Did Jesus Side with Hillel or Shammai on Divorce in Matthew 19?

Or Did Jesus bypass this intramural debate entirely?

Interpreters sometimes claim that Jesus entered an intramural debate between Rabbis Hillel and Shammai on the question of divorce in Matthew 19:3–12 (e.g., France, Matthew, 718, 721).

In this passage, the Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Matt 19:4). The form of their question cites Deuteronomy 24:1 where Moses permitted divorce for a matter of indecency (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר). Since the Mishnah records a debate Hillel and Shammai on Deuteronomy 24:1 and since they were contemporaries with Jesus,[1] interpreters reasonably assume that Jesus takes a position in this debate by siding with Shammai on the question of divorce.

Shammai posited that divorce was permissible due to a matter of indecency which he identified as adultery while Hillel argued that a husband may divorce his wife for any matter. Since Jesus says that one may not divorce except for adultery in Matthew 19:9—"whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery”—then it follows, it is claimed, that Jesus sides with Shammai.

The major source that gives us insight into this debate is the Mishnah, which indeed shows that Shammai and Hillel disagreed over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1:

A The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity,

B “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Dt. 24:[sic]).”

C And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish,

D “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything. E R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she,

F “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Dt. 24:1).” (m. Giṭ. 9:10)

While these debates certainly occurred around Jesus’s life and ministry, we should probably be cautious in positioning Jesus as taking one side or the other for the following reasons.

First, the question itself of whether Moses permitted divorce is strange, since both Hillel and Shammai allowed for divorce; and divorce was common among both Romans and Jews at this time. The Pharisees seem to be asking Jesus a point-blank question on whether he taught that divorce was ever allowed. Everyone already agreed it was. Perhaps Jesus had a reputation for a strict view of marriage and divorce, and so the Pharisees asked this broader question. But the point is: the form of the question does not match the (then) current debates between houses Shammai and Hillel.

Second, Jesus uses different wording than Shammai does, and he appears to have a stricter view of remarriage. D.A. Carson comments, “Jesus, though not forbidding all divorce and remarriage, has come close to the school of Shammai on the grounds for exceptions, while taking a far more conservative stance than Shammai on who may remarry” (Matthew, 419).

Carson may not go far enough in pointing out the contrasts. Shammai allowed for remarriage in many cases, while Jesus does not clearly say anything positive about remarriage after divorce although many assume that Jesus implies that remarriage is valid after a valid divorce (so Craig Keener, And Marries Another; Carson, Matthew). Matthew 19:9 may also imply that remarriage is also possible when adultery occurs.[2]

The point, however, is that Jesus does not say that explicitly, and he instead emphasizes the permanence of marriage (Matt 19:6, 8).

Third, the text witnesses to Matthew 19:9 are somewhat complicated. Some manuscripts including Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and a significant family of manuscripts (f¹) add, “makes her commit adultery” when one remarries. This version of Matthew 19:9 would parallel Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 5:32: “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The textual variants do not stop here, and they should at least make us pause for a moment to reflect. Most early Christians did not allow for remarriage or at least had very strict guidelines for remarriage. And if Jesus had clearly allowed for remarriage after any divorce in Matthew 19:9, then that position might make less sense; but if the fathers used the version present in the original reading of Codex Vaticanus (and it seems clear that many did due to internal evidence), then it may be the case that Matthew 19:9 like 5:32 portrays a restrictive view of remarriage—one that neither Hillel nor Shammai would have shared.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Rabbi Shammai may have allowed divorce for reasons beyond adultery. As A. Andrew Das notes:

“Comparisons of Jesus’s teaching with Shammai’s overlook the fact that Amoraic period rabbis claimed that Shammai also allowed a man to divorce his wife for going outside with her hair unfastened, for spinning cloth in the streets with her armpits uncovered, and for bathing with men, all of which were, in effect, others areas of shame impurity of modesty (b. Giṭ. 90a–b; cf. m. Ketub. 7:6; m. Giṭ 9:10).” (Remarriage, 152)

While it is certainly possible that Jesus did take a side in these intramural Jewish debates, Matthew 19 does not explicitly point to Jesus taking one side or the other. For this reason, it seems better to cite the Hillel and Shammai debate as a religious and cultural context but not the exact debate that Jesus weighs in on in Matthew 19.

If we must say that Jesus enters into these debates, perhaps he did so by taking a third position, one closer to Shammai than Hillel, but not parallel to it. If so, he may have had a reputation for taking such a view, and this would explain why the Pharisees asked him whether divorce was allowed for any reason (Matt 19:3).

---

[1] Shammai died around the same time Christ was crucified. Hillel died much earlier, possibly around AD 10.

[2] Matthew 19:9 may also imply that both divorce and remarriage are permissible in a matter of adultery. Grammatically, this position may be possible, but it is not obvious. Further, the exception would mean that remarriage is only possible in cases of adultery. When that does not occur, remarriage in divorce would not be possible. This would make Jesus’s view of remarriage after divorce very specific in its application. The textual matters pointed out in the third argument presented above also complicate the picture.