Matthew 5:31Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

The lawgiver demonstrated considerable mercy by permitting divorce, but this was done to prevent a far greater wrongdoing. If the law had enforced the retention of both a beloved and a despised wife, the one who loathed her might resort to murder. History shows that the Jewish people had the capacity for such actions. If they were willing to sacrifice their children, kill the prophets, and shed blood indiscriminately, they would certainly show no mercy towards their wives. Therefore, the Lawgiver allowed for a lesser harm to mitigate a more significant threat. To illustrate that this command was not among the original statutes, consider Christ's declaration: ‘Moses, because of your hard-heartedness, wrote this’ (Matthew 19:8), meaning that rather than killing their wives, they should send them away. Since the Saviour prohibited all forms of anger, forbidding not only murder but also unwarranted wrath, it was natural for Him to address the topic of divorce. By consistently referencing the Old Testament, He clarifies that His teachings do not oppose those texts but rather align with them, reinforcing and refining the ancient truths without abolishing them. Observe how He consistently directs His discourse towards the husband.

Thus, one might question whether a woman who cohabits with her husband, yet is abandoned by her spouse, can be classified as an adulteress. The blame seems to lie with the spouse who forsakes the marriage for unjust reasons. If she leaves because of abuse, her duty would be to endure rather than separate. Should her reason be the loss of possessions, such reasoning lacks merit. Even if her husband lives immorally, the Church does not require separation; rather, she is encouraged to remain with him, as the future is uncertain (1 Corinthians 7:16).

Therefore, a wife who departs to remarry becomes an adulteress, while a husband who leaves remains deserving of compassion, permitting cohabitation with another without condemnation. Conversely, if a husband abandons his wife for another, he commits adultery, and the woman he takes as his partner shares in this sin as well, because she joins herself to another's spouse.

According to the Interpretation of the 9th Rule, the Lord's message condemns both a husband who leaves his wife and a wife who departs, except in cases of unfaithfulness. Yet, church tradition dictates otherwise: a husband guilty of fornication is not commanded to abandon his wife, whereas a wife engaging with another man must be released from her marriage. Thus, if a wife chooses to part from her husband due to his infidelity, she bears the guilt for leaving, and should remain, even if he is unfaithful, as husbands can legitimately take another wife. A wife who marries another man after leaving her husband becomes an adulteress, lacking valid justification. If a husband discards his wife without grounds of infidelity but takes another, he incurs the title of adulterer, as does the woman he has taken for herself.

It is my belief that a woman deserted by her husband ought to remain unmarried. The Lord's words, "If any man let his wife go, except by the word of an adulterer, he shall commit adultery" (Matthew 5:32), indicate that calling her an adulteress inherently prohibits her from being with another man. It raises a fundamental question of justice: how can a husband be guilty of adultery while the wife, whom the Lord labels as an adulteress for joining with another, remains virtuous?

Furthermore, a husband and wife should not separate unless either is guilty of unfaithfulness or impeded from righteousness (Matthew 5:31-32). The Lord provides teaching on divorce, emphasizing that a man who dismisses his wife, barring her infidelity, merely enables her to commit adultery, and marrying someone else who has been divorced constitutes adultery as well. In addition, the Lord states, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). Likewise, He declares that anyone who divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and remarries will commit adultery against her (Matthew 19:9), and instructs that a wife must not depart from her husband; if she does, she must remain single or seek reconciliation (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

Therefore, it is no coincidence that our Lord and Redeemer, by abolishing this allowance, restores the commandments of the ancient covenant. He thus commands that the sanctity of a pure marital union be maintained, affirming that the institution of marriage was established by Him. He declares, "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9).

When the Pharisees sought to trap Christ by questioning Him about divorce, He directed them to Moses’ law, which allowed a husband to dismiss his wife due to their hardness of heart. However, Christ clarified that this was not the divine intention from the beginning, stating that whoever weds a divorced woman (και ό άπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχάται) commits adultery (Matt. 19:3-9), thereby equating the acts of adultery of both husband and wife (cf. Mk. 10:11-12).

Nonetheless, the Church's teaching concerning the equal conjugal rights of spouses, grounded in divine law and initially posited by St. Basil, faced longstanding challenges in Christian society, where pre-Christian customs lingered. These customs dictated that only husbands could dissolve a marriage upon their wives' infidelity, leaving wives to endure their husbands' unfaithfulness. St. Basil acknowledges these traditions in his rule, noting that they were still prevalent in his time.

The prevailing Roman laws prior to Christianity rendered the wife a submissive entity, entirely dependent on her husband. This legal framework prioritized the husband's rights, often disregarding those of the wife. Consequently, in the marriage relationship, the husband's rights were legally protected, and the wife’s unfaithfulness was labeled adultery and punished, while a husband’s unfaithfulness often went unaddressed, leaving wives to endure the excesses of their husband’s infidelity. A shift in perspective began in the era of Augustus, as the lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis challenged numerous previous regulations, invalidating the husband’s freedom to engage with women outside his marriage. This law sought to punish all extramarital relationships. In theory, it could have instigated greater fidelity and equality in marriage as mandated by divine and natural law, conditions essential for the family’s well-being. Yet, the pervasive immorality remained impervious to Augustus' legislation and its penalties; this decay infiltrated Christian society from Roman-Pagan converts. Consequently, although all forms of marital infidelity were condemned within Christianity, there remained a tradition that punished the husband's adultery less severely than that of the wife. As a result, husbands were labeled mere fornicators, while the wives were deemed adulteresses (Basil the Great 21).

The Church Fathers fervently denounced this inaccurate perception of marital rights. In the 3rd century, Tertullian spoke against this injustice, asserting that anyone who cohabits with another flesh, apart from their spouse, is guilty of adultery (qui aliam carnem sibi immiscet super illam pristinam, quam Deus aut conjunxit in duos, aut conjunctam deprehendit). Subsequently, civil laws aligned with the Church's moral vision, as Emperor Constantine the Great instituted the death penalty for those found guilty of adultery. The Church Fathers consistently advocated for the marital rights of both spouses in their teachings. Defending the wife's right to address her husband's infidelity, Athanasius the Great stated that the sin of adultery (μοιχεία) occurs whether the husband engages in fornication (πορνεύση) with another woman or the wife with another man.

John Chrysostom reinforced this perspective with conviction, asserting that adultery exists not only when a man fornicates with a married woman but also when a husband engages with an unmarried woman (άφετήν καί λελυμένην, liberam et solutam). St. Basil, along with other esteemed fathers and teachers, acknowledges that an adulteress (μοιχαλις, adultera) refers to any unfaithful wife, and an adulterer (μοιχαλίς, adulter) refers to any unfaithful husband. This understanding is also reiterated in Basil the Great's 77th rule, where anyone who betrays their spouse is condemned for adultery (τψ της μοιχείας κρίματι), with a clear reference to the Scriptures (Matt. 19:9).

Thus, according to St. Basil's teachings, which mirror the convictions of the Church Fathers, adultery serves as grounds for divorce for both spouses. The Roman customs prevailing in St. Basil's time, which conferred exclusive marital rights upon husbands, were not endorsed by him; he merely referenced them to acknowledge their existence, indicative of the hesitance with which he discussed the matter (ούκ οίδα). This sentiment is similarly echoed in the interpretation of the 21st rule of Basil the Great.

Through these words, it is clear that God did not endorse divorce in the Old Testament; rather, He allowed it to prevent the hard-hearted from committing even greater sins. Jesus Christ, the initiator of the New Covenant, came to restore His Church to the purity and innocence lost through Adam's fall, thereby sanctifying Christian marriage and making it indivisible. The original purpose of marriage, established by God in paradise during our forebears' innocent state, was to nurture innocent children. Similarly, Christian marriage aims to bring forth children for the Church of Christ, blessed by the grace of the sacrament of Baptism. This is why St. Paul refers to Christian marriage as a profound mystery, reflecting the union between Christ and the Church. He instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, giving Himself for her salvation and remaining with her in infinite mercy through all her weaknesses. He also instructs wives to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ, in all virtue and holiness, so that from this sacred and mutual union, children may be born holy, destined for the eternal inheritance of life (Eph. 5:22-33).

If a man who gazes at a woman with lust commits adultery in his heart, should he not be considered guilty of adultery as well when he divorces his wife, thereby prompting her to commit adultery with another, and so forth? A Christian is not only called to maintain personal purity but also to avoid causing others to stumble into sin. If he does not, then the transgression is equally the sin of the one who entices others. Therefore, when someone issues a decree of divorce, motivated by the law, he brings upon himself four injustices. First, he acts as a destroyer of life in the sight of God; second, he fails to address the one committing adultery; third, he leads her to commit adultery; and fourth, the one who takes her as a wife also falls into adultery. However, if we adhere to the command of Christ, none of these wrongdoings will occur.

In contrast, the New Testament Lawgiver does not dwell on the obligation of a husband to provide a certificate of divorce or the implications of a divorce that has already occurred but rather emphasizes the reasons for divorce and the very concept of divorce itself. He highlights the foundational responsibilities that the Creator of marriage has established for the spouses (Matthew 19:4-5), responsibilities that lead to heavenly rewards and thus should be prioritized over any temporal joys. Therefore, spouses are unable to sever their union, paralleling how no individual should disregard the obligations placed upon them by divine law.

“But I say unto you, that whosoever letteth his wife go, except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 19:9). The primary intent of the marital union, and thus the foremost duty of the spouses, is to avoid immorality and to protect one another from temptation. When a husband sends away his wife, what transgression does he commit according to the Lord's teaching? He is guilty of adultery because he not only fails to safeguard his wife from immorality but also leads her into it. He carries significant responsibility as the one causing temptation.

If such a wife enters into another marriage, that union is considered adulterous, as the transition between spouses signifies the distinction the Jews made between adultery and lawful relationships (John 4:16-18). However, the husband who dismisses his wife is only accountable for her infidelity if it occurs after the divorce as a direct outcome of it. If the adultery or immorality surfaced during the marriage, the husband is not at fault. Hence, the phrase “except for the cause of fornication” serves to limit the husband's liability for the actions of the divorced wife and allows for divorce in cases where the husband's responsibility for an unfaithful wife is ended. This provision in Matthew 19:9 elucidates the husband’s innocence when he not only allows an unfaithful wife to depart but also goes on to marry another.

The school of Hillel took this to an outrageous extent, suggesting that a man could seek a divorce if his wife inadequately prepared his meal, whether by excessive seasoning or overcooking, treating her as if she were afflicted with a serious ailment.

As a result, divorce became so commonplace among the Jews that it caused embarrassment and disdain among neighboring Gentile nations, while the rabbis wrongly boasted that this practice was a unique privilege granted to Israel. When a woman was divorced, she was immediately entitled to remarry, a right clearly indicated in the divorce decree, which was validated by the signatures of witnesses present at the marriage's dissolution. Such a fleshly dominance is unfit for the new kingdom, and Christ redefined the Mosaic law with profound insight: "But I say unto you, Whosoever shall divorce his wife, except it be for the guilt of adultery, committeth her to adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

God, who designed the bond between husband and wife as a lifelong commitment, sanctified marriage. However, during Moses’ time, the moral fabric of the Israelites had deteriorated to such an extent that, to avoid placing a woman in an unbearable situation with a hard-hearted spouse, Moses permitted divorce as long as a certificate was issued.