December 2003 (Vol.8 No.

5)

Divorce for “Any Cause”

Rev. Dr. David Instone – Brewer
In the early 1960’s the government asked the Church of England for recommendations concerning di-
vorce legislation.1 The New Testament teaching was summarised by Hugh Montefiore but it was rele-
gated to an appendix and virtually ignored in the main body of the report. He presented the traditional
interpretation that Jesus allowed divorce on the sole ground of adultery and Paul allowed divorce on the
sole ground of abandonment, but neither allowed divorce for neglect or abuse, and remarriage was im-
possible till the previous partner had died.

The committee apparently decided that this was so impractical for a secular society that they had to pre-
sent something completely different. So they introduced the concept of ‘irretrievable breakdown’ which
was not based on ‘grounds’ for divorce but merely on ‘evidences’ which indicated that the marriage was
over.

This report was implemented in the 1969 Divorce Reform Act which effectively introduced a no-fault di-
vorce. In the same year a no-fault divorce law was introduced in California, setting a pattern which has
since spread to states throughout the USA.

No-fault divorce makes it possible for either partner to divorce the other against their will even when
they have done nothing to harm the marriage. Although these various legislations attempted to avoid
this, the overall result was, nevertheless, divorce on demand — after a short delay.

Christian Interpretations

Christians have attempted to retain the concept of grounds for divorce because this is central to biblical
teaching and because it gives the wronged partner the power to decide whether to divorce or to forgive
— so they cannot be divorced against their will. There are three main interpretations of grounds for di-
vorce in Scripture:

• The ‘traditional’ interpretation as presented by Montefiore is (with a few variations) the view of the
Catholic, Anglican and most other established churches, and can be said to represent the ‘plain read-
ing’ of the text.
• A scholarly view is that Jesus did not wish to allow any divorce or remarriage and he (or perhaps
Matthew) permitted the exception of adultery only because Jewish society enforced divorce after
adultery.2 This radical reversal of Old Testament teaching was part of Jesus’ new ethics for an ideal
kingdom which Christians should be living out.
• Others, by various means, have argued that the Bible allows divorce for neglect and abuse, and al-
lows remarriage.3 Many of these are too forced or too loosely attached to Scripture to command
wide acceptance. However, new studies of Qumran texts, Graeco-Roman literature and early Jewish
traditions suggest that this interpretation coincides with the way in which the New Testament writ-
ings would have been understood by its first readers.4
_______________
1 Anglican Synod. Marriage, Divorce & the Church - the report of a Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to pre-
pare a statement on the Christian Doctrine of Marriage. (SPCK, London, 1971).
Changes in Legal Language century there is no mention of any other type of di-
vorce in Judaism, and after the destruction of Jerusa-
When first-century Jewish or Graeco-Roman citizens lem in AD 70, when Jewish law became centralised
read or heard the words of Jesus and Paul they had in and much more uniform, it was the only type of di-
their minds many concepts, legal terms and presuppo- vorce available.
sitions which we do not share. We have to understand
their mindset in order to understand the text as they
would. This also gives us the best possible chance of Four Biblical Grounds for Divorce
understanding what the authors meant to convey by
their words, on the assumption that their primary audi- Before the ‘Any Cause’ divorce became popular, Juda-
ence were their contemporaries and not 21st-century ism had four grounds for divorce based on the Old
readers. Testament:7 adultery (based on Dt.24.1) and neglect of
food, clothing or love (based on Ex.21.10f). These lat-
What makes divorce so susceptible to misunderstand- ter three grounds were recognised by all factions
ing is changes in law and legal terminology. Most peo- within Judaism and allowed divorce by women as well
ple understand the legal terms ‘maintenance payments’ as men. They were based on the Mosaic law that a
and ‘decree absolute’, but they have forgotten what a slave-wife could be free of her marriage if her husband
‘co-respondent’ is. This legal term for a third party in a neglected her, and the rabbis assumed that if an ex-
case of adultery was part of everyday language a few slave had these rights then so did a neglected free wife
decades ago when adultery was still tried in court and or a neglected husband.
when newspapers reported the details of famous trials
on their front pages. Perhaps in a few decades the law The rabbis carefully defined how much money the
will change and ‘maintenance payments’ will sound to man had to provide the woman for buying food and
non-lawyers like something relating to house repairs. clothing, and how much work the woman had to do in
Jewish legal divorce terminology changed much more producing them. The rabbis even laid down how often
dramatically in the middle of the first century, and this couples had to take part in physical acts of love which
resulted in a complete misunderstanding of Jesus’ varied according to the occupation of the man — they
teaching as early as the second century. allowed longer periods of abstinence for traders (who
went on business trips) and for scholars (i.e. them-
selves).
The new ‘Any Cause’ divorce
In practice they divided these three grounds into two,
A few decades before Jesus’ ministry a new form of di- which we might call emotional support and material
vorce called ‘Any Cause’ was introduced by lawyers of support, and Paul was presumably alluding to them
the Hillelite party of Pharisees. They derived it from (and to Ex.21.10f) when he reminded the Corinthians
the phrase in Deuteronomy 24.1 where divorce is al- that they owed their spouses both physical love
lowed for “a cause of indecency”.5 The term (1Cor.7.3-5) and material support (1Cor.7.33-34). The
‘indecency’ (literally ‘nakedness’) was understood by all rabbis specified different courses of action when these
rabbis to refer to adultery, but the Hillelites said that two types of neglect occurred, both of which led even-
this still left the term “a cause” (literally ‘a thing’). They tually to divorce if the erring partner did not change
said that this word indicated a separate type of divorce their ways. They did not specify abuse as a ground for
which was based on ‘a cause’ which could be any cause divorce because this would be regarded as the most se-
from a burnt meal to wrinkly skin. They called this the vere form of neglect. These grounds were listed in
‘Any Cause’ divorce and, because it could be based on early Jewish marriage certificates where they formed
anything, there was no need to present any proof in the basis of marriage vows. 8
court— the man simply had to hand over a divorce
certificate and the marriage was over.
Asking Jesus about ‘Any Cause’
Other rabbis (such as the rival party of Shammaite
Pharisees) said that the phrase “a matter of indecency” All these types of divorce fell into disuse a few decades
did not refer to two types of divorce (adultery and before AD 70 because everyone chose to get divorced
‘Any Cause’) because the phrase as a whole means with the new and easy-to-use ‘Any Cause’ divorce. Al-
“nothing else than indecency”. Most of the people, though the concept of the three obligations of mar-
however, preferred the Hillelite interpretation because riage continued to be expressed in the language of
it provided easy divorces and no embarrassing court marriage certificates, the term ‘Any Cause divorce’ dis-
appearances. Philo lists ‘Any Cause’ as the only basis appeared completely because even the lawyers referred
for Jewish divorce, and Josephus names it as the type to it simply as ‘divorce’.
of divorce which he used.6 By the middle of the first
During Jesus’ ministry, the debate about the ‘Any NT Grounds for Divorce
Cause’ divorce was still raging, so they asked him his
opinion: “Do you think it is lawful for a man to di- Which grounds for divorce did Jesus accept? He was
vorce his wife for ‘Any Cause’?” (Mt.19.3). Jesus was never asked this question, and he does not tell us,
more interested in talking about marriage than divorce, though we know from his answer to the question
so he started by emphasising that marriage should be about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce that he allowed divorce
monogamous and lifelong (vv.4-6) and when they for adultery. In the absence of further evidence, we
asked why Moses commanded divorce for adultery he have to assume that he accepted all four Old Testa-
said that Moses merely allowed it, and only in cases of ment grounds for divorce, as did all other Jews.
stubborn unrepentance (“hardheartedness”, vv.7-8).
There are many aspects of Jesus’ teaching for which we
Eventually Jesus answered their question about the have no record - e.g. he never affirmed monotheism or
‘Any Cause’ divorce by quoting the Shammaite slogan condemned rape - because there was no need to record
that the phrase ‘a cause of indecency’ means “nothing everything which his audience already agreed with.
except indecency”.9 Jesus was not a Shammaite, be- When Jesus did disagree, he was not shy to say so.
cause he disagreed with them in many other matters, When he was asked about the ‘Any Cause’ divorce Je-
but he said that their interpretation of the phrase “a sus took the opportunity to point out several matters
cause of indecency” was correct, as would most mod- in which he disagreed with other Jews, including mo-
ern interpreters of the text. nogamy (all Jews except the Qumran sect allowed po-
lygamy), optional divorce for adultery (which most
Jesus rejected the ‘Any Cause’ divorce as a non-biblical Jews regarded as compulsory), and optional marriage
invention, so that anyone who had divorced using this (which all Jews regarded as compulsory).
interpretation (which included almost every divorced
person in Israel) had an invalid divorce. He empha- Fortunately Paul is not as silent as Jesus, because he
sised this in a most dramatic way by saying that anyone has to remind his partly-gentile audience about the ob-
who had remarried after such a divorce was now com- ligations within marriage, as mentioned above.
mitting adultery, because their previous marriage had
not yet ended.
_______________
The abbreviation necessitated by writing this teaching
in a Gospel makes it difficult for a 21st century reader 2 The best presentation of this view is by Heth & Wenham. See Fur-
to follow. Mark’s version (Mk.10.2-12) does not even ther Reading.
include the Hillelite and Shammaite slogans, “for ‘Any 3 Good examples are by Atkinson and Adams. See Further Reading.
Cause’” and “nothing except indecency”. A first cen-
tury reader would mentally supply these phrases just as 4 The work has been done by Luck, Keener and myself. See Further
Reading.
a modern reader supplies the phrase “alcoholic bever-
ages” into the question “Is it lawful for a 16 year-old to 5 This slogan is found in the summaries of this debate in rabbinic lit-
drink?”. erature at mGit.9.10; cf. Sifré Deut.269; ySot.1.2, 16b.
6 Philo Spec.Leg.3.30 (II 304) “Another commandment is that if a
Luke’s version (Lk.16.18) is so dramatically abbreviated woman after parting from her husband for any cause what-
that it makes no sense unless we remember that virtu- ever…” (kath én an tuché prophasin); Jos.Ant. 4.253 “He who de-
sires to be divorced from the wife who is living with him, for
ally all divorces were for ‘Any Cause’, so that everyone whatsoever ground …” (kath hasdépotoun aitias).
who remarried could be said to be committing adul-
tery. 7 Technically there was also a fifth, infertility, which could be said
to be based on the OT command to ‘go forth and multiply’, but
Matthew provided a fuller account because by the time some rabbis were unhappy with this as a basis for divorce. On
the basis of this command, all Jews had to marry, but Jesus re-
he was writing the debate was already waning and peo- jected this interpretation by saying that people could remain sin-
ple needed reminding about the issues. But even Mat- gle (and childless) for the sake of the kingdom (Mt.19.12).
thew’s account is confusing for modern translators, al-
most all of whom thought that Jesus was asked about 8 E.g. “your food and your clothes and your bed” in papyrus
“divorce for any cause” instead of the specific ‘Any P.Yadin.10 = AM126. Some later certificates cite Ex.21.10f,
though none have survived from the first two centuries.
Cause’ divorce.
9 Jesus’ reply “except for indecency” in Matthew 19.9 (mé epi
porneia) is an exact translation of the Hebrew slogan of the
Shammaites (ela im … ervah) at Sifré Deut.269; ySot.1.2,16b).
The slightly different version in Mt.5.32 reflects an identical
variation of the Shammaite slogan at m.Git.9.10.
Way ahead for the Church

The problem for the modern church, living in a climate of no-fault divorce, is how to re-introduce the teaching that di-
vorce should only occur when there are specific biblical grounds for it.

One way forward may be to re-emphasise the marriage vows of traditional Christian wedding services which retain ref-
erences to all four biblical grounds for divorce — faithfulness and the three types of neglect. The marriage vows “to
love, honour and keep” are based on ancient Jewish vows as cited in Ephesians 5.28-29 where Christ “loves… nour-
ishes and cherishes” or, more literally, “loves, feeds and keeps warm” his bride.

The Old Testament spoke about marriage as a ‘contract’10 and regarded the marriage vows as stipulations in that con-
tract. If one partner broke their marriage vows the other was entitled, as with any business contract, to either declare
the contract broken or to forgive a repentant partner. This gives the decision back to the wronged partner.

We do not want to regard marriage merely in terms of contractual obligations, but wedding vows could be taught both
as the foundations of marriage and as the only valid grounds for divorce. The biblical grounds for divorce would
thereby regain their status as a focus for building and maintaining a marriage rather than just the means to its end.

_______________
10 E.g. Mal.2.14 which is often misleadingly translated as a ‘covenant’.

Further Reading:

Jay E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co, 1980)
David Atkinson, To Have and To Hold: The Marriage Covenant and the Discipline of Divorce (London: Colins, 1979)
William A. Heth, & Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1984).
David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002)
David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003) Pastoral conclusions
based on the latest academic finding.
Craig S. Keener, Paul, women & wives: marriage and women's ministry in the letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hen-
drickson Publishers, 1992) An academic work based on the latest Graeco-Roman material
William F. Luck, Divorce and Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View (San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1987). A re-
examination with many original ideas.

Rev Dr David Instone-Brewer B.D. Hons (Cardiff); Ph.D. (Cantab) is Research Fellow & Technical Offi-
cer at Tyndale House in Cambridge. His research interests include Rabbinic background to the New Testa-
ment, with special interest in marriage and divorce. He describes himself as “a Baptist Minister working in
the academic world”. David is married to Enid and they have two children. Whilst working as a Baptist
Minister at Llanishen Baptist Church in Cardiff, David found that divorcees often came to him because they
could not get remarried in their Anglican or Catholic church. This forced him to look again at the scriptural
foundations of the church teaching on this issue. In the light of his Jewish studies, the NT presented a very
different picture to the one which most scholars had previously seen. During a five year period at Tyndale
House he produced several academic papers and a large academic book on the subject. He has followed this
up with a summary booklet for the Grove Biblical series and a book on divorce and pastoral issues for gen-
eral readers