Deuteronomy 24:1-4

24:1 If a man marries a woman and she does not please him because he has found something offensive ¹  in her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to her, and evict her from his house. 24:2 When she has left him ²  she may go and become someone else’s wife. 24:3 If the second husband rejects ³  her and then divorces her, ⁴  gives her the papers, and evicts her from his house, or if the second husband who married her dies, 24:4 her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry ⁵  her after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to the Lord. ⁶  You must not bring guilt on the land ⁷  which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Isaiah 50:1

50:1 This is what the Lord says:

“Where is your mother’s divorce certificate

by which I divorced her?

Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? ⁸ 

Look, you were sold because of your sins; ⁹ 

because of your rebellious acts I divorced your mother. ¹⁰ 

Matthew 5:31-32

Divorce

5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ ¹¹  5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9

19:3 Then some Pharisees ¹²  came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful ¹³  to divorce a wife for any cause?” ¹⁴  19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, ¹⁵  19:5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ¹⁶  19:6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 19:7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” ¹⁷  19:8 Jesus ¹⁸  said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, ¹⁹  but from the beginning it was not this way. 19:9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

Mark 10:2-12

10:2 Then some Pharisees ²⁰  came, and to test him ²¹  they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his ²²  wife?” ²³  10:3 He answered them, ²⁴  “What did Moses command you?” 10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” ²⁵  10:5 But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this commandment for you because of your hard hearts. ²⁶  10:6 But from the beginning of creation he ²⁷  made them male and female. ²⁸  10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, ²⁹  10:8 and the two will become one flesh. ³⁰  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10:10 In the house once again, the disciples asked him about this. 10:11 So ³¹  he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 10:12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” ³² 

Luke 16:18

16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries ³³  someone else commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

[24:1]  ¹ tn Heb “nakedness of a thing.” The Hebrew phrase עֶרְוַת דָּבָר (’ervat davar) refers here to some gross sexual impropriety (see note on “indecent” in Deut 23:14). Though the term usually has to do only with indecent exposure of the genitals, it can also include such behavior as adultery (cf. Lev 18:6-18; 20:11, 17, 20-21; Ezek 22:10; 23:29; Hos 2:10).

[24:2]  ² tn Heb “his house.”

[24:3]  ³ tn Heb “hates.” See note on the word “other” in Deut 21:15.

[24:3]  ⁴ tn Heb “writes her a document of divorce.”

[24:4]  ⁵ tn Heb “to return to take her to be his wife.”

[24:4]  ⁶ sn The issue here is not divorce and its grounds per se but prohibition of remarriage to a mate whom one has previously divorced.

[24:4]  ⁷ tn Heb “cause the land to sin” (so KJV, ASV).

[50:1]  ⁸ sn The Lord challenges the exiles (Zion’s children) to bring incriminating evidence against him. The rhetorical questions imply that Israel accused the Lord of divorcing his wife (Zion) and selling his children (the Israelites) into slavery to pay off a debt.

[50:1]  ⁹ sn The Lord admits that he did sell the Israelites, but it was because of their sins, not because of some debt he owed. If he had sold them to a creditor, they ought to be able to point him out, but the preceding rhetorical question implies they would not be able to do so.

[50:1]  ¹⁰ sn The Lord admits he did divorce Zion, but that too was the result of the nation’s sins. The force of the earlier rhetorical question comes into clearer focus now. The question does not imply that a certificate does not exist and that no divorce occurred. Rather, the question asks for the certificate to be produced so the accuser can see the reason for the divorce in black and white. The Lord did not put Zion away arbitrarily.

[5:31]  ¹¹ sn A quotation from Deut 24:1.

[19:3]  ¹² tn Grk “And Pharisees.”

[19:3]  ¹³ tc ‡ Most mss have either ἀνθρώπῳ (anqrwpw, “for a man” [so א² C D W Θ 087 Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt]) or ἀνδρί (andri, “for a husband” [1424^c pc]) before the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”). The latter reading is an assimilation to the parallel in Mark; the former reading may have been motivated by the clarification needed (especially to give the following αὐτοῦ [autou, “his”] an antecedent). But a few significant mss (א* B L Γ 579 [700] 1424* pc) have neither noun. As the harder reading, it seems to best explain the rise of the others. NA²⁷, however, reads ἀνθρώπῳ here.

[19:3]  ¹⁴ sn The question of the Pharisees was anything but sincere; they were asking it to test him. Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (i.e., Judea and beyond the Jordan) and it is likely that the Pharisees were hoping he might answer the question of divorce in a way similar to John the Baptist and so suffer the same fate as John, i.e., death at the hands of Herod (cf. 14:1-12). Jesus answered the question not on the basis of rabbinic custom and the debate over Deut 24:1, but rather from the account of creation and God’s original design.

[19:4]  ¹⁵ sn A quotation from Gen 1:27; 5:2.

[19:5]  ¹⁶ sn A quotation from Gen 2:24.

[19:7]  ¹⁷ tc ‡ Although the majority of witnesses (B C W 078 087 ˹³ 33 Ï sy^p,h) have αὐτήν (authn, “her”) after the infinitive ἀπολῦσαι (apolusai, “to divorce”), a variant lacks the αὐτήν. This shorter reading may be due to assimilation to the Markan parallel, but since it is attested in early and diverse witnesses (א D L Z Θ Ë¹ 579 700 pc lat) and since the parallel verse (Mark 10:4) already departs at many points, the shorter reading seems more likely to be original. The pronoun has been included in the translation, however, for clarity. NA²⁷ includes the word in brackets, indicating reservations regarding its authenticity.

[19:8]  ¹⁸ tc A few important mss (א Φ pc) have the name “Jesus” here, but it is probably not original. Nevertheless, this translation routinely specifies the referents of pronouns to improve clarity, so that has been done here.

[19:8]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “heart” (a collective singular).

[10:2]  ²⁰ tc The Western text (D it) and a few others have only καί (kai) here, rather than καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι (kai proselqonte" Farisaioi, here translated as “then some Pharisees came”). The longer reading, a specific identification of the subject, may have been prompted by the parallel in Matt 19:3. The fact that the mss vary in how they express this subject lends credence to this judgment: οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι προσελθόντες (Joi de Farisaioi proselqonte", “now the Pharisees came”) in W Θ 565 2542 pc; καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (kai proselqonte" Joi Farisaioi, “then the Pharisees came”) in א C N (˹: καὶ προσελθόντες ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι) 579 1241 1424 pm; and καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι in A B K L Γ Δ Ψ Ë¹³ 28 700 892 2427 pm. Further, the use of an indefinite plural (a general “they”) is a Markan feature, occurring over twenty times. Thus, internally the evidence looks rather strong for the shorter reading, in spite of the minimal external support for it. However, if scribes assimilated this text to Matt 19:3, a more exact parallel might have been expected: Matthew has καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Φαρισαῖοι (kai proshlqon aujtw Farisaioi, “then Pharisees came to him”). Although the verb form needs to be different according to syntactical requirements of the respective sentences, the word order variety, as well as the presence or absence of the article and the alternation between δέ and καί as the introductory conjunction, all suggest that the variety of readings might not be due to scribal adjustments toward Matthew. At the same time, the article with Φαρισαῖοι is found in both Gospels in many of the same witnesses (א Ï in Matt; א pm in Mark), and the anarthrous Φαρισαῖοι is likewise parallel in many mss (B L ˹³ 700 892). Another consideration is the possibility that very early in the transmissional history, scribes naturally inserted the most obvious subject (the Pharisees would be the obvious candidates as the ones to test Jesus). This may account for the reading with δέ, since Mark nowhere else uses this conjunction to introduce the Pharisees into the narrative. As solid as the internal arguments against the longer reading seem to be, the greatest weakness is the witnesses that support it. The Western mss are prone to alter the text by adding, deleting, substituting, or rearranging large amounts of material. There are times when the rationale for this seems inexplicable. In light of the much stronger evidence for “the Pharisees came,” even though it occurs in various permutations, it is probably wisest to retain the words. This judgment, however, is hardly certain.

[10:2]  ²¹ tn In Greek this phrase occurs at the end of the sentence. It has been brought forward to conform to English style.

[10:2]  ²² tn The personal pronoun “his” is not in the Greek text, but is certainly implied and has been supplied in the English translation to clarify the sense of the statement (cf. “his wife” in 10:7).

[10:2]  ²³ tn The particle εἰ (ei) is often used to introduce both indirect and direct questions. Thus, another possible translation is to take this as an indirect question: “They asked him if it were lawful for a man to divorce his wife.” See BDF §440.3.

[10:3]  ²⁴ tn Grk “But answering, he said to them.”

[10:4]  ²⁵ tn Grk “to divorce.” The pronoun has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[10:5]  ²⁶ tn Grk “heart” (a collective singular).

[10:6]  ²⁷ tc Most mss have ὁ θεός (Jo qeo", “God”) as the explicit subject of ἐποίησεν (epoihsen, “he made”; A D W Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat sy), while the most important witnesses, along with a few others, lack ὁ θεός (א B C L Δ 579 2427 co). On the one hand, it is possible that the shorter reading is an assimilation to the wording of the LXX of Gen 1:27b where ὁ θεός is lacking. However, since it is mentioned at the beginning of the verse (Gen 1:27a) with ἐποίησεν scribes may have been motivated to add it in Mark to make the subject clear. Further, confusion could easily arise in this dominical saying, because Moses was the previously mentioned subject (v. 5) and inattentive readers might regard him as the subject of ἐποίησεν in v. 6. Thus, both on internal and external grounds, the most probable wording of the original text here lacked ὁ θεός.

[10:6]  ²⁸ sn A quotation from Gen 1:27; 5:2.

[10:7]  ²⁹ tc ‡ The earliest witnesses, as well as a few other important mss (א B Ψ 892* 2427 sy^s), lack the rest of the quotation from Gen 2:24, “and will be united with his wife.” Most mss ([A C] D [L N] W [Δ] Θ Ë^[1],13 [579] Ï lat co) have the clause. It could be argued that the shorter reading was an accidental omission, due to this clause and v. 8 both beginning with καί (kai, “and”). But if that were the case, one might expect to see corrections in א or B. This can be overstated, of course; both mss combine in their errors on several other occasions. However, the nature of the omission here (both its length and the fact that it is from the OT) argues that א and B reflect the original wording. Further, the form of the longer reading is identical with the LXX of Gen 2:24, but different from the quotation in Matt 19:5 (προσκολληθήσεται vs. κολληθήσεται [proskollhqhsetai vs. kollhqhsetai], πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα vs. τῇ γυναικί [pro" thn gunaika vs. th gunaiki]). The significance of this is that Matthew’s quotations of the OT are often, if not usually, directly from the Hebrew – except when he is following Mark’s quotation of the OT. Matthew in fact only departs from Mark’s verbatim quotation of the LXX in 15:4 and 19:19, both texts quoting from Exod 20:12/Deut 5:6 (and in both places the only difference from Mark/LXX is the dropping of σου [sou, “your”]). This might suggest that the longer reading here was not part of what the first evangelist had in his copy of Mark. Further, the reading without this line is harder, for the wife is not explicitly mentioned in v. 7; the casual reader could read “the two” of v. 8 as referring to father and mother rather than husband and wife. (And Mark is known for having harder, shorter readings that scribes tried to soften by explanatory expansion: In this chapter alone, cf. the textual problems in v. 6 [the insertion of ὁ θεός]; in v. 13 [the replacement of αὐτοῖς with τοῖς προσφέρουσιν or τοῖς φέρουσιν]; in v. 24 [insertion of ἐστιν τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ χρήμασιν, πλούσιον, or τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες; and perhaps in v. 2 [possible insertion of προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι or similar permutations].) Although a decision is difficult, the preferred reading lacks “and will be united with his wife.” NA²⁷ has the longer reading in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

[10:8]  ³⁰ sn A quotation from Gen 2:24. The “two” refers to husband and wife, not father and mother mentioned in the previous verse. See the tc note on “mother” in v. 7 for discussion.

[10:11]  ³¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “So” to indicate that Jesus’ statement is in response to the disciples’ question (v. 10).

[10:12]  ³² sn It was not uncommon in Jesus’ day for a Jewish man to divorce his wife, but it was extremely rare for a wife to initiate such an action against her husband, since among many things it would have probably left her destitute and without financial support. Mark’s inclusion of the statement And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (v. 12) reflects more the problem of the predominantly Gentile church in Rome to which he was writing. As such it may be an interpretive and parenthetical comment by the author rather than part of the saying by Jesus, which would stop at the end of v. 11. As such it should then be placed in parentheses. Further NT passages that deal with the issue of divorce and remarriage are Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor 7.

[16:18]  ³³ sn The examples of marriage and divorce show that the ethical standards of the new era are still faithful to promises made in the presence of God. To contribute to the breakup of a marriage, which involved a vow before God, is to commit adultery. This works whether one gets a divorce or marries a person who is divorced, thus finalizing the breakup of the marriage. Jesus’ point concerns the need for fidelity and ethical integrity in the new era.