5
Matthew

Teaching on Divorce

Matthew 5:31-32
31It was said, then, 'Whoever releases his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for a matter of sexual sin, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Key words in this passage

Cross-references

Study notes

The unit confronts the assumption that a certificate of divorce fully resolves the moral status of ending a marriage. By quoting the procedural allowance and then countering it with a claim that release apart from sexual sin places the wife in the position of adultery, the text shifts attention from legal form to the chain of responsibility the husband initiates. The exception clause qualifies the prohibition without expanding into further cases, while the double assignment of guilt—to the divorcing husband and to any later husband—underscores that the original bond retains force beyond the document. This placement extends the preceding concern with the heart’s role in adultery, showing how one decision can entangle others in violation of the marriage covenant.

What is Teaching on Divorce about?

The unit opens by quoting a familiar legal provision: a man who releases his wife must supply her with a certificate of divorce.' This statement stands as the starting point for what follows. Jesus then counters with his own claim that such an action, apart from a case of sexual sin, places the wife in the position of committing adultery and makes any man who marries her likewise guilty of adultery. The exception clause appears only here in the immediate sequence and qualifies the absolute force of the prohibition.

This teaching sits directly after the warning against lustful looking and the call to radical removal of what causes sin. The two units share the same concern with the integrity of marriage and the heart’s responsibility for breaking it. The divorce statement therefore extends the earlier discussion rather than beginning a new topic. It also prepares for the next antithesis on oaths by maintaining the pattern of citing an established rule and then redefining its reach.

The central question raised is whether the certificate procedure fully settles the moral status of ending a marriage. The text itself presents the tension without resolving every practical case that might arise from it.

Where does this passage sit in Matthew?

This unit occupies the fourth position among the six antitheses that occupy Matthew 5:21-48. It follows immediately on the warning against lustful looking and the demand for radical removal of whatever causes sin. The shared vocabulary of adultery links the two blocks: the earlier unit treats the internal movement that leads to the act, while this one addresses the public step of releasing a wife and the further chain of adultery that results. The transition is therefore one of extension rather than shift; the same concern with the heart’s responsibility for breaking marriage moves from desire to legal action.

The repeated formula “It was said, then… But I say to you” places the divorce statement inside the larger sequence that began after the programmatic statement about fulfilling the law in 5:17-20. Each antithesis tightens an existing command by moving from observable deed to the disposition that produces it. Here the tightening concerns the certificate of divorce itself: what the prior statement treated as a permitted release now becomes, apart from the stated exception, an occasion of further adultery. The exception clause appears only in this antithesis and therefore stands out against the absolute phrasing of the surrounding units.

The unit also sets up the next antithesis on oaths. Both deal with speech that creates or dissolves binding obligations, and both insist that words cannot be isolated from the reality they claim to order. Within the Sermon as a whole, these consecutive blocks keep the focus on concrete practices—anger, desire, divorce, swearing—while steadily raising the standard from external compliance to undivided integrity. The placement therefore sustains the escalation already under way rather than introducing an unrelated topic.

How is the passage structured?

The unit opens by reproducing the received rule as a single, self-contained sentence that presents release of a wife as permissible once the certificate is supplied. The structure of that sentence places the procedural requirement at the end, so that the act itself appears conditioned only by the document. The following sentence opens with the adversative that signals the antithesis and immediately reframes the same act. The exception clause is inserted directly after the verb of divorcing, interrupting the main clause before any consequence is named. This placement keeps the qualification brief and subordinate rather than allowing it to expand into a separate case. The sentence then proceeds to two parallel consequence clauses joined by a simple conjunction. The first assigns the husband responsibility for placing his wife in the position of adultery. The second extends the identical liability to any subsequent husband. No illustration, narrative pause, or additional speech separates these two clauses. The unit therefore moves from a quoted permission defined by procedure to a prohibition defined by consequence, with the exception functioning as the single internal hinge and the double assignment of guilt supplying the closing weight. The absence of any further material inside the two verses leaves the contrast between the two sentences as the controlling architectural feature.

What is the historical background?

The statement quoted in 5:31 reflects the provision in Deuteronomy 24:1 that permitted a husband to end a marriage by handing his wife a written certificate of divorce. That document served a practical legal function: it declared the marriage dissolved and freed the woman to remarry without incurring the charge of adultery under Israelite law. In first-century Jewish practice the certificate was issued by the husband alone; the wife had no corresponding right to initiate the action. The procedure therefore presupposed an asymmetry in which the husband controlled both the decision and the formal release.

Because the certificate established the woman’s legal status, its absence left her exposed. A woman sent away without it could be treated as still married, so any later union would be viewed as adulterous. The teaching in 5:32 builds directly on this social reality by stating that divorce apart from sexual sin places the wife in the position of committing adultery and likewise implicates any man who marries her. The exception clause therefore operates within the same legal logic rather than introducing an entirely new category.

Contemporary Jewish teachers differed over what constituted sufficient grounds for issuing the certificate. Some allowed divorce for a wide range of reasons; others insisted on more serious breaches. The phrase “a matter of sexual sin” in 5:32 engages that discussion by limiting the exception to sexual misconduct, without further defining the term. No major textual variant affects the wording of these two verses in the earliest manuscripts, so the passage stands in its transmitted form for interpretive purposes.

What does this passage teach about God?

The wording of the unit places the weight of responsibility on the husband who initiates the release. By stating that such a man makes his wife commit adultery, the claim treats the divorce itself as the act that exposes her to further sin, regardless of her own intentions. This moves the discussion beyond external legal compliance to the deeper reality that one person’s decision can entangle another in violation of the marriage bond. The exception for a matter of sexual sin functions not as a loophole for convenience but as recognition that certain breaches already shatter the covenant from within, distinguishing them from unilateral abandonment.

Jesus’ direct address to the one who divorces underscores that human beings remain accountable for the relational fractures they create. The second clause extends that accountability to any subsequent marriage, indicating that the original bond retains moral force even after legal severance. In this framing, marriage is not merely a contract terminable by certificate but a union whose integrity God continues to uphold. The prohibition therefore reflects a divine insistence that the heart’s fidelity, already emphasized in the preceding warning against lust, must govern even the formal end of the relationship.

The structure of the statement reveals a consistent pattern: what the law permitted as a regulated procedure is now shown to carry unintended moral consequences. By locating guilt in the one who releases rather than solely in later actions, the teaching presents God as concerned with the protection of the vulnerable party and with the preservation of covenant faithfulness wherever it remains possible. This places discipleship under the requirement to weigh every marital decision against the reality that actions in one relationship continue to affect the moral standing of others.

What are the interpretive difficulties?

The exception clause in 5:32 stands out because the surrounding antitheses contain no comparable qualification. The wording “except for a matter of sexual sin” uses a broad phrase that the text itself does not narrow further, leaving readers to determine what specific conduct qualifies. One reading treats the clause as identifying the only ground on which a husband may initiate divorce without incurring the stated consequences; another reading takes it as describing the sole situation in which the divorced wife is not placed in the position of adultery. The passage does not adjudicate between these options.

A second question concerns the status of remarriage. The statement declares that the divorcing husband “makes her commit adultery” and that “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."” It does not, however, specify whether the second marriage itself dissolves the first union in God’s sight or whether it simply adds a further violation. The text remains silent on whether an innocent party may ever remarry, and it offers no parallel statement about a wife who initiates divorce.

The passage also leaves open how its absolute-sounding prohibition relates to the legal provision quoted in 5:31. By retaining the certificate requirement while redefining its moral outcome, the teaching shifts attention from procedural validity to the heart’s responsibility, yet it does not explain whether the certificate retains any protective function once the new standard is in place. These silences keep the focus on the stated claim without resolving every practical case the statement might generate.

Movement by movement

The Quoted Permission5:31

The sentence quoted here frames the release of a wife as permissible once the required document is handed over. Its single-clause construction places the certificate at the close, so that the permission appears to rest on that formal step alone. In the sequence of the chapter this statement functions as the received rule that the next sentence will counter. The wording itself draws attention to the husband’s action of releasing and the minimal legal safeguard attached to it. By reproducing the provision in this compact form the text sets up the contrast that follows, where the same act of release receives a different evaluation. The certificate, in the quoted rule, serves to mark the end of the marriage without further qualification attached to the grounds for the release itself. This placement keeps the focus on the procedural requirement rather than on any prior condition that might limit when release is allowed. The result is a starting point that treats the document as sufficient to complete the action and free the wife for whatever follows.

The Direct Counter-Statement5:32

The sentence opens with the adversative that marks the direct counter-statement. Where the prior wording had presented release of a wife as a completed legal act once the certificate is supplied, this statement reframes the same action as one that places the wife in the position of committing adultery. The exception clause stands immediately after the verb, qualifying the claim before any consequence is stated and leaving the precise scope of “a matter of sexual sin” open within the wording itself. This placement shifts attention from procedural compliance to the relational consequence that follows the husband’s decision. The text assigns responsibility to the one who initiates the divorce, stating that he makes her commit adultery, thereby treating the release as the step that exposes her to further violation of the marriage bond. The second clause extends the same logic to any man who marries the woman who has been released, naming him also as one who commits adultery. The structure therefore moves the discussion from the formal document to the deeper entanglement created by the act, consistent with the preceding warning against lust that already treats the heart’s movement as decisive for adultery. The wording does not resolve whether the exception identifies the sole ground for permissible release or the sole case in which the wife is not placed in the position of adultery.

The Single Exception5:32

The exception clause interrupts the sentence immediately after the verb that names the husband’s action. By placing “except for a matter of sexual sin” directly after “everyone who divorces his wife,” the wording qualifies the claim before the consequence is even stated. This keeps the qualification brief yet decisive, so that the following assertion—that the divorce “makes her commit adultery”—applies only when the clause does not hold. The same sentence then extends the consequence outward: “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."” In this way the text traces a chain of responsibility that begins with the one who initiates the release. Because the clause stands alone in the sequence of antitheses and receives no further definition here, the wording leaves its precise scope open. It may mark the sole ground on which a husband can release his wife without incurring the stated result, or it may describe the single situation in which the wife herself is not placed in the position of adultery. Either reading keeps the weight on the husband’s decision rather than on the legal document mentioned in the preceding verse.

Effect on the Divorced Wife5:32

The sentence in 5:32 places the decisive weight on the husband’s action of releasing his wife. By declaring that such a man makes her commit adultery, the wording treats the divorce itself as the step that exposes the woman to the charge, irrespective of whether she seeks another marriage. The exception for a matter of sexual sin stands immediately after the verb of divorcing, so that the qualification modifies the initiating act rather than the resulting guilt. This placement keeps the focus on the husband’s responsibility while leaving open whether the clause removes the charge of adultery from the wife or simply permits the divorce without that consequence. The second clause then extends the chain: any man who marries the woman now stands under the same accusation. In this way the teaching traces a sequence in which one legal step generates further violations of the marriage bond, shifting attention from the certificate that once sufficed to the deeper entanglement created by the release. The structure therefore moves from the single permitted action quoted in the preceding verse to a double consequence that the husband cannot limit to himself. Where the received rule presented the certificate as sufficient to dissolve the bond cleanly, this statement shows the bond persisting in its effects. The wife is placed in the position of adultery not because she has acted but because the divorce has severed the protection the marriage once supplied.

Effect on the Subsequent Marriage5:32

The final clause of the saying shifts attention from the husband who releases his wife to whoever marries a divorced woman. By appending this consequence directly to the claim that the first husband makes her commit adultery, the sentence presents the new marriage as the point at which the violation becomes visible to a second party. The wording applies the same term to both the woman and the man who takes her, without inserting any further condition or exception at this stage. This structure extends the reach of the original act: the certificate mentioned in the preceding verse may satisfy the earlier legal requirement, yet it does not prevent the charge from landing on the one who enters the marriage that follows. The exception for a matter of sexual sin remains attached only to the divorcing verb, leaving the text itself silent on whether that qualification changes the status of the second union. In this way the movement closes the unit by showing how one decision continues to shape the moral position of others who were not part of the initial release.

Notes accompany the Anselm Project Bible, an AI translation from the original languages. Tap any verse above for the committee's word-level decisions.

Tap a verse