- ###This is part of a series of illustrations on interpreting the law[1]
We need to know how to interpret the entire series of illustrations in Matthew 5:17-48, before we can be confident we are understanding the specifics of verse 32. The illustrations are part of Jesus' explanation of how to interpret the law, and that he has come not to abolish the law but to destroy the evil and false (legalistic, outward) method of interpretation practiced and preached by the scribes and Pharisees:
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[...] You have heard that it was said [...] (murder v anger)
[...] You have heard that it was said [...] (adultery v lust)
[...] It was also said [...] (divorce)
[...] Again you have heard that it was said [...] (oaths)
[...] You have heard that it was said [...] (an eye for an eye)
[...] You have heard that it was said [...] (hate/love your enemy)
48You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5, ESV
- ###The illustrations teach us how to interpret any law
In this context, each of these illustrations is not so much a specific instruction or command concerning murder, adultery or divorce but part of a picture of an interpretive framework - giving us the template for interpreting any law.
Understanding and accepting this framework is the aim of these illustrations. It would be ironic and deeply misguided to take Jesus words here as merely a new or more strict set of outward observances.
- ###All law is to be applied to the heart, not merely outwardly observed
The interpretive framework Jesus gives is that obedience at the level of the heart is the true calling of all law: the principles of legalism and exceptions/loopholes cannot apply in this framework. There could not be a greater contrast with the scribes and Pharisees, who are blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel as they interpret.
Therefore the commandment about marriage is a call to a faithful heart, not a question of outward obedience. In essence the technical/legal question of divorce is not in view at all: it is possible to be legally divorced and obedient, and legally married (and not adulterous) and yet disobedient.
- ###The husband bears primary responsibility
In the context of a patriarchal society and religion, whether the woman commits or is the victim of adultery, the man who divorces her bears responsibility[2]: any call to obedience must be first be followed by the man who has greater power and responsibility in the marriage.
It is unlikely that the woman is being singled out for condemnation or exoneration in this context, and the broader application of the specific command would apply to her in a secondary sense. A contemporary application would need to take account of the culture of the day, for example whether a woman has the legal right to divorce her husband.
- ###Conclusion: a woman can please God and obey this command by having a deep heart-felt respect and awe for the holy union between husband and wife.
This is 'perfection' in the sense of verse 48, not perfect outward obedience, but genuine, inner love and respect for the will of God. Therefore it does not depend on the physical act of divorce; however it may well be evidenced in a patient and persistent hope of reconciliation after divorce rather than a quest for speedy remarriage.
1 I've previously argued this at greater length on the "What does it mean for Jesus to fulfill the law?" question here
2 cf the punishment meted out to Adam despite his attempt to blame Eve (and God) for their transgression