Scholar Articles
 

Divorce and Remarriage in Historical Perspective
Notley, R. Steven  (Jerusalem Perspective)
(Italics & bold sections are mine - KM)


When studying the Bible in Jerusalem, one soon becomes aware of how important the issues of language, culture and physical setting are to our reading of the Scriptures. Likewise, the words of Jesus are given clarity by the context of their historical setting.

Recently, while preparing for a lecture on Second Temple period history, I was struck by the similarity of Jesus' teaching about divorce and remarriage to a well-known event recounted by the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius. The saying of Jesus in question is found in Luke 16:18: "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. The one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."

Traditionally, these words of Jesus have been interpreted to equate divorce and remarriage with adultery. New Testament scholars have remarked that Jesus' saying, as it is commonly interpreted, is more stringent than both the biblical presentation (Deut. 24:1-2) and contemporary rabbinic understanding. In Judaism, while peace in the home is of the utmost importance, never is it suggested that in principle divorce and remarriage are adulterous. By divorcing Jesus from his historical and religious context, New Testament scholars have cast him as a first-century rogue. Nevertheless, this perception has more to do with how Jesus' words have been misinterpreted than with Jesus himself.

Some preliminary comments are necessary in order to bring the original thrust of Jesus' statement into focus. In two recently published studies, attention was given to the idiomatic sense of the conjunction "and" in our verse. David Bivin and Brad Young, through different means, arrived at the same conclusion: the conjunction was intended to express purpose.1 Bivin noted that the Hebrew conjunction, whose sense may lie behind the Greek kai, possesses a wider range of meaning, including one of purpose.2 Thus, here, and in others sayings in the Gospels, we witness Hebraic influence upon the Greek text. Listen, for instance, to Jesus' charge to a lawyer, "Do this and (i.e., in order to) live!" (Lk. 10:28). Likewise, in the verse under investigation, we should read, "He who divorces his wife in order to marry another commits adultery."

Additionally, commentators have remarked on the haphazard placement of the divorce saying in Luke following Jesus' confession about John the Baptist, "The law and the prophets were until John..." (Lk. 16:16). While the sequential ordering of the Gospel material is not always important in determining its interpretation, in this instance, the context of our saying in Luke's Gospel is central to its meaning. The parallel confession about John in Matthew (11:11-14) occurs in a fuller historical narrative. At the time, John was imprisoned for speaking out against Herod Antipas (Mt. 11:2; 14:1-12). Josephus provides additional details which explain the reason for John's criticism.

The tetrarch Herod Antipas had taken the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, as his wife and had now been married to her for a long time. When starting out for Rome, he lodged with his half-brother Herod, who was born of a different mother, namely, the daughter of Simon the high priest. Falling in love with Herodias, the wife of this half-brother -- she was a daughter of their brother Aristobulus and sister to Agrippa the Great -- Antipas brazenly broached to her the subject of marriage. She accepted and pledged herself to make the transfer to him (i.e., divorce her husband and marry Antipas) as soon as he returned from Rome. It was stipulated that he must oust the daughter of Aretas (Antiquities 18:109-110).

What is immediately apparent is how closely the story matches Jesus' words about divorce and remarriage. Antipas' visit to his half-brother apparently was the beginning of an adulterous affair with his sister-in- law.  They were guilty of divorcing their spouses in order to marry each other. The divorce proceedings were simply an attempt to legitimize their adultery.

Can it be a coincidence that Jesus' critical statement about setting aside one's spouse in order to marry another comes at the same time as John's imprisonment for speaking out against Antipas' marital infidelity? Our suggested historical context for the saying also helps to clarify Mark's version (Mk. 10:11-12) of the saying in which Jesus speaks about "a woman who divorces her husband." In Jewish tradition, a woman cannot unilaterally dissolve the marriage. The procedure must be executed with the husband's approval. We have only two recorded exceptions in the Second Temple period in which the woman appears to have initiated the divorce. One of those is the case of Herodias and her husband.

What is the significance of our suggested historical saying for Jesus' utterance on divorce and remarriage? First, it sheds light on other passages in the New Testament and the writings of Josephus. We now understand why Antipas thought Jesus was John the Baptist. Jesus had taken up John's line of criticism against the tetrarch. As a result, Antipas thought John had risen from the dead (Mt. 14:1-2; Lk. 9:19) and he was seeking to arrest him (Lk. 13:31-33). In the words of Professor David Flusser, "Antipas had killed John once, and he was willing to do it again!"

Josephus records that the people saw the destruction of Antipas' army by his former father-in-law, the Nabatean king Aretas, as divine vengeance for what Antipas had done to John (Antiquities 18:116). In this instance, the Gospel account illumines the connection between the armed conflict with Aretas and the death of John. Both resulted from Antipas' marital infidelity and divorcing his Nabatean wife. When viewed together -- Josephus' narrative, the Gospel account of the imprisonment of John and Jesus' statement concerning divorce and remarriage form complementary fragments in a mosaic of betrayal and tragedy.

Recognition of the historical context for Jesus' saying also sets limits for its interpretation and application. Jesus was not equating divorce with adultery. Even less was he suggesting that remarriage is adulterous. His saying does not contradict the Jewish understanding of the sanctity of marriage, but neither does it make marriage insoluble. Jesus addresses a specific and public case in which both parties were guilty of divorcing their spouses in order to marry each other.

We can now hear the question which brought forth Jesus' forceful response: "John the Baptist was murdered because he dared to speak out about Antipas' adultery. What do you have to say?" Without fear Jesus responded, "The one (i.e., Antipas) who has divorced his wife in order to marry another (i.e., Herodias) is guilty of adultery. Moreover, the one (i.e., Antipas) who has married the woman (i.e., Herodias) who is divorced from her husband is guilty of adultery." In other words, Antipas is doubly guilty of adultery.

Jesus' scathing rebuke did not escape Antipas' attention. He sought to capture Jesus. When the Pharisees warned Jesus of Antipas' plot, he remarked, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem'" (Lk. 13:32-33). Indeed, it was not until that fateful Passover morning in Jerusalem that Jesus and Antipas met face to face. "When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him" (Lk. 23:8a). Herod questioned Jesus, but he refused to answer. Jesus had responded to the questions of Pilate, the brutal Roman prefect, but to this Jewish ruler who had shown no limits in his treachery, Jesus refused to utter a single word. If ever silence was deafening, it was in Jesus' muted reply to Antipas -- the adulterer.

_____________________

*This study is dedicated to those who have suffered the agony of divorce. Tragically their pain has been compounded by well-meaning Christians who have distorted both the letter and the spirit of Jesus' teaching concerning divorce and remarriage. For them, may this article bring a measure of healing.

1. Brad H. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), pp. 113-118; David Bivin, "'And' or 'In order to' Remarry," Jerusalem Perspective 50 (Jan.-Mar. 1996), 10-17, 35- 38.

2. David Bivin, "'And' or 'In order to' Remarry," 12. See also R. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1907), p. 254 §3. In post- Biblical Hebrew we hear, "He who begins to wish that his wife will die and [i.e., in order that] he will inherit her property, or that she will die and [i.e., in order that] he will marry her sister..." (Tosefta, Sotah 5:10).

3. Herodias was married to Antipas' half-brother, known simply as Herod (Antiq. 18:109). According to Mk. 6:17 Herodias was married to Herod Philip. However, in the best manuscript readings of Lk. 3:19 and Mt. 14:3, her husband is unnamed. Josephus relates that it was Herodias' daughter, Salome, who married Philip. See David Flusser, "A New Portrait of Salome," Jerusalem Perspective 55 (Apr.-Jun. 1998), 18-19, note 3.


© Copyright 1987-2003 Jerusalem Perspective. All rights reserved.