorce itself was the sin—initiated without scriptural warrant—lift your eyes to the same Savior. His grace is not exhausted by our failures; it is magnified in them. Confess, receive mercy, and walk forward in the freedom of the forgiven. Rise with hope—your Creator redeems broken stories, inviting you into joy and a future brimming with His faithful provision. Seek wise counsel, pursue reconciliation where possible, but know that freedom in Christ includes liberation from oppression for God’s children and the boundless forgiveness that makes all things new.