DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE;
RECOVERING THE BIBLICAL VIEW
Slides
The following slides are not intended as a “slide show.” They are summary and detail
charts of key points in the books: Divorce and Remarriage; Recovering the Biblical
View (2nd Edition) and Divorce and Remarriage; Recovering the Biblical; Case by
Case (as yet unpublished). The slides are in the same basic order as the 2nd Edition,
but they are largely stand-alone exhibits. Occasionally there are a series of slides,
but there are also slides that are alternatives to each other, with the differences
amounting to a stress on different aspects of the same subject. Though the slides
are intended to summarize the books, there is new material within…new ways of
seeing and saying things that have come to me after publication of them. I trust that
these slides will help the reader better understand my positions. I am always ready
to learn from my peers. The slides herein are solely constructed by me. They are
word intensive and I know I have offended every basic rule of audiovisuals. But I like
to see the big picture if possible, and that often meant a crowded page. Blessings.
William F. Luck, Sr.
The Nature Of Marriage
Marriage is a covenant.
A covenant involves a moral bond and a legal bond.
The moral bond could be called the “joining” by God or becoming
“one flesh.”
The legal bond is called the marriage.
Covenants have terms…promises stated to each by the other.
If the terms are not kept, the moral bond is broken.
If the moral bond is broken the legal bond may be terminated.
The termination of the legal bond is divorce.
If the legal bond is broken, the parties are not married.
Subsequent marriages for either parties are not adulterous.
These statements are basic and subject to qualification discussed later.
The Purpose of Marriage
Marriage as given because “it [was] not good for man to be alone.” Thus God
made a “companion” for him who complemented him in his God-give tasks in
the Garden (Gen. 2:18). By implication he complements her as well.
The recognition of the man’s inadequacy to function well alone is in the
context of God’s appointing of the man to be the custodian and caretaker for
the Garden. By implication he was inadequate to fulfill God’s tasks without
her. This is indirectly confirmed by Paul, who acknowledges that, while it is
Ideal for a man to serve God without marriage (so that he may gross more
service for Him), it is still desirable that marriage take place if that will net
more quality service to God (1 Cor. 7:1-2, 8-9). Interruption of that physical
unity which threatens service to God and might encourage sexuality not
covered by covenant, are strictly limited (1 Cor. 7:3-5). Thus it may be said
that marriage was designed to enable the man and his wife to fulfill the tasks
that God has given mankind. Their union forms a team—a family (Gen. 2:24)
The sexual act is limited to the covenant of marriage. On the one hand it
facilitates the obedience of the command to be fruitful and multiply the race
(Gen. 1:28), that is not the only function of the act (Prov. 5:18). Sex as
pleasure is a part of the companionship described in Gen. 2:18).
“One-Flesh” in the Bible
Genesis 2:23-24 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his
wife; and they shall become one flesh.
“One Flesh” is a physical reuniting of the sundered halves of the Image into one team, intentionally created by the man
ending a commitment to his birth family and committing himself to the “help” he has selected to assist him in
accomplishing God’s tasks in the world.
Matthew 19:3-6 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for
any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning
MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER
AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one
flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.“
“One flesh” is the team that man chose to create. He gave up his choice to operate independent of his “help” when he
made that decision..
1 Corinthians 6:15-17 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members
of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins
himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH." But the one who
joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Physical uniting creates a working relationship and an implied commitment to the partner. A prostitute is an incompatible
partner for a believer, insofar as she has control of the relationship and that control belongs to God. She is like the
daughter of an unbeliever (Deut. 7:3). Physical uniting is intended to be related to “leaving” and “cleaving. In this case
that element is absent, and that makes it a sin.
Ephesians 5:28-31 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife
loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the
church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER
AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.
In taking a wife with whom he unites physically, a man commits himself to caring for her as he would his own body,
The Relation of “Cleave/Unite” and “Join” in the Bible
Regarding marriage in Genesis 2, “cleave” speaks of the intention of the groom to establish the
marriage relationship.
Gen. 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites
with his wife…
In Matthew (19:6), that choice is said to be validated by the “Father” of the bride.
Matt. 19:5 … ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become
one flesh’? 19:6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore
what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Cleave/united” is not so much an ontological fact as it is a moral commitment…a covenanting.
When the text says that God “joins” them, it is much like the father of the bride giving the bride into
the care of the groom. Whereas we often minimize the “giving of the bride,” as if the father has no
further obligation to his daughter. In Scripture the father had continuing obligation to oversee the
groom’s keeping of his obligations.
If the groom cast doubt upon the purity of the bride, the father came to her defense (Deut. 22) and if
the groom defaulted on his marriage vows, the father of the bride would hold the groom
accountable. In Exodus 21:11, it would be he who retained the “money” in favor of the bride. This
would include the retention of the bride price and a demand for the return of the dowry. Jesus is
informing the Pharisees that God intends to function as the protector of the bride regarding the
vows of her husband, which are invalidated by an unjust divorce. Jesus warns them that the
husband should not break his vows by such separation. It is hard-hearted and will be judged by God.
The Marriage Metaphor and Salvation
Scripture uses marriage as a paradigm for understanding Salvation and the language of
salvation should be understood by comparison with the way language is used in
marriage.
Matthew 19:3-6 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who
created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON
A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO
SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let no man separate.“
What is interesting is that in Genesis, it is the man who joins or cleaves. In Matthew, Jesus speaks of this
human action of commitment as God joining them. Which is it? The answer is: both. What the human
determines by his free choice is authorized by God and thereby considered God’s action.
In salvation, man is said to be both elected and given by God. If we consider marriage as a metaphor for this
act, the age old controversy between unconditional election/irresistible grace & free will resolves itself.
1. When the groom woos a woman and she refuses him, he does not speak of her as his “chosen one,” even
though he may have hoped she would accept him. It is only the one who does accept who is called the
chosen one. That bride does not speak of her choosing husband to be as being her chosen one. She
merely accepted. But this process does not imply that, as chosen, she had no ability to reject. Thus John
15:16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you,” dos not mean that the disciples had no ability to say no,
but simply that they were called by Christ and accepted.
2. When the bride comes to her husband she is “given” by her father to the groom. As in the case of Sara
and Abram, the potential bride has the ability to say no, but if she says yes, her father officially gives
her to the wooing man, thus authorizing her leaving her prior dependency and signifying the assumption of
a new relationship with the groom. So too, in salvation, when the text of John (6:37) says that “Everyone
whom the Father gives me will come to me,” that does not mean that man has no ability to reject Christ’s
invitation, but that like a bride’s father, He has validated the decision of the bride to accept the invitation of
the Groom, His Son.
Three Levels of Union
19:4 He answered, “Have
you not read that from the
beginning the Creator
made them male and
female,
The basis of the levels: One Creation
Gen. 1:27 & 2:4-25. Human nature is disexual and must be kept in association
to experience the fullness of that nature.
19:5 and said, ‘For this
reason a man will leave
his father and mother
and will be united with
his wife,
The level of the social/legal: One Family
and the two will become
one flesh’?19:6 So they
are no longer two, but one
flesh.
The level of the physical: One Flesh
Therefore what God has
joined together, let no one
separate.”
The level of the moral: One Joining
Deut. 7:3; Lev. 18:6-18; Ezra 9-10. Some
“marriages” are not joined or sanctioned
by God.
Matt. 1:18-19. A public commitment
which begins with the vows—
engagement in Bible times.
1 Cor. 6:16. Can exist with a prostitute
aside from the institution of marriage.
Only when all three are in place do you have a true marriage in the eyes of God.
Possibilities of Union
Physical Union
Illegal or Sanctioned by
Law
Social Union
Sanctioned by
Law
Moral Union
Sanctioned by God
X
X
X
Relationship
True Marriage
X
Fornication
X
Invalid Union. E.g.,
interfaith, incestuous, or
homosexual
Leviticus 18; Ezra 9-10
X
X
X
X
(X)
Never existed
Broken by
treachery
Sundered union. E.g., where
there has been infidelity but
physical relations still exist
Matthew 5 & 19 (by
implication—before the
divorce
X
Engagement in Biblical
times when vows were
spoken at the outset of the
engagement
Matthew 1:19
(X)
Impossibility—Joseph
Smith Jr’s “Celestial
Marriage”, taught to justify
his physical relations with
his followers’ wives
The Triple Bond of Sexual-Marriage-Relationships
Moral bond-Joined by God
God recognizes the socially witnessed (minimally: the groom and the father of the bride)
pledge of the partners to give to each other as His revelation dictates: Man: provision of food,
clothing and sex (Ex. 21:10-11). This also implies no physical abuse and his presence;
Woman: sexual monogamy (Lev. 18:20 and Deut. 22:22-27). This also implies no physical
abuse and her presence. Desertion is an implied statement that the partner no longer wishes
to be held to their marriage vows. The Scripture does not recognize “common law” marriage.
This bond is sundered by a sin against the Covenantal vows. If none occurs before a divorce,
then the divorce constitutes the sundering (Matt. 19:6)
Where the partners
are legitimate in the
eyes of God (see
Deut. 7:3 and Lev.
18:6-23)
Legal, but morality
dependant on validity
of the partners in
God’s eyes
Legal bond—Joined by Society
Recognition of vows by society
Involves God’s Joining
or
Not involving God’s joining
This bond is broken by divorce
(Deut. 24:1)
Physical bond—Joined by Sex
Covered by covenant
or
Not covered by covenant
This bond is broken by cessation
of the relationship
(1 Cor. 6:12-20)
Some cultures
recognize homosexual,
interfaith and
incestuous covenants
Fornication,
relationship must end
till covered by
covenant (Ex. 22:16)
Obligations in Marriage According to God’s Revealed Law
Husband’s:
Provisions to live: Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her
clothing, or her marital rights. 21:11 If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will
go out free, without paying money. This prohibits passive abuse.
Prohibition of active abuse: A Fortiori reasoning from :Ex. 21:10-11 If God would disallows passive
abuse, would He permit “active” or physical abuse? Also from: Ex. 21:26 If a man strikes the eye of his
male servant or his female servant so that he destroys it, he will let the servant go free as
compensation for the eye. 21:27 If he knocks out the tooth of his male servant or his female servant,
he will let the servant go free as compensation for the tooth. Also, by implication: in an age of HIV
and STD’s, and affair could be physically threatening.
Presence: Implied by Gen 2:24: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his
wife, and they become a new family. Intentional leaving the wife is incompatible with joining to become
“one flesh.”
Wife’s:
Monogamy: Lev. 18:20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to
become unclean with her. … 20:10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the
adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Prohibition of Active Abuse: A fortiori reasoning from Ex. 21:26-27.
If a servant can be freed from his contract for physical abuse would God insist that a husband remain
related to a woman who threatened physical abuse of her husband as master?
Presence: Implied by Gen 2:24: That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his
wife, and they become a new family. Intentional leaving the husband is incompatible with the wife’s part
in joining to become “one flesh.” Presence is reciprocal when it comes to the joining.
The Relationship of Passive to Active Abuse
Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he
must not diminish the first one’s food,
her clothing, or her marital rights. 21:11
If he does not provide her with these three
things, then she will go out free, without
paying money. Also Deut. 24:1
If it is justifiable to force a divorce
on the grounds of diminished
essentials. How much more is it
justifiable if the husband commits
aggressive, physical abuse?
Would God protect her from being
neglected but turn a blind Eye to
her being beaten? Would God
allow a hard-hearted husband to
divorce his wife so that she could
be provided for by another, but
refuse to protect her from a brute?
EVEN
MORE
SO
Active
physical
abuse
Ex. 21:26 If a man strikes the eye of his
male servant or his female servant so that he
destroys it, he will let the servant go free
as compensation for the eye. 21:27 If he
knocks out the tooth of his male servant or
his female servant, he will let the servant
go free as compensation for the tooth.
If a slave can be freed from a contract if
there is sustained physical abuse, how
much more so would a marriage partner
be justified in being freed from a brutish
husband? Does God care more for
slaves than He does for wives?
Divorce and Emotional Abuse from an OT Perspective
Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he must
not diminish the first one’s food, her
clothing, or her marital rights. 21:11 If he
does not provide her with these three
things, then she will go out free, without
paying money. Also Deut. 24:1
Extreme
Emotional
abuse
If it is justifiable to force a divorce on the grounds of diminished essentials. How much more is it justifiable if the
husband commits aggressive, emotional abuse? Would God protect her from being neglected but turn a blind Eye to
his destruction of her personhood? Would God allow a hard-hearted husband to divorce his wife simply because he
hates her (Deut. 24:1) but refuse to allow her to go free from a husband who is so hard-hearted that he knowingly
attempts to drive her to suicide? If God calls reducing a woman to a chattel an “abomination” (Deut. 24:4) would He
permit the stripping of her personality by denial of divorce to a man who is so hard-hearted? Would God be so
concerned with her reputation (Deut. 22:13ff) that He would enforce the man’s penalty to the point of requiring his
slavery, but bronze heaven if the man attempted to reduce her to a slave by his threats and abusive language? If
God reveals His anger against men who have unjustly divorced their wives (Mal. 2:14-16), would He ignore the
plight of the woman who endures calumnies that cannot be put on this slide for their viciousness? If God would slay
a man (Onan—Gen.38:9-10) for failing to provide his wife a chance at future security through childbearing
(described as not raising up a child in his dead brother’s name), do you think he would reject a woman seeking
freedom from a husband who was seeking to make her present a living hell? If the ox was not to be muzzled while
harvesting (Deut. 25:4), is a wife to be required to endure the ranting of a psychotic partner?
It is admitted that it is hard to determine the exact dividing line where endurable abuse becomes so extreme that it
justifies a wife’s freedom from the marriage. But to deny that such a line exists is to rob marriage of its Godprotected status. (Remember the logical “fallacy of the beard.) Those who reject such a line have either never
looked into the hollow eyes of the extremely emotionally abused, or have no heart of compassion. Men and women
are not made for marriage, but marriage is made for them. God gave marriage to enable the partners to work
together as a team to accomplish necessary things. When one of the partners acts so as to reduce their partner to
an object that is incapable of living any kind of a normal life, that partner has lost their right to a helpmate.
Two Ways A Man Defaults On His Marital Vow To Provide
“diminish” her provisions
within marriage
Exodus 21:10-11
‫גרע‬
End her provisions by
legally “putting away”
Malachi 2
‫שלח‬
These are two methods of unjustly diminishing
the provisions which a man must pledge to
supply his wife in marriage. In Exodus a man
who refused to provide in marriage was forced
to allow the woman to go out free without
repayment of the bride or price/dowry. In
Deuteronomy a man who put his wife away for
erwat dabar (whatever that means—it was
argued even in the days of Jesus) provided a
writ proving she was no long bound in
marriage to him. Malachi makes it clear that a
man who does so is guilty of a treachery that
God hates. Jesus identifies that treachery as
the sin of adultery. Paul makes the sin of
departing (chorizo) a marriage bond-freeing act
in respect to the deserted/divorced spouse. All
of these sins are the same genus, namely the
man’s treachery with regard to his marriage
vow to provide for his wife the basics she
needs to love.
Note also that Exodus reveals the root cause
of the majority of unjust actions against the
wife: finding another woman who the husband
prefers to his wife. Malachi shows that injustice
toward her (in seeking to displace her with
another woman) can involve the Law…a use of
Deuteronomy 24:1.
Does Exodus 21 Refer to “Divorce” as in Mark 10:12?
Exodus 21:11
If he does not provide her with these
three things, then she will go out
free, without paying money.
Mark 10:12
And if she divorces her husband
and marries another, she
commits adultery.”
The word “divorce” is not used in Exodus 21:11 and that may be helpful in seeing that what Jesus condemns in
Mark 10:12 is not related to what God required (and allowed) in the Law.
Exodus clearly speaks of the ending of the first marriage on the basis of (diminishing) neglect by the husband. The
Law required him to set her free. It was, in effect, a forced divorce. The husband did not willingly put her away.
Neither did the woman initiate putting him away.
The term “free” is used here and in verses 2 and 5. In those earlier verses the use is considered by some to be a
technical one used in other cultures to refer to a social class of former slaves who were emancipated and
subsequently freedmen. (see I. Mendelsohn, “New Light on the Hupsu,” BASOR 139 [1955]: 9-11). This seems a
good understanding of the situation in all instances here. The former master had no social/legal hold on the former
slave and the husband had no social/legal hold on the former wife. In the latter case it is the clear import of the
passage. The husband wanted a continuing obligation of the woman to him (perhaps so that he might retain the
bride price/dowry), but the Law ended that right.
As the freedman had the right to sell himself into slavery again, so the former wife had a right to marry another,
though the text does not mention a remarriage per se. Indeed, since the purpose of freeing her was so that she
would not be hampered by the diminishing of her husband, it is logical to assume that she is free to find the support
he denied her. Why else free her?
Given Jesus’ insistence that He had not come to annul the Law (Matt. 5:17), we cannot interpret Mark 1012 as
referring to the forced ending of an abusive marriage (Ex. 21). And given the direction of the regulation in Ex. 21, it
is not likely that Jesus is excluding remarriage of a woman freed from an abusive relationship. Instead, Jesus (in
Mark 10) is most likely condemning a woman who like a hard-hearted man (Matt. 19:8), divorces her guiltless
partner in order to free herself for a new relationship thought to be more desirable. Though this did not happen often
in Jewish society in Jesus’ day, it did happen in the case of Herodias an Herod Philip…with the view of her
remarriage to Herod Antipas.
What does “Go Out Free” mean?
Ex. 21:2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve
you for six years, but in the seventh year he will go out
free without paying anything.
21:3 If he came in by himself he will go out by himself; if
he had a wife when he came in, then his wife will go out
with him. 21:4 If his master gave him a wife, and she
bore sons or daughters, the wife and the children will
belong to her master, and he will go out by himself.
21:5 But if the servant should declare, ‘I love my
master, my wife, and my children; I will not go
out free,’ 21:6 then his master must bring him to the
judges, and he will bring him to the door or the
doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an
awl, and he shall serve him forever.
21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female
servant, she will not go out as the male servants
do. 21:8 If she does not please her master, who has
designated her for himself, then he must let her be
redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign
nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. 21:9 If
he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her
according to the customary rights of daughters.
21:10 If he takes another wife, he must not diminish
the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital
rights. 21:11 If he does not provide her with these three
things, then she will go out free, without paying
money.
Going out free means: no financial obligation,
to continue working for the Master.
Not being able to go out means that they
still belong to the Master
Not choosing to go out free means that he
still belongs to the Master.
To be redeemed means that she has
freedom from relationship to the master
(compare to Deut. 21:14, where the POW
woman, designated for a wife is allowed
to go “where she pleases.”
The rejected wife goes out free like the male
servant (v. 2). Just as he has a right to
contract with a new master, so does this
woman with a husband/master. (see Gen.
18:20 where Sara calls Abraham her Master.
This is also cited in 1 Peter 3:6 to speak of a
woman’s relationship to her husband.
To “go out free” means to cease to have any remaining obligation of relationship. And for the woman, that
obligation was to remain monogamous to her husband. Freed from that, she is free to remarry.
The Ethics of People-as-Property in the Old Testament Law
and its Relationship to Divorce
The Statute: You shall not steal (Ex. 20:15 & Deut 5:19)
Principle: God has given individuals the right to hold property—respect it.
The Stipulations: People are included in what a person may own. (Deut. 23:15-24:7)
Principle: Though property, people are not to be treated as chattel property. They must be
treated with due respect.
Stipulation: 1) A man may not abuse his wife (actively or passively in marriage (Ex. 21:1011); 2) if he hates his wife, divorces her by writ, and allows her to be claimed
in marriage by someone else, she may not return to him. (Deut. 24:1-4)
Principle: A woman may not be passed between men and thereby reduced to a chattel.
Application: If a man hates his wife (wants to put her away), she is protected by 1) the
allowance of the divorce, 2) the evidence (by writ) of freedom to remarry, 3)
the permission to remarry, and 4) the prohibition of being hurt again by a
return to the hard-hearted man who initially divorced her. (Deut. 24:1-4)
Interpretation: If a man divorces his wife without her having broken the covenant, he
causes her to be adulterized (actual adultery against her and
stigmatization of her as an adulteress). (Matthew 5:32a)
Principle: A woman should not be thrown away and stigmatized as if junk chattel.
The Ethics of Sexual Infidelity: Breach & Penalty
The Statute: You shall not Commit Adultery. (Ex. 20:15 & Deut 5:19)
The principle: Covenants are sacred, promises should be kept.
The Ordinances: Do not have sex with a woman pledged to another man.
The principle: violation of a woman’s exclusiveness is breach of covenant.
Specific ordinance: You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's
wife. (Lev. 18:20; Deut 22:22)
The principle: A married woman’s exclusiveness must be respected.
Penalty: if a woman’s exclusiveness is not respected, those who do
not respect it (male and/or female) are to be executed. (Lev.
20:10)
Penalty: If execution is not an available option, divorce replaces it. (Ezra
9-10)
OT Prohibitions Regarding Marrying Divorced Women
Lev. 21:1 The Lord said
to Moses: “Say to the
priests, … 21:7 They
must not take a wife
defiled by prostitution, nor
are they to take a wife
divorced from her
husband, for the priest is
holy to his God.
Lev. 21:10 “‘The high priest
… 21:14 He must not
marry a widow, a divorced
woman, or one profaned by
prostitution; he may only
take a virgin from his
people as a wife.
Ez. 44:15 “‘But the Levitical
priests… 44:22 They must
not marry a widow or a
divorcee, but they may
marry a virgin from the
house of Israel or a widow
who is a priest’s widow.
The priests of the Old Order were “pictures of purity”…the purity of our High Priest, Jesus.
On of the ways their ceremonial purity was “kept” was by marriage restrictions. Prostitutes
had been “passed around.” Divorcees had been passed out. Widows had belonged to
someone else who had passed on (in a different sense). The exception was if a widow had
belonged to a priest, presumably because the priest was himself considered ceremonially
pure. In any case the issue here is ritual purity, not moral purity. There was nothing morally
impure about a widow, and presumably nothing impure about a divorced woman, since she
would have been executed had she been morally impure during her marriage. And, after
her marriage, she could not have been considered morally impure unless her sexual
experience was uncovenanted, i.e., fornication, as with the prostitute..
Priestly Entitlement
and Its Implications for a Priest’s Divorced Daughter
Lev. 22:12 If a priest’s daughter marries a lay person, she may not eat
the holy contribution offerings, 22:13 but if a priest’s daughter is a
widow or divorced, and she has no children so that she returns to live in
her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat from her father’s food,
but no lay person may eat it.
Offerings were restricted to the families of priests. Since they did not do
manual work like lay people, they depended on the priest’s portion of offerings
(cf. Lev. 7). If a priests daughter married outside of the priestly tribe, she was
considered no longer entitled to priestly portions, as her husband, a lay
person, should be providing for her. This exclusion, however, ended if the
daughter was a childless widow or divorced. Childless is important, since a
widow with children would be considered to have a lay family, wherein the
children (supposing them to be of an age that could support her) should
support her. The relevance to our study is that the divorced daughter is
considered no longer related to the husband who cast her away on the ground
of erwat dabar (as it would be put in Deut. 24:1). This fact is incompatible
with the position that, in spite of a divorce, the marriage (or the “one
flesh” relationship) continues to exist.
The Law of Vows for Divorced Women
Num. 30:6 And if she marries a husband while under a vow, or she uttered anything
impulsively by which she has pledged herself, 30:7 and her husband hears about it, but
remains silent about her when he hears about it, then her vows will stand and her obligations
which she has pledged for herself will stand. 30:8 But if when her husband hears it he
overrules her, then he will nullify the vow she has taken, and whatever she uttered impulsively
which she has pledged for herself. And the Lord will release her from it. 30:9 But every vow
of a widow or of a divorced woman which she has pledged for herself will remain intact.
30:9 But every vow of a widow or of a divorced woman which she has pledged for
herself will remain intact. 30:10 If she made the vow in her husband’s house or put herself
under obligation with an oath, 30:11 and her husband heard about it, but remained silent about
her, and did not overrule her, then all her vows will stand, and every obligation which she
pledged for herself will stand. 30:12 But if her husband clearly nullifies them when he hears
them, then whatever she says by way of vows or obligations will not stand. Her husband has
made them void, and the Lord will release her from them.
This collection of regulations shows that the divorced woman is in a different
category from married women. Vows made when she is under the authority
of a husband are treated one way and those made subsequent to her
divorce are treated another. Divorced women, then, are not under the
authority of their “ex” and this means that in God’s eyes, the relationship is
over. Once again, this is incompatible with the position that a divorce does
not end the moral and legal bond of the marriage covenant.
Restrictions on Taking Captive Women as Wives (Deut. 21:10-14)
Ex. 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female
servant, she will not go out as the male servants
do. 21:8 If she does not please her master, who has
designated her for himself, then he must let her be
redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign
nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her.
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman and she
does not please him because he has found
something offensive in her, then he may draw up a
divorce document, give it to her, and evict her from
his house. 24:2 When she has left him she may go
and become someone else’s wife.
Deut. 21:10 When you go out to do battle with your enemies and the Lord your God allows you
to prevail and you take prisoners, 21:11 if you should see among them an attractive woman
whom you wish to take as a wife, 21:12 you may bring her back to your house. She must shave
her head, trim her nails, 21:13 discard the clothing she was wearing when captured, and stay in
your house, lamenting for her father and mother for a full month. After that you may have sexual
relations with her and become her husband and she your wife. 21:14 If you are not pleased with
her, then you must let her go where she pleases. You cannot in any case sell her; you must not
take advantage of her, since you have already humiliated her.
Does the law of the POW woman more closely resemble Ex. 21 or Deut. 24:1? The former
seems more likely an annulment, while the latter is clearly a divorce. It would seem the former
is a closer parallel. In both cases 1) the woman is not a full wife—remember that foreign
women were not allowed to be full wives (Deut. 7). 2) In both the prohibition excludes selling.
The differences are: 1) the servant girl of Exodus has a father to whom a bride price was paid.
In the case of the POW woman there is no protector.2) the first woman was lied to, while the
latter is said to be humbled. While “humbled” (`anah) can involve sexual relations, it
doesn’t always. The word basically means “afflicted.” The removal of the woman
from her country, the loss of her parents, and the disfiguring of her body would
seem to constitute humbling acts aside from the loss of virginity (if relevant).
Restrictions on Taking Captive Women as Wives (2)
Deut. 21:10 When you go out to do
battle with your enemies and
the Lord your God allows you to
prevail and you take
prisoners, 21:11 if you should see
among them an attractive woman
whom you wish to take as a
wife, 21:12 you may bring her back to
your house. She must shave her
head, trim her nails, 21:13 discard the
clothing she was wearing when
captured, and stay in your house,
lamenting for her father and mother
for a full month. After that you may
have sexual relations with her and
become her husband and she your
wife. 21:14 If you are not pleased with
her, then you must let her go where
she pleases. You cannot in any case
sell her; you must not take advantage
of her, since you have already
humiliated her.
The regulation goes into detail about the humiliating
“disfigurement” of the woman prior to her being able to be taken
as a concubine-wife. These actions seem designed to replace
the obvious inability of the woman to be spoken for by her father.
Her captor has no one to answer to…no bride price to pay. He
may simply take as if by rape. But rape was considered an
immoral act to the Israelites. This law, then functions as a
prohibition of simply “taking” a woman and using her as the
moment suggests. It slows down the process in several ways: 1)
the woman may not be taken on the spot, but must be brought
back home. 2) She is “disfigured,” and by this made less
desirable. 3) She is allowed a month to morn her parents—her
hair would not have grown back in that time. Her captor now has
had a chance to rethink his initial desire. He is then given two
options: 1) marry her or 2) let her go free.
This is not a case of a marriage and a quick divorce, but of a
change of mind, as in Exodus 21. Note that as in those earlier
regulations, the man does not want to let the woman go free,
but is required to do so. There is probably a profit motive. In7-8
he looses the services of the woman as a simple slave. In the
latter he loses his rights on the bride price. Deut. 21 is more like
Ex. 7-8, This text, like Ex. requires release and is perhaps then a
clarification of what must happen if there no one to redeem her.
As with Exodus the law precludes the man profiting from his loss
by selling her as a slave to others..
Restrictions on Taking Captive Women as Wives (3)
Deut. 21:10 When you go out to do
battle with your enemies and
the Lord your God allows you to
prevail and you take prisoners,
21:11 if you should see among
them an attractive woman whom you
wish to take as a wife, 21:12 you may
bring her back to your house.
Individual Israelites would not have had the
right to take and sell captives. His getting
her is dependent on the profession that he
will take her as a wife.
She must shave her head, trim her
nails, 21:13 discard the clothing she
was wearing when captured, and
stay in your house, lamenting for her
father and mother for a full month.
He is not permitted to make her his wife on
the spot, but must bring her back, her beauty
is required to be marred (temporarily) so as to
cool his ardor, and she is given a month to
mourn her lost parents.
After that you may have sexual
relations with her and become her
husband and she your wife.
21:14 If you are not pleased with her,
then you must let her go where she
pleases.
You cannot in any case sell her; you
must not take advantage of her, since
you have already humiliated her.
Two options exist at that time. In the first
instance the man decides to go through
with the marriage. In the second he
does not. (See Ex. 21:7-8).
If he takes option two, he may not profit
from reneging on his change of intent as
stated to his superiors.. He may not profit
by keeping her as his slave, or from selling
her to someone else.
The Relation Of Treachery (‫בגד‬-bagad ) To Adultery (‫נאף‬-na'aph )
And “Putting Away” (‫שלח‬-shalach) In The Old Testament
‫נאף‬
Adultery speaks to the
offense regarding the
covenant with a
marriage partner
Treachery speaks to
the personal betrayal
against the partner
Sexual—the
woman’s sin
MARITAL
TREACHERY
‫בגד‬
“Putting away”—
the man’s sin
‫שלח‬
The answer is yes. Malachi 2:14-16 the putting away of a wife without the
cause of adultery is called treachery, and it is the kind of divorce which
God says He hates. On this basis we must understand Jesus’ teaching in
Matthew 5 and 19 as teaching that the treachery of unjust divorce is
adultery without consideration of a potential remarriage by either party.
Does (Deception About) Premarital Impurity Justify Divorce
The key passage is Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
Deut. 22:13 Suppose a man marries a woman, has sexual relations with her, and then
rejects her, 22:14 accusing her of impropriety and defaming her reputation by saying, “I
married this woman but when I had sexual relations with her I discovered she was not a
virgin!”
22:15 Then the father and mother of the young woman must produce the evidence of
virginity for the elders of the city at the gate. 22:16 The young woman’s father must say
to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man and he has rejected her. 22:17 Moreover,
he has raised accusations of impropriety by saying, ‘I discovered your daughter was not
a virgin,’ but this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!” The cloth must then be
spread out before the city’s elders. 22:18 The elders of that city must then seize the man
and punish him. 22:19 They will fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to
the young woman’s father, for the man who made the accusation ruined the reputation of
an Israelite virgin. She will then become his wife and he may never divorce her as long
as he lives.
22:20 But if the accusation is true and the young woman was not a virgin, 22:21 the men
of her city must bring the young woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her
to death, for she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by behaving like a prostitute while
living in her father’s house. In this way you will purge evil from among you.
Verses 13-14 set the context. Verses 15-19 deal with an unjust charge, while 20-21
deals with a just charge.
Does (Deception About) Premarital Impurity Justify Divorce? (Cont’d)
The key passage is Deuteronomy 22:13-21. Here is the contextual structure:
13-21 Regulations related to a bride
13-19 False accusation of a pure bride
20-21 Truthful accusation against an impure bride
22-24 Regulations related to consensual sex with a pledged woman
22
adultery with a married woman
23-24 adultery with an engaged woman
25-29 Regulations related to rape of a woman
25-27 rape of an engaged woman
28-29 rape of a virgin
30
Regulation related to incest between son and stepmother
A parallelism exists between verses 13-21 and verse 30. Though dealing with quite different
cases, the offense stated in both cases is one against the father. This is significant, because
were the offense against the husband in the first instance, then it might be argued that the
impurity had to be committed during the betrothal period. Remember that impurity during that
time amounted to adultery, since the vows in ancient times were fixed at the outset of the
engagement period, not as in our times at a wedding ceremony.
Why this is important is because if it were not limited by the engagement period, then
perhaps all pre-marital impurity would be included. Two possible exceptions might be
suggested. Both are an issue here. 1) where virginity wasn’t an issue, and 2) where the
woman was not living in her father’s house, but was an independent adult. In Israel most
unmarried women remained in the confines of their nuclear or extended families.
Does (Deception About) Premarital Impurity Justify Divorce? (Cont’d)
Deut. 22:13 Suppose a man marries a woman, has sexual relations with her, and then
rejects her, 22:14 accusing her of impropriety and defaming her reputation by saying, “I
married this woman but when I had sexual relations with her I discovered she was not a
virgin!”
22:15 Then the father and mother of the young woman must produce the evidence of
virginity for the elders of the city at the gate. 22:16 The young woman’s father must say
to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man and he has rejected her. 22:17 Moreover,
he has raised accusations of impropriety by saying, ‘I discovered your daughter was not
a virgin,’ but this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!” The cloth must then be
spread out before the city’s elders. 22:18 The elders of that city must then seize the man
and punish him. 22:19 They will fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to
the young woman’s father, for the man who made the accusation ruined the
reputation of an Israelite virgin. She will then become his wife and he may never
divorce her as long as he lives.
22:20 But if the accusation is true and the young woman was not a virgin, 22:21 the
men of her city must bring the young woman to the door of her father’s house and stone
her to death, for she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by behaving like a prostitute
while living in her father’s house. In this way you will purge evil from among you.
The occasion is a charge of
premarital impurity. It is not
claimed that it happened
during the engagement
period.
The stated basis of judgment
is an offense against the girl’s
father by the girl.
Since the guilty girl is executed, there is no reason for the Law to speak of divorce. However, once capital
punishment was abandoned, divorce would have become the substitute (cf. Joseph in re Mary in Matthew 1). It
is the logical disciplinary action given the contrasting penalty of “no divorce” if the charge were not true. It is
undoubtedly true that the deceived husband would not have been required to remain with her.
In this instance there is no moral way the man could have known of a deception regarding virginity until the
consummation of the marriage. It would seem than, that her deception would be a grounds for divorce. We
might call this an annulment in our times. The fact that she may not have been living in her father’s house
would not seem to be an exception, insofar as the primary occasion was her virginity, rather than her the
offense against her father. Undetermined is whether or not it would make a difference if she were known not to
be a virgin (e.g., a divorcee or widow) and yet deceived the man about subsequent relations prior to theirs.
Did the Mosaic Law Ever Prohibit Divorce?
Yes
Deut. 22:17 Moreover, he has raised accusations of impropriety by saying, ‘I discovered your daughter
was not a virgin,’ but this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!” The cloth must then be spread
out before the city’s elders. 22:18 The elders of that city must then seize the man and
punish him. 22:19 They will fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s
father, for the man who made the accusation ruined the reputation of an Israelite virgin. She will then
become his wife and he may never divorce her as long as he lives. This is character assignation.
Deut. 22:28 Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her
and they are discovered. 22:29 The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and
she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives.
This is a case of rape.
Why?
The regulations stated here relate to difficulties a woman faced in ancient society. There was,
then, a greater interest in women being pure virgins when they were married. In the first case the
wrongful accusation of the husband would still lead to the stigmatization of the woman. He
violated her reputation. In the second case the action of the man violates her personal purity—
costs her her virginity. Such women might have had a hard time contracting a new marriage
under the circumstances. In both cases a hefty fine is assessed against the man. If a months
wage is = to a shekel, then the first husband must pay 100 months wages, while the second 50.
Few men could bear that financial burden without having to sell themselves into slavery. There
would also be a stigma attached to him as a man who attacked the reputation of an innocent
woman. The prohibition of divorce protects the woman from summary abandonment. She might
still be freed if he abuses her (as with Ex. 21:10-11), but he cannot initiate the legal action. It is to
be remembered also that in ancient Israel, people knew each other so we are not talking about
stranger or serial rapists in the second case. These laws had a deterrent effect
The Overall Context Of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Stipulations Related to “You Shall Not Steal”
23:15-16
A runaway foreign slave must not be returned [as if property]
23:17
A Hebrew child must not be a cult prostitute [passed back and forth as if
chattel property]
23:18
Tainted chattel property must not be promised to God
23:19-20
Loans at interest must not be taken from Hebrews [else they be reduced
to chattel property], but may be taken from foreigners [who are presumed
to be able to afford the risk]
23:21-23
Property need not be promised to God, but if it is, it must not be
withheld
23:24-25
Ownership of chattel property does not eliminate the responsibility to use
it for the neighbor’s welfare, but required charity does not justify theft.
24:1-4
Wives who are divorced on grounds of ceremonial impurity may not
be taken back after legally belonging to another husband [she is not
a chattel to be passed back and forth]
24:5
Citizens who are bridegrooms may not be conscripted for the first year.
[He is not a chattel.]
24:6
Critical chattel property may not be taken as collateral for a loan
24:7
It is a capital offense to reduce a person to a chattel by stealing and
selling him
The Prior Context Of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Stipulations Related to the Eighth Commandment
23:15 You must not return an escaped slave to his
master when he has run away to you. 23:16 Indeed,
he may live among you in any place he chooses, in
whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not
oppress him.
23:17 There must never be a sacred prostitute among
the young women of Israel nor a sacred male
prostitute among the young men of Israel.
23:18 You must never bring the pay of a female
prostitute or the wage of a male prostitute into the
temple of the Lord your God in fulfillment of any vow,
for both of these are abhorrent to the Lord your God.
23:19 You must not charge interest on a loan to your
fellow Israelite, whether on money, food, or anything
else that has been loaned with interest. 23:20 You
may lend with interest to a foreigner, but not to your
fellow Israelite; if you keep this command the Lord
your God will bless you in all you undertake in the
land you are about to enter to possess.
23:21 When you make a vow to the Lord your God
you must not delay in fulfilling it, for otherwise he will
surely hold you accountable as a sinner. 23:22 If you
refrain from making a vow, it will not be sinful. 23:23
Whatever you vow, you must be careful to do what
you have promised, such as what you have vowed to
the Lord your God as a freewill offering.
23:24 When you enter the vineyard of your neighbor
you may eat as many grapes as you please, but you
must not take away any in a container. 23:25 When
you go into the ripe grain fields of your neighbor you
may pluck off the kernels with your hand, but you
must not use a sickle on your neighbor’s ripe grain.
Runaway slaves, because they have been reduced
to a chattel, are not to be passed back to their
owners. That would be to extend the abusive.
Children are not to be passed back and forth
(consecrated) for sexual services, esp. in re pagan
worship
God doesn’t want the tainted property of someone who
has been passed back and forth..
The rich must not charge interest to a [poor] Hebrew,
that would extend their poverty. It can be charged a
foreigner, whom it is presumed is not poor but
“investing.”
Vows to give one’s property to God need not be
made, but when made must not be withheld, or God
will hold the person responsible as a sinner.
A man must not withhold his property from a needy
neighbor. And the neighbor must not take an undue
amount of the property of another. That might reduce
him to poverty.
The Latter Context Of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Stipulations Related to the Eighth Commandment
24:1 If a man marries a woman and she
does not please him because he has
found something offensive in her, then
he may draw up a divorce document,
give it to her, and evict her from his
house. 24:2 When she has left him she
may go and become someone else’s
wife. 24:3 If the second husband rejects
her and then divorces her, gives her the
papers, and evicts her from his house,
or if the second husband who married
her dies, 24:4 her first husband who
divorced her is not permitted to remarry
her after she has become ritually
impure, for that is offensive to the Lord.
You must not bring guilt on the land
which the Lord your God is giving you as
an inheritance.
24:5 When a man is newly married, he
need not go into the army nor be
obligated in any way; he must be free to
stay at home for a full year and bring joy
to the wife he has married.
24:6 One must not take either lower or
upper millstones as security on a loan,
for that is like taking a life itself as
security.
24:7 If a man is found kidnapping a
person from among his fellow Israelites,
and regards him as mere property and
sells him, that kidnapper must die. In
this way you will purge evil from among
you.
If a man chooses to send away his freely chosen wife—withhold
from her crucial chattel with which her life is sustained—for some
ceremonial “offense” (which might reduce her to poverty), . he must
attest to her freedom from him with a certificate of divorce. This
allows for her to be provided for by another. [This is abusive
treatment.] If her husband despises her enough to permit her to be
legally chosen and used by another man, she becomes “off limits”
to her first husband. If he were to take her back (but not before her
second marriage) it would be the same as reducing her to the level
of a piece of chattel property, passed forth and back between men.
It extends her abuse. This would anger God. The text does not
identify what kind of a sinner the man is who mistreats his wife
these ways. [That will be done by Malachi (2) and Jesus
(Gospels).]
The army has a right to a citizen’s service, but must not take the
bridegroom out of his home during the first year, when he should be
enabling his wife to become pregnant with a child through which
she would inherit his property, were he to die in battle.
A man has a right to collateral for his loan, but must not be abusive
by taking the man’s basis for sustaining himself.
A citizen should not be stolen from his environment as if he were a
mere piece of property, to be bought and sold at will. Such is a
capital crime.
The Meaning Of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman and she does not please him because he has found something
offensive in her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to her, and evict her from his
house. 24:2 When she has left him she may go and become someone else’s wife. 24:3 If the second
husband rejects her and then divorces her, gives her the papers, and evicts her from his house, or if
the second husband who married her dies, 24:4 her first husband who divorced her is not permitted
to remarry her after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to the Lord. You must not
bring guilt on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
There are several phrases here that have given rise to interpretive problems.
1) The major problem is caused by the Hebrew (erwat dabar), translated here as
“something offensive in her.” In Jesus’ day the liberal rabbinic school of Hillel
interpreted this as meaning virtually anything the husband wanted it to mean, while the
conservative school of Shammai thought it meant something very near to adultery.
Actual adultery isn’t the meaning, because that was punished by execution, and this
woman is allowed to remarry.
2) The second major problem is in interpreting the phrase “she has become ritually
impure” (NET). Other translations make that “after that she is defiled” (NASB) or “has
defiled herself.”
3) The rabbis believed that this regulation gave the man the right to end his
marriage—that erwat dabar stood for some legitimate ground for ending the marriage
The Meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Cont’d)
Problems #’s 1 & 3
Regarding problem #1, it has been noted that this word pair (erwat dabar) is found only once
elsewhere in the OT.—in the immediately preceding section.
Deut. 23:14 For the Lord your God walks about in the middle
of your camp to deliver you and defeat your enemies for you.
Therefore your camp should be holy, so that he does not see
anything indecent among you and turn away from you.
The referent to this warning are two regulations which relate to personal hygiene…male
nocturnal emissions and unsanitary toilet conditions in the camp.
Given that, it seems best to assume what her husband finds offensive about her relates
to hygiene, perhaps something related to her menstrual cycle which would have rendered
her ceremonial impure and have made any man who touched her impure as well until the
evening. But what man would be so hard-hearted as to divorce his wife for such a reason?
That seems to be exactly the understanding of Jesus, when he said:
Matt. 19:8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to
divorce your wives because of your hard hearts…”
We may assume then that Hillel’s school was probably close to the meaning of the
offense term, but not at all with the interpretation of Hillel or Shammai that the man was
morally upright if he took advantage of this permission’s ground (erwat dabar) so long as
he give his wife a writ. This answers issue #3. But, why does God permit this?
THE MEANING OF “ERWAT DABAR” IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1
Part One: The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The words individually:
“erwat”
‫עֶ ְרוָה‬
Literally: nudity, especially of the pudenda
Figuratively: disgrace; blemish, nakedness, shame; uncleanness
from
‫עָ ָרה‬
To be (cause or make) bare, hence
to empty, pour out, demolish, leave destitute, discover, empty,
make naked, pour (out), raise, spread self, uncover.
Prior use:
Gen.9:22-23
42:9
Ex.20:26
28:42
Lev. 18:6ff
20:11
Deut. 28:48
Nakedness of Noah
Nakedness of the land before the spies
Exposure (accidental) of the priest on steps of the altar
Clothing to cover nakedness
Nakedness of near kin (incest)
Nakedness of near kin (incest)
Exposure of the body due to poverty
THE MEANING OF “ERWAT DABAR” IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1
Part One: The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The words individually:
“dabar”
‫ָדבָ ר‬
Speech, word, thing
from
‫ָדבַ ר‬
Prior use:
To speak
This word is extremely common, used about 1400 times in the
Hebrew text. For a sample, I offer the closest uses:
Deut. 23:19
Defining property: any thing that is lent
Deut. 24:5
Speaking of a newly married man’s obligation: any thing
THE MEANING OF “ERWAT DABAR” IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1
Part One: The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The words combined:
“erwat dabar”
‫ָדבָ ר עֶ ְרוָה‬
Prior use:
The naked or exposed thing
This word set is extremely rare, being used only once before, i.e.,
Deut. 23:14:
Therefore your camp should be holy, so that he does not see anything
indecent among you and turn away from you.
But what was the referent (“therefore)?
THE MEANING OF “ERWAT DABAR” IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1
Part One: The Normal Meaning Of The Words
The referents to the words “erwat dabar” in Deut. 23
Deut. 23:9 When you go out as an army against your enemies, guard yourselves
against anything impure. 23:10 If there is someone among you who is impure
because of some nocturnal emission, he must leave the camp; he may not
reenter it immediately. 23:11 When evening arrives he must wash himself with water
and then at sunset he may reenter the camp.
23:12 You are to have a place outside the camp to serve as a latrine. 23:13 You
must have a spade among your other equipment and when you relieve
yourself outside you must dig a hole with the spade and then turn and cover your
excrement. 23:14 For the Lord your God walks about in the middle of your camp to
deliver you and defeat your enemies for you. Therefore your camp should be holy, so
that he does not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.
The words “anything indecent” relate to two specific things: 1) nocturnal
emissions and 2) excrement. Neither are voluntary actions, though not properly
“cleaning up” would be breaches of purity.
The implication of this is that it is offensive to God as well as to man to fail to be
properly hygienic. The Lord sees these ceremonial/hygienic “offenses” and
hereby reproves them. A willful disregard will bring about God’s displeasure.
THE MEANING OF “ERWAT DABAR” IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1
Part Two: The Meaning of the Words in Deut. 24:1
Given the general uses of the words and the prior use in Deut. 23:14. It becomes likely that “erwat
dabar” in Deut. 24:1 refers to the discovery of some ceremonial/hygienic matter.
The husband’s rejection of his wife is based upon a discovery of that impurity…in parallel with the two
matters cited in Deut. 23 that would include something like her menstrual flow or poor hygiene.
Since a woman would not be in conditions of a military camp, it may be presumed that the latter issue
would not be likely. Women walking along would not squat and relieve themselves like military men
would. The former issue, however would be more likely. Remember that a man who touches a
woman during her flow was considered impure until evening ( Lev. 15:19)…a passage which follows
one relating to male emissions.
The text says that he discovers or finds something offensive like that and as a result decides to
divorce her. Could he be like God who turns away? Probably not.. Deut. 23 is a warning. The
discovery of the impurity by God would cause an end to blessing if not cared for. But the husband of
Deut. 23 simply finds or encounters (Heb. Qal) the embarrassing thing and on that basis divorces her.
What man would divorce his wife simply because he finds something embarrassing like that? He
would have to be pretty hardhearted. And that is exactly what Jesus says God thinks of him (Matt.
19:8). God would hardly reject Israel if someone didn’t clean up his nocturnal emission or failed to
cover his feces, even if it did cause some estrangement of blessing.
In summary: “erwat dabar” is likely some embarrassing hygienic matter that the husband disovers
and uses as a grounds for putting her away (divorce).
How likely is such a discovery and reaction by a husband? Probably pretty rare. Why then make a
whole regulation to deal with it?
THE MEANING OF “ERWAT DABAR” IN DEUTERONOMY 24:1
Part Three: The Extended Implications of “Erwat Dabar”
Given the rarity of the situation found in the regulation, we are probably dealing with
a lesser to the great regulation. If something as unusual and trivial as the literal
meaning of erwat dabar is a basis for a permission to divorce, then more common
and significant things would be as well.
Rabbi Hillel thought as much. His liberal view seems to fit the implications of divorce
permitted on erwat dabar. Thus, anything from the trivial of burning the soup to
things tantamount to fornication would be included in the Mosaic permission.
However, it is to be remembered that this vast range of excuses for divorcing one’s
wife were indeed that…excuses, and not moral justification. In contrast with the two
passages (Deut. 22:13-19, and 28-29) which prohibit divorce (with no grounds
stated), this regulation has the effect of saying that the Law will not prohibit divorce
from happening (aside from those exceptions).
In today’s world, the implication of the OT teaching is that it is wrongheaded to
attempt to block divorce out of a misguided effort to preserve marriage. Any man
who is hardhearted enough to divorce his wife when she has not broken her
marriage vows (i.e., sexual unfaithfulness), a woman should not be shackled to him
in marriage. To do so would likely end up with her abuse, which would justify the
law’s ending the marriage in her protection (Ex. 21:10-11)
The Meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Cont’d)
Why did God Allow an Unjust Divorce?
The first thing to underscore is that God permitted it and not just Moses. There are no textual
problems, and the Holy Spirit didn’t take a coffee break in inspiration.
The next thing to notice is that the regulation is not spoken of by Jesus as a regulation which
was a “temporary fix.”
Matt. 19:8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce
your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the
beginning it was not this way.
When Jesus speaks here He says, “from the beginning all the way till now” it has not
been this way. “This way” does not refer to the Mosaic permission, but to the Pharisee’s
interpretation of that permission, namely, that a man had a right unilaterally to end his
marriage.
Since this is the case, the answer to our question seems to be that God is interested in
protecting the cast off woman. The text does not require her divorce, it permits her to be
released with proof that the man is no longer providing for her…that there is no legal
bond existing between them. This allows for her to seek a new man to provide for her
needs. If the “ex” allows for that—for her remarriage, he is not allowed to remarry her,
because that would be to treat her as if she were chattel property, and God will not put up
with that.
The Relation of Adultery (‫נאף‬-na'aph ) to Treachery (-‫בגד‬bagad )
in the Old Testament
‫נאף‬
Adultery
‫בגד‬
Treachery
All adultery is some kind of treachery. What kind is it? It’s a treachery which breaks the marriage
vows of a woman to the man to whom she is pledged. It is also action against God’s covenant. In
Jer. 3:8, the anti-Covenantal sins of the Northern Kingdom are said to be “adultery”, while those
of the Judah are called “treachery. The question arises, is there some kind of treachery which is
marital but not normally called adulterous? Yes. It is where a man willfully fails to provide for his
wife. Jesus will call that adultery (Matt. 5; Mark 10, Luke 16, and Matt. 19).
The Meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Cont’d)
Regarding problem #2, It should be noted that her “defilement” is caused by her
remarriage and only relates to remarrying her “ex.”
If it were only the former (caused), we might believe that her defilement was moral (i.e.,
adultery), but since the latter (relation to her “ex”) is also true, it seems best to say that
her remarriage places her off limits to her first husband.
I question translating erwat dabar as “ritually impure” as in the NET. It seems to be
something in between a moral stigma and a ceremonial problem.
As noted before, this permission seems designed to provide for her to be supported by
another husband. That concern was clearly on the mind of God when He instituted the
Levirate Law (Deut. 25:5-10). A man was to do his best to raise up a child to his
brother’s childless widow. If he refused, he and his house was cursed. The case of
Onan (Gen. 38:9-10) is an example of God’s wrath against a failure to take
responsibility for the widow.
Apparently rather than force her to stay with a man who wanted to cease providing for a
woman who had offended him by such a trivial problem, God simply permitted her to be
cast off, to be cared for by someone less hard-hearted, if possible. For her “ex” to allow
this and then decide to take her back again is considered demeaning to her and is
absolutely prohibited.
If this is the correct interpretation, then remarriage after a divorce is permitted. This
passage establishes that right for the woman. The man needed no such permission
because he could take a second wife anyway.
The Relationship Of Deuteronomy 24 To Exodus 21
Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he
must not diminish the first one’s food, her
clothing, or her marital rights. 21:11 If he
does not provide her with these three
things, then she will go out free,
without paying money
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman
and she does not please him because
he has found something offensive in
her, then he may draw up a divorce
document, give it to her, and evict
her from his house.
In Exodus the husband is required to divorce his wife in order to protect her from his passive abuse.
And if passive abuse is protected by forced divorce, it must be true that divorce for active abuse
would be permitted as well. Later in that passage a male or female servant is released from the obligations
of their covenant of servitude if sustained physical abuse occurs. Clearly a persons covenantal partner would
have the right to a divorce in order to be free of an abusive spouse. Instone-Brewer has pointed out that the
most important elements of a covenant (such as adultery) were often omitted from marriage contracts in
ancient times. Their relevance was considered an assumption—a “no brainer.”
In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the wife is permitted to be divorced. Though the text does not go into detail, the
“offense term” (erwat dabar) is used in the previous context to refer to inappropriate hygiene…clearly a trivial
reason to end a marriage. Jesus will later refer to such a divorcing male as “hard-hearted.” Thus it is
reasonable to conclude that this woman is allowed to be free from such a man in order to keep her from
the possibility of being actively or passively abused.
Exodus 21 required divorce to protect the wife. Deuteronomy 24 permits divorce to protect the wife. Is God
employing some “lesser of evils” approach to ethics? The answer is “no.” Paul seems to reject such in Rom.
3:8. In Exodus the marriage bond has already been broken before the required divorce. In Deuteronomy,
the divorcing man is not required to divorce. Does God permit evil? Actually, God permits every act of sin.
It would seem to me that since Exodus had already broached the issue of abusive treatment (cessation of the
marriage vows of a man) in marriage, that Deuteronomy completes the concern by allowing the freeing of the
woman from a man who seeks to end support by divorce. In this way it should have been understood that the
men who took advantage of Deut. 24 were hard-hearted (so Jesus). They were covenant breakers.
The Relationship Of Deuteronomy 24 To Jesus’ Teaching
Two Commands and a Permission
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman and she
does not please him because he has found
something offensive in her,
The explicit
permission:
Matt. 19:8 … “Moses
permitted you to divorce
your wives
then he may draw up a divorce document, give
it to her, and evict her from his house.
The implied
command:
Matt. 5:31 “It was said,
‘Whoever divorces his
wife must give her a legal
document.
24:2 When she has left him she may go and
become someone else’s wife. 24:3If the
second husband rejects her and then divorces
her, gives her the papers, and evicts her from
his house, or if the second husband who
married her dies, 24:4 her first husband who
divorced her is not permitted to remarry her
after she has become ritually impure, for that is
offensive to the Lord. You must not bring guilt
on the land which the Lord your God is giving
you as an inheritance.
But the
Pharisees’
question
was:
The explicit
command:
Mark 10:2 Then some Pharisees came, and to
test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife?” 10:3 He answered
them, “What did Moses command you?”
The answer to Jesus’
question should have
been: Nothing in re
grounds.
The Biblical Teaching on the Sin of “Diminishing”
1
Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he
must not diminish the first one’s
food, her clothing, or her marital
rights. 21:11 If he does not provide her
with these three things, then she will go
out free, without paying money.
The offense is in the
diminishing of his
provision to his (first) wife,
not the taking of a second.
That the diminishing is a
sin is clear from the fact
that it is penalized. But the
sin is not named.
6
2
The Divinely forced divorce to protect
the wife from the sin of diminishing
(arising from the desire to get a more
desirable wife) when initiated by the
sinning husband is permitted for the
wife’s protection, but not explicitly
identified as a sin of diminishing
though it is exactly that..
Jesus’ teaching is entirely out of
the OT and adds nothing new
except to use the term adultery
for the concept of unfaithfulness
and treachery in diminishing
rather than providing
Jesus renews the OT teaching that the
cause of unjust diminishing (divorce) is
the desire to get a more desirable wife.
Matt. 9:8 Jesus said to them, “Moses
permitted you to divorce your wives
because of your hard hearts, but from the
beginning it was not this way. 19:9 Now I
say to you that whoever divorces his wife,
except for immorality, and marries another
commits adultery.”
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman
and she does not please him because
he has found something offensive in
her, then he may draw up a divorce
document, give it to her, and evict
her from his house.
God now identifies unjust
divorce as unfaithfulness to
the marriage vows; the sin of
diminishing
3
Mal. 2:16 “I hate divorce,” says
the Lord God of Israel, “and the one
who is guilty of violence,” says
the Lord who rules over all. “Pay
attention to your conscience, and do
not be unfaithful.”
Jesus identifies “legal” diminishing
(divorce) as adultery
5
Luke 16:18 “Everyone who
divorces his wife and
marries someone else
commits adultery….”
4
Matt. 5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever
divorces his wife must give her a
legal document. 5:32 But I say to you
that everyone who divorces his wife,
except for immorality, makes her [to be
adulterized]…”
Prohibitions of Divorce in the Law
Deut. 22:13 Suppose a man marries
a woman, has sexual relations with
her, and then rejects her, 22:14
accusing her of impropriety and
defaming her reputation by saying, “I
married this woman but when I had
sexual relations with her I discovered
she was not a virgin!” 22:15 Then the
father and mother of the young
woman must produce the evidence of
virginity for the elders of the city at the
gate. 22:16 The young woman’s
father must say to the elders, “I gave
my daughter to this man and he has
rejected her. 22:17 Moreover, he has
raised accusations of impropriety by
saying, ‘I discovered your daughter
was not a virgin,’ but this is the
evidence of my daughter’s virginity!”
The cloth must then be spread out
before the city’s elders. 22:18 The
elders of that city must then seize the
man and punish him. 22:19 They will
fine him one hundred shekels of silver
and give them to the young woman’s
father, for the man who made the
accusation ruined the reputation of an
Israelite virgin. She will then become
his wife and he may never divorce her
as long as he lives.
Deut. 22:28 Suppose a man comes across a virgin who
is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they
are discovered. 22:29 The man who has raped her must
pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must
become his wife because he has violated her; he may
never divorce her as long as he lives.
These two laws prohibit the man’s initiating (non-disciplinary)
divorce (i.e., putting away on the basis of erwat dabar). 22:13-19
penalizes men who attempted to unjustly get out of marriage by
defaming his bride. 22: 28-29 deals with men who attempted to
use a woman without protecting her by a covenant. Both show a
gross failure at honorable commitment. The apparent goal of the
prohibition is both to protect the women wronged by their actions
and to inhibit other men from adopting similar patterns of
behavior.
They do not deal with instances of the wife’s adultery (initially
dealt with by execution (Lev. 20) and later by disciplinary-divorce
(Jer. 3). Neither do they deal with instances of where his active or
passive abuse would lead to the law’s initiating disciplinarydivorce in instances of the husband’s active or passive abuse
(Ex. 21). This might seem to encourage such abuse in order to
circumvent the restrictions and might seem likely in view of the
husband’s behavior stated in the restrictions, but in ancient
Hebrew society to be known as an abuser subsequent to his
abusive “start” to marriage (including its penalties) would create a
reputation for him that would be utterly devastating, and therefore
unlikely to be his recourse.
Disciplinary-Divorce in the Prophetic Message
capital punishment not being carried out for the sin of adultery
Moses
prescribes
execution for
adultery
1400
?
David
1000
Isaiah
prophesied
from about
745 to 701
Hosea
8th C
Hos.2:2 Plead earnestly with your mother
(for she is not my wife, and I am not her
husband), so that she might put an end to
her adulterous lifestyle, and turn away from
her sexually immoral behavior.
Is. 50:1 This is what the Lord says:
“Where is your mother’s divorce certificate
by which I divorced her?
Or to which of my creditors did I sell you?
Look, you were sold because of your sins;
because of your rebellious acts I divorced your
mother.
Assyrian
Captivity
of the
Northern
Kingdom
of Israel
740 & 722
Jeremiah
Ezra
prophesied divorce
beginning for Interabout 628 marriage
459
Babylonian
Captivity
of the
Southern
Kingdom
of Israel
586
capital
punishment
abolished by
the
Sanhedrin
ca 30 AD
Jesus
30 AD
Jer. 3:6 When Josiah was king of Judah, the Lord said to me,
“Jeremiah, you have no doubt seen what wayward Israel has
done. You have seen how she went up to every high hill and
under every green tree to give herself like a prostitute to
other gods. 3:7 Yet even after she had done all that, I thought
that she might come back to me. But she did not. Her sister,
unfaithful Judah, saw what she did. 3:8 She also saw that I
gave wayward Israel her divorce papers and sent her
away because of her adulterous worship of other gods.
Even after her unfaithful sister Judah had seen this, she
still was not afraid, and she too went and gave herself like a
prostitute to other gods.
What Kind Of Divorce Does God Hate In Malachi 2?
Often Malachi 2:15 is quoted as proof that God rejects all divorces.
Mal. 2:13 You also do this: You cover the altar of the Lord with tears as you weep
and groan, because he no longer pays any attention to the offering nor accepts it
favorably from you. 2:14 Yet you ask, “Why?” The Lord is testifying against you
on behalf of the wife you married when you were young, to whom you have
become unfaithful even though she is your companion and wife by law. 2:15
No one who has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does this. What did our
ancestor do when seeking a child from God? Be attentive, then, to your own
spirit, for one should not be disloyal to the wife he took in his youth. 2:16 “I
hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,”
says the Lord who rules over all. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be
unfaithful.”
This text is difficult to understand until you read all of it. It says that her husband was unfaithful. We may
read sexual infidelity unto that until you understand that the man was morally permitted to take a second
wife (e.g., Abraham, Moses, and David). Reading on we realize that the sin of these husbands was in
divorcing their wives. Why would they do so? The clue is in the context, especially where it refers to their
ancestor, Abraham, who was seeking godly seed (Isaac). He did not divorce his wife Sarah, when she
seemed unable to produce Isaac, while Hagar was productive.
The implication of this passage is that God hates groundless divorce. It is probably the case here that
these husbands had divorced their wives in order to marry women of the land. This would make their
situation very similar to that facing Jesus when He speaks of men divorcing their wives to marry another
woman, when the rejected wife had done nothing to merit being dismissed (i.e., no fornication). To Jesus,
divorcing innocent wives in order to marry someone else would be adultery, even though sexless (Matt. 19).
The fact that this passage completely ignores disciplinary divorce and speaks against treacherous divorce
sets a pace for the teachings of Jesus, Who will also speak against divorce as if He were condemning all
divorce, whereas in fact He was not condemning disciplinary divorce.
Three Old Testament Passages Which “Set” the Language Game of Jesus’
Condemnation of Divorce & Remarriage
Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife,
he must not diminish the first
one’s food, her clothing, or her
marital rights. 21:11 If he does not
provide her with these three
things, then she will go out free,
without paying money.
1. From Ex. 21 we find that the
diminishing of the promised
provisions of a wife, simply
because the man finds someone
he liked better (religious
commitment unspecified but
presumed Hebrew), is an offense
worthy of a forced divorce.
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a
woman and she does not please
him because he has found
something offensive in her, then
he may draw up a divorce
document, give it to her, and
evict her from his house.
2. From Deut. 24 we learn
that men, were using divorce
to get rid of wives they did
not want. Remarriage goals
not specified.
3. From Malachi we find that
men divorced their wives in
order to marry (pagan)
women, and that God hates
that.
Mark 10:11 So [Jesus] told them,
“Whoever divorces his wife and
marries another commits
adultery against her. 10:12 And if
she divorces her husband and
marries another, she commits
adultery.”
4. Jesus teaches that the unfaithfulness
of divorcing your spouse to marry
someone else is “adultery.”
Mal. 2:11 Judah has become
disloyal, ,,, has [married the
daughter of] a foreign god!
2:12 May the Lord cut off from
the community of Jacob every
last person who does this
2:13 You also do this: … The
Lord is testifying against you
on behalf of the wife you
married when you were
young, to whom you have
become unfaithful even
though she is your
companion and wife by law.
2:15 No one who has even a
small portion of the Spirit in
him does this. …Be attentive,
then, to your own spirit, for
one should not be disloyal to
the wife he took in his youth.
2:16 “I hate divorce,” says the
Lord God of Israel, “and the
one who is guilty of violence,”
says the Lord who rules over
all. “Pay attention to your
conscience, and do not be
unfaithful.”
Biblical Ethics and Attacks on a Wife’s Reputation
Moses: Husbands must not make false accusations against their wives
purity. If they do, they are penalized 100 shekels and may not
divorce them—(i.e., take advantage of the subsequent “Mosaic
concession.” (Deut. 22:13ff)
Moses: Husbands force their wives to stain their own reputations in
treacherous divorces, because the wife would have to
publically declare themselves “unclean”. Since the
meaning of that is unclear, it could be interpreted as a
moral stain by observers. (Deut. 24:4—so John Walton)
Jesus: Insofar as a man should only divorce his wife for her
infidelity, a treacherously divorcing husband stains his
wife’s reputation by implying her infidelity when, in fact,
it is he who has committed the treachery. (Matt.
5:32a—so R.C.H. Lenski)
Relation of Divorce to Righteousness/Adultery/Treachery in the
Old Testament
The man’s
failure to
provide or
physical abuse
is grounds for
her “going out
free”
Ex. 21
“Erwat dabar”
is ground for
man divorcing
his wife
Deut. 24:1-4
Law of Moses
A woman could be free of a marriage which
involved passive or active abuse.
The man who divorced for erwat dabar was not
called righteous and was prohibited from marrying
his “ex” if she had subsequently remarried. Her
remarriage “defiles” her, but she is not prohibited
from other remarriages.
Divorce was prohibited to men who defiled a virgin
or defamed an innocent wife.
A woman who had sexual relations with someone
other than her pledged man (husband or fiancé)
was to be executed along with the man who broke
the bond of their marriage. No divorce was
necessary. This end of marriage was righteous.
Divorce for
adultery is a “Erwat dabar”
righteous
is permitted
substitute
Deut. 24:1
Hosea 2
Divorce for Treacherous
interfaith
(groundless)
marriage is putting away is
righteous hated by God.
Ezra 9-10
Mal. 2
Prophets
Interfaith marriage was prohibited in the Law
(Deut. 7) and is now clarified as spiritual
treachery or adultery, suffering the same penalty
as physical, sexual adultery (in the context
where execution is no longer practiced).
Divorce based on erwat dabar is permitted but it
is not clear if it is morally right for the man to do
so, since it is logical possible that the permission
has some other function, such as provision for
the wife.
The divorce that God hates must be understood
as referring to ungrounded divorce else that
statement conflicts with previous revealed truth.
Permissible Adultery in Deut. 24?
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a
woman and she does not please
him because he has found
something offensive in her,
then he may draw up a divorce
document
Man’s
Woman’s
Deut. 24:4 her first husband
who divorced her is not
permitted to remarry her after
she has become ritually
impure, for that is offensive to
the Lord.
Would not adultery of some sort be permitted in Deuteronomy 24? If the man’s failure to provide by divorce is
adultery according to Jesus, then that sin would be legally permitted. Why not then also conclude that the
woman commits adultery when she remarries anyone? In either instance, would this not be a case of doing evil
that good should come—which Paul prohibits in Rom. 3:8?
Adulterers/adulteresses do not receive mercy in the Mosaic Law. Not all forms of adultery were treated in the
same way. Jesus points out that lust is a species of the genus adultery, but lust was never punished by
execution or divorce. The breaking up of a marriage (either one’s own or that of another through an unjust
divorce) were considered adultery by Jesus, but, like lust, were not executable. Jesus states that the divorcing
man in Deut. 24 is “hard-hearted” (Matt. 19) and committing adultery (Matt. 5 & 19, Luke16 and Mark10). He
states that marrying a woman who herself (unjustly) divorced was also an adulterer insofar as he contributed to
the break up of her marriage. But execution was limited to the sexual breach of an existing legal bond. The
permitted “defilement” of the woman in Deut 24 must be understood insofar as it is the basis for not remarrying
her first husband, not her hypothetical marriage to anyone else. Since non-married adulteresses could continue
in marriage with their spouses, the defilement which prohibits remarriage must not be in the same class as
sexual adultery.
The man’s “adultery” is permitted but he will still be held responsible to God for breach of his vows. Therefore
his evil is not permitted in the sense of legally forgiven. And if it is permitted it is for the purpose of her being able
to be provided for by another husband. It could hardly be argued that his sin is legally permitted in order for her
to commit another sin in order for her to be physically provided for by the man who commits the subsequent sin
with her. Better to see his sin as a kind of adultery and hers as some ritual defilement in re her ex.
Correction of the Thinking of Sinners in Matthew 5:21-42
Commandment
Six
Seven
Eight
Corrective Comment
5:21 You think you are innocent of the sin of murder if you have
not actually killed anyone, but I say you are guilty of breaking that
commandment if you are unjustly angry or verbally abusive.
5:27-28 You think you are innocent of the sin of adultery if you have
not actually slept with another man’s wife, but I say you are guilty of
breaking that commandment in your heart if you lust after her.
5:32a You think you are innocent of mistreating your wife as
personal property if you have a writ of divorcement, but I say that
you are guilty of covenant breaking against her..
5:32b You think you are innocent of stealing another man’s wife
by marrying her after getting her to divorce her husband, but I say
you are guilty of covenant breaking against her husband.
Nine
5:21 You think you are innocent of lying if you have not actually
sworn an oath by God’s name, but I say you are guilty of breaking
that commandment if you swear by God’s things [and don’t keep the
promise]
The Teaching of Jesus on Divorce
Matthew 5:32a & 19:9; Mark 10:11a, Luke 16:18a
A man who end his marriages (without any better grounds than the desire to devote
himself to another wife) is guilty of adultery against his first wife. He is using the law
to cease fulfilling his obligations to her.
Matthew 5:32a
A man who ends his marriage when she has not breached her marriage vows is
guilty of defaming her, since he should only divorce her if she is guilty of breach, and
the divorce give the presumption of her guilt.. He is using the law without regard for
her reputation—a serious offense in Israel.
Matthew 5:32b; Luke 16:18b
A man who marries a woman who has herself divorced her husband [in order to
marry the interloper] is guilty of adultery. He is using the law to get another man’s
wife.
Mark 10:11b
A woman who divorces her husband for the purpose of marrying someone else] is
guilty of adultery. She is using the law to end her obligations to her husband, in
order to have a relationship with another man..
THE STURCTURE OF JESUS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IN MATT. 5
5:21 “You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and
‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’
OT law
5:22 But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to
judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and
whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.
Interpretation
5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother
has something against you, 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and
be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.
Advice
5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
(Deut. 5:17)
(Lev. 19:17)
OT law
(Deut. 5:18)
5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already
committed adultery with her in his heart.
Interpretation
5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!
Advice
5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’
OT law
5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes
her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Interpretation
(Deut. 5:21)
(Deut. 24:1)
(Mal. 2:15)
THE STURCTURE OF JESUS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IN MATT. 5 (Cont’d)
5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not break
an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’
OT law
5:34 But I say to you, do not take oaths at all – not by heaven, because it is the
throne of God, 5:35 not by earth, because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem,
because it is the city of the great King. 5:36 Do not take an oath by your head,
because you are not able to make one hair white or black. 5:37 Let your word be
‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ More than this is from the evil one.
Interpretation
5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
OT law
5:39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right
cheek, turn the other to him as well. 5:40 And if someone wants to sue you and to
take your tunic, give him your coat also. 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one
mile, go with him two. 5:42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one
who wants to borrow from you.
5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’
5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, 5:45 so
that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil
and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 5:46 For if you love
those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same,
don’t they? 5:47 And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the
Gentiles do the same, don’t they? 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect.
*In 2 Kings 5:8 God cured the commander of the army of Syria, the enemy of Israel.
(Lev. 19:12)
(Deut. 10:20)
Advice
(Ex. 21:24)
Interpretation
(Prov. 15:1)
Advice
OT law
(Lev. 19:18
cf. Ps. 58:10)
Interpretation
(2 Kings 5*)
Advice
THE STURCTURE OF JESUS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IN MATT. 5 (Cont’d)
The Irrelevance Of The Portion Of The Law Not Cited By Jesus
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman and she does not
please him because he has found something offensive in
her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to
her, and evict her from his house. 24:2 When she has left
him she may go and become someone else’s wife. 24:3 If
the second husband rejects her and then divorces
her, gives her the papers, and evicts her from his house, or
if the second husband who married her dies, 24:4 her first
husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her
after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to
theLord. You must not bring guilt on the land which
the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Ex. 21:22 “If men fight and hit a
pregnant woman and her child is
born prematurely, but there is no
serious injury, he will surely be
punished in accordance with what
the woman’s husband demands of
him, and he will pay what the court
decides. 21:23 But if there is
serious injury, then you will give a
life for a life, 21:24 eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, 21:25burn for burn, wound
for wound, bruise for bruise.
Matt. 5:38 “You have
heard that it was
said, ‘An eye for an
eye and a tooth for
a tooth.’”
Matt. 5:31 “It was said,
‘Whoever divorces his
wife must give her a
legal document.’”
Lev. 24:19 If a man inflicts an
injury on his fellow citizen, just as
he has done it must be done to
him – 24:20 fracture for fracture,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth –
just as he inflicts an injury on
another person that same injury
must be inflicted on him
When Jesus cites a portion of a case law, He does
not speak to the entire law, only the portion cited.
Your Righteousness Must Exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5-6)
Commandment
Pharisaical Righteousness
Kingdom Citizen
Righteousness
6: Do not murder
As long as you don’t physically
strike someone You may be angry
& abusive
Unjustified anger is aspect of
murder and cannot be permitted
7: Do not commit adultery
As long as you don’t bed your
neighbor’s wife you can think what
you want
Lust is an aspect of adultery and
cannot be permitted
8: Do not steal/abuse property
Men have the right to end their
marriages if they provide a writ
Unjustified divorce is a kind of
adultery should not be done
9: Do not bear false witness/do not
make street oaths
if you don’t use God’s name you
may cite other sanctions, even if
your promises are insincere
Street oaths are sanctions of
insincere promises and are not
permitted
10: Do not covet/give
A just penalty implies the right to
fight for your rights
Christians must be hard to pick
fights with and should be giving
5: Honor your father and
mother/love your enemies
As long as you love your
countryman you may hate those
who are your county’s enemies
Our enemies are potential disciples
and we should reach out to them,
not exclude them
4: Remember the Sabbath/charity
You may take credit for generosity
Charity should be kept secret
3: Do not take God’s Name in vain
Impressive prayers are desirable
Prayer should be kept private
2: Do not make images/fasting
Fasting is a public event
Don’t make a show of fasting
1: No other Gods/treasure &
anxiety
You may make money your
ultimate concern/everyone has a
right to be anxious
Don’t love money, it’s idolatry.
Don’t be anxious, it shows a lack of
faith in God to provide for you.
The Nature of the Errors in the Pharisaical Miss-Teachings in Matthew 5
5:21 “You have heard that it was said to
an older generation, ‘Do not
murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be
subjected to judgment.’
The OT reference is precise, the second approximate but
implied. The Pharisaical miss-teaching is in limiting the
principle behind the Sixth Commandment to its most
extreme application, while ignoring. the root attitude which
gives rise to the offense stated.
5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do
not commit adultery.’
The OT reference is precise, The Pharisaical missteaching is in limiting the principle behind the Seventh
Commandment to it’s most extreme form, while ignoring
the root attitude which gives rise to the offense stated.
5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his
wife must give her a legal document.’
The OT reference is approximate but implied. The
Pharisaical miss-teaching is misunderstanding the,
implied, secondary obligation to justify the immoral action
which gave rise to need for the regulation.
5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was
said to an older generation, ‘Do not
break an oath, but fulfill your vows to
the Lord.’
The OT reference is approximate but implied, the second
implied. The Pharisaical miss-teaching is in implying that
the exact form of the regulation does not prohibit breaking
other applications of the principle inherent in the regulation
5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
The OT reference is precise, Pharisaical miss-teaching is
in misapplying the principle inherent In the regulation to
justify personal retaliation.
5:43 “You have heard that it was said,
‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your
enemy.’
The first OT reference is precise, the second not implied in
the OT. Pharisaical miss-teaching is in denying the
antecedent of: “If the neighbor, then love” and erroneously
concluding that the consequent should not only be denied
but intensified to hate.
An Alternative Interpretation of the Relationship
Between Matthew 5:31-32 & Deut. 24:1-4 (Part 1)
1"When a man takes a wife and marries
her, and it happens that she finds no
favor in his eyes because he has found
some indecency in her, and he writes
her a certificate of divorce and puts it
in her hand and sends her out from
his house,
2and she leaves his house and goes
and becomes another man's wife,
3and if the latter husband turns
against her and writes her a certificate
of divorce and puts it in her hand and
sends her out of his house, or if the
latter husband dies who took her to be
his wife,
4then her former husband who sent
her away is not allowed to take her
again to be his wife, since she has been
defiled; for that is an abomination before
the LORD, and you shall not bring sin
on the land which the LORD your God
gives you as an inheritance.
The purpose of Deut. 24:1-4 is to
prohibit the effective pimping of
the wife by her first husband.
Matt. 5:31 "It was said,
'whoever sends his
wife away, let him
give her a certificate
of divorce';
32 but I say to you
that everyone who
divorces his wife,
except for the reason of
unchastity,
makes her commit
adultery; and whoever
marries a divorced
woman commits
adultery.
The purpose of Matt.
5:31-32 is to identify
the sins a hardhearted husband
causes in his wife’s
remarriage.
Jesus’ ground
contrasts with that of
the hard-hearted
divorcing husband
The Hebrew is a
Hothpael (reflexive
intensive); the Greek
could be a middle
(which is reflexiveintensive)
On this interpretation the remarriage is
morally defiling to the woman and to the man
who remarries her, while the divorcing
husband is guilty of causing both offenses.
Remarriage is assumed in 5:32 because it is
a comment on 24:2-4, not because 5:32a is
dependent on 5:32b per se.
An Alternative Interpretation of the Relationship
Between Matthew 5:31-32 & Deut. 24:1-4 (Part 2)
Why the Alternative is not Preferred in Deuteronomy
Criticism: The divorce regulation is in a section of ordinances designed to prohibit people from being treated
like chattel. That means the woman is being protected. But what sense would that make if the
passage permits her to fall into the trap of a remarriage which makes her guilty of adultery?
Response: Is that not also true of permitting the man to divorce his wife and then finding
him guilty of adultery for doing so?
Reply: The law cannot stop a man from deciding to reject his wife. But it could prohibit
him from divorcing her. Two passages in chapter 22 of Deuteronomy prohibit
divorce. Since such a prohibition is possible here, there must be a reason for
allowing the divorce. That reason is clearly one of protecting the wife from
passive abuse which would occur if her husband were required to keep her.
Further, the passage could prohibit her from marrying another man and falling
into the alleged sin of adultery. What purpose can we imagine for permitting that?
The net effect of such an alternative is to imply that God says, “Because boys
will be boys, I’m going to allow them, not only to sin themselves but to set up the
innocent wife for greater sin along with the man who cares enough about her to
vow to provide for her.” That seems unlikely.
Beyond that, the section of law is clearly focused upon the return, not the
subsequent marriages to other men. The second marriage shows that the first
husband cared so little for his wife that not only did he reject her the first time,
but he allowed her to be claimed by another man. Now that she is free he
considers the possibility of using her again. That’s wrong. The “defilement”
should be interpreted as placing her off limits to the first husband, just as an
unclean person was off limits to others.
An Alternative Interpretation of the Relationship
Between Matthew 5:31-32 & Deut. 24:1-4 (Part 2)
Why the Alternative is not Preferred In Matthew
Criticism: The divorce teaching is Jesus insistence that that men should not unjustly divorce their wives, not
that they put them and their new husbands in jeopardy when they remarry.
Response: But if the remarriage is adulterous, then the law reveals that the divorcing husband is guilty of
the sins his wife and her new husband commit.
Reply: The focus of the saying is upon the unjust divorce, not some supposed sins that the
remarrying wife might commit. Any parallels between such an idea and the “defilement” of
the Deut. passage are incidental. The Deut. passage focus upon the return to a man who
has rejected his wife. The reason he cannot take her back is because of the groundless
basis of his divorce exacerbated by his attempt to reuse her after allowing another man to
do so. Jesus is countering the Pharisaical belief that a man was guiltless in the divorce if he
had given a writ. If Jesus is condemning remarriage and placing the guilt upon the first
husband, then what is missing is a condemnation of the initial divorce. It only becomes an
occasion for those subsequent sins, whereas Jesus is saying that a writ won’t exonerate
him from the sin of adultery if he breaks up his marriage. The Pharisees understood that
when that confronted Jesus later.
The second saying picks up on the concept of the first. Just as it is wrong to sunder your
own marriage, so too it is wrong to break up the marriage of another by getting the woman
to divorce her husband, in order to marry you. In both instances the problem is breaking up
valid marriages by using the law to get around adultery. In saying one the man divorces his
wife in order to marry another. In the second saying she divorces her husband to marry the
man she plans on remarrying. This makes the best sense of the focus on the divorce writ.
The alternative is like saying, “Ok, your divorce was groundless, but I want to tell you about
how you’ve caused two other people to commit adultery just trying to make each other
happy after your evil divorce..”
What is the Relationship Between “Fornication” and “Adultery”
in the Old Testament
μοιχάω
moichaō
adultery
‫נאפופים‬
na'aphuwph
adulteries
‫זנונים‬
zanuwn
harlotry
Πορνεία
porneia
fornication
Harlotry is a term which relates to sexual immorality which is not under covenant and strongly connotes the
sexual act. It can be committed by married women or single woman and the men who engage in the act with
them. Biblically the defining factor as to the use of zanuwn is the woman’s marital status. The term adultery is
reserved for pledged women (married or engaged—since the vows were spoken at the beginning of the
engagement period). But it is perfectly proper to use zanuwn to refer to a married woman committing adultery.
Note the Greek translations of the Hebrew terms (taken from the LXX). Textbook example: Hosea 2:2. Plead
earnestly with your mother (for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband), so that she might put an end to
her adulterous lifestyle (fornication-Hebrew), and turn away from her sexually immoral behavior (adulteriesHebrew). (The reason the words adultery and fornication both apply to Gomer is because she was Hosea’s
wife when the adulteries were committed. The term remains valid insofar as she has not repented of the
sin…just as a thief is called a thief even after he is caught and jailed and may never commit the act again.
There are many instances of Israel, the covenant partner of Yahweh being called both a whore and an
adulteress. Thus harlotry speaks to the act being uncovenanted. Adultery to an act which is against covenant.
What is the Relationship Between “Fornication” and “Adultery”
in the New Testament
‫נאפופים‬
na'aphuwph
adulteries
μοιχάω
moichaō
adultery
Πορνεία
porneia
fornication
‫זנונים‬
zanuwn
harlotry
Fornication is a term which relates to sexual immorality not under covenant. It
strongly connotes the sexual act. It was a term used of prostitutes, who were
generally single, but might have been married. Initially, “porno-graphy” meant
writings about prostitutes. Jesus commits Himself to the Old Testament Law and
Prophets and therefore we should look to them for the parallel concepts. Using the
Greek translation of the O.T. we can see that adultery is the marital kind of
fornication, and that when used of married couples, fornication and adultery are
interchangeable. Technically, fornication is uncovenanted sex. Adulter is sex which is
against covenant. In the case of a married woman sexual infidelity would be both.
What is the Relationship Between “Fornication” and “Adultery”
in the Divorce Teachings of Jesus
Matt. 19:9 “Now I
say to you that
whoever divorces
his wife, except
for immorality,
and marries
another commits
adultery.”
μοιχάω
moichaō
adultery
Πορνεία
porneia
fornication
or
immorality
Sexual acts were supposed to occur under the protection of a marriage covenant. Fornication
(porneia) refers to sexual acts which were not under such a covenant. Adultery (moichao) refers
to sexual acts which are in breach of a pledged woman’s vow of monogamy. They are against
covenant. In the case of a married woman’s liaison, the act is both one of fornication and of
adultery. When Jesus uses “fornication” in the exception clause it would also entail adultery.
Husbands who treacherously divorce are called adulterers because they breach their marital
responsibly to care for his wife (by legally ending the marriage). Though Jesus does not do so,
He could figuratively have called the men fornicators. As to why He uses porneia instead of
moichao in the exception clause…probably to heighten the impact of using moichao for the
divorcing husbands, though it may also be a contrast between the fact that she hasn’t had
uncovenanted sex…acted outside their covenant, while he wants to get out of their covenant.
The Referent to the Pharisees’ Question to Jesus (Matt. 19/Mark 10)
Ground
Breach of
Covenant
Ground
Disciplinary
Divorce
Non-breach
Ground
NonDisciplinary
Divorce
The Law
The Prophets
Lev. 20:10 If a man
commits adultery
with his neighbor’s
wife, both the
adulterer and the
adulteress must be
put to death.
Jer. 3:8 She also
saw that I gave
wayward Israel her
divorce papers
and sent her away
because of her
adulterous worship
of other gods.
Deut. 24:1 If a man
marries a woman
and she does not
please him because
he has found
something
offensive in her,
then he may draw up
a divorce
document, give it to
her, and evict her
from his house.
New Testament
Matt. 1:19 …Joseph,
[Mary’s] husband to be,
was a righteous man, and
because he did not want to
disgrace her, he intended
to divorce her privately.
Not at issue
Matt. 19:3 Then some
Pharisees came to him in
order to test him. They
asked, “Is it lawful to
divorce a wife for any
cause?”
19:7 They said to him,
“Why then did Moses
command us to give a
certificate of dismissal
and to divorce her?
Why Matthew 5:32 Cannot be Interpreting the Remarriage Mentioned in
Deuteronomy 24:2-4 as Adulterous
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman and she
does not please him because he has found
something offensive in her, then he may draw up
a divorce document, give it to her, and evict her
from his house.
24:2 When she has left him she may go and
become someone else’s wife. 24:3 If the
second husband rejects her and then divorces
her, gives her the papers, and evicts her from his
house, or if the second husband who married her
dies, 24:4 her first husband who divorced her is
not permitted to remarry her after she has
become ritually impure (NET) [or has been
defiled--NASB], for that is offensive to the Lord.
A
B
C
D
Matt. 5:31 “It was said,
‘Whoever divorces his wife
must give her a legal
document.’
5:32 But I say to you that
everyone who divorces his
wife, except for immorality,
makes her commit
adultery [traditional
translation].
and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits
adultery.
It is necessary to make the associations A & B. It is theoretically possible to make the associations C & D. The
latter is tempting because D, in a literal translation of 24:4, looks similar to the traditional translation of 5:32a.
But if those translations and that association are correct, then there is NO justification for Deut. 24 to exist as a
permission, aside from God legally permitting evil to the benefit of hard-hearted men, and that is utterly
unacceptable as it legally authorizes immorality in exactly the way that Jesus denies to the Pharisees.
God does not say, “Boys will be boys!” If God is giving in to hard-hearted men, then why not also let them
remarry their cast off wives after intervening marriage? Why is that any more offensive than allowing adulterous
divorces of the wives to other men?
If, on the other hand, this permission is to provide for the cast off wives by legally, but not morally permitting the
divorce action of the hard-hearted husbands, that provision would have to be to allow for them to be cared for
by a subsequent husband. But if that is the case, why immediately brand the woman as an adulteress (so Deut.
24:4 and Matthew 5:32a) and the next husband (Matthew 5:32b) as adulterer? The effect of this would be,
once again to legally authorize immorality in a way similar to what Jesus condemns in the Gospels.
How Matthew 5:32 Teaches the Unjust Breakup of Marriages
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman and she does not
please him because he has found something offensive in
her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to
her, and evict her from his house.
Mal. 2:15 … Be attentive, then, to your own spirit, for
one should not be disloyal to the wife he took in his
youth. 2:16 “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel,
“and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the Lord who
rules over all. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do
not be unfaithful.”
Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he must not diminish
the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights.
21:11 If he does not provide her with these three things,
then she will go out free, without paying money.
Ex. 22:22: If a man is caught having sexual relations
with a married woman both the man who had
relations with the woman and the woman herself
must die; in this way you will purge evil from Israel.
Matt. 5:31 “It was said,
‘Whoever divorces his wife must
give her a legal document.’
5:32a But I say to you that
everyone who divorces his wife,
except for immorality,
adulterizes her [suggested
translation]. [Also Mark 10:11 …
“Whoever divorces his wife and
marries another commits
adultery against her.]
5:32b and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits
adultery. [Also Mark 10:12 And
if she divorces her husband
and marries another, she
commits adultery.]
Jesus teaching in the Sermon upholds the details of the Law and the prophets. Matthew 5:32a and Mark 10:11
teach that a man’s failure to provide in marriage (Ex. 21:10), is essentially the same act of disloyalty and
unfaithfulness committed by an unjust divorcer (Deut. 24:1). In the Gospels Jesus identifies a non-disciplinary
divorce as an act of adultery, though permitted by Deut. 24:1 in order to care for the woman, because it breaks
up a lawful marriage. God is not fooled by a husband using the law to get to another woman.
Matthew 5:32b and Mark 10:12 identifies a man and woman who try to get around Exodus 22:22 by getting her
getting a divorce as an adulterous couple. God is not fooled by a couple breaking up the woman’s marriage
through divorce to get into bed together. The divorce for her sunders her marriage. The man is a co-conspirator..
Affirmation By Jesus Of God’s Acceptance Of Disciplinary Divorce
And Of God’s Rejection Of-non-disciplinary Divorce
The Prophets
Issue
The Law
Treatment
of The
Wife’s
Breach of
Covenant:
Fornication
Lev. 20:10 If a man
commits adultery
with his neighbor’s
wife, both the
adulterer and the
adulteress must be
put to death.
Jer. 3:8 … I gave
wayward Israel her
divorce papers
and sent her away
because of her
adulterous worship
of other gods.
Deut. 24:1 If a man
marries a woman
and she does not
please him because
he has found
something
offensive in her,
then he may draw up
a divorce
document, give it to
her, and evict her
from his house.
Mal. 2:14 …The Lord is
testifying against you on
behalf of the wife you
married when you were
young, to whom you have
become unfaithful even
though she is your
companion and wife by law
… 2:16 “I hate divorce,”
says the Lord God of Israel,
“and the one who is guilty
of violence,” says the Lord
who rules over all. “Pay
attention to your
conscience, and do not be
unfaithful.”
Rights of a
Man to
Divorce His
Wife Aside
from Issues
of Her
Breach of
Covenant
New Testament
Matt. 5:32 & 19:9
“except for immorality”
Not at issue to
the Pharisees
Matt. 5:31a “It was said,
‘Whoever divorces his
wife must give her a
legal document.’ 5:32 But
I say to you that everyone
who divorces his
wife…adulterizes her
Matt. 19:9 Now I say to
you that whoever divorces
his wife, except for
immorality, and marries
another commits adultery.”
What is “Hardness of Heart” In the Law ?
Deut. 10:16 Therefore, cleanse your heart and stop being so stubborn!
Num. 14:2 And all the Israelites murmured against Moses and Aaron, and the whole congregation said to
them, “If only we had died5 in the land of Egypt, or if only we had perished in this wilderness! 14:3 Why
has the Lord brought us into this land only to be killed by the sword, that our wives and our children
should become plunder? Wouldn’t it be better for us to return to Egypt?” 14:4 So they said to one
another, “Let’s appoint a leader and return to Egypt.”
14:10 … the whole community threatened to stone them.
Deut. 9:15 So I turned and went down the mountain while it was blazing with fire; the two tablets of the
covenant were in my hands. 9:16 When I looked, you had indeed sinned against the Lord your God and
had cast for yourselves a metal calf; you had quickly turned aside from the way he had commanded
you! … 9:22 Moreover, you continued to provoke the Lord at Taberah, Massah, and KibrothHattaavah. 9:23 And when he sent you from Kadesh-Barnea and told you, “Go up and possess the land I
have given you,” you rebelled against the Lord your God and would neither believe nor obey
him. 9:24 You have been rebelling against him from the very first day I knew you!
The stubbornness of Israel (10:16) is set forth in the prior chapter. Two incidences are used
as examples: Sinai and Kadesh-Barnea. In the first instance the Israelites turned away from
the God who had freed them from their harsh taskmaster. They rejected Him and sought
another.
At Kadesh Barnea, after ratifying a covenant with God, they refused to trust in him Rather
they stated a wish to turn back to the days before their relationship. They wished to appoint
a new leader They rebelled against the Lord and even sought to end the lives of the faithful.
What is “Hardness of Heart” In the Writings?
Prov. 17:20 The one who
has a perverse heart does
not find good and the one
who is deceitful in
speech falls into trouble.
Prov. 28:14 Blessed is the
one who is always
cautious, but whoever
hardens his heart will fall
into evil.
The concept of a perverse heart is of someone
who has twisted intentions. The parallel
concept is of someone who has turned away
from speaking truth.
NET note: “The one who ‘hardens his heart”’
in this context is the person who refuses to
fear sin and its consequences. The image of
the “hard heart” is one of a stubborn will,
unyielding and unbending (cf. NCV, TEV,
NLT). This individual will fall into sin.”
What is “Hardness of Heart” in the Prophets?
EZ. 3:7 But the house of Israel is
unwilling to listen to you, because
they are not willing to listen to
me, for the whole house of Israel is
hard-headed and hard-hearted.
Jer. 4:4 Just as ritual circumcision
cuts away the foreskin as an
external symbol of dedicated
covenant commitment,
you must genuinely dedicate
yourselves to the Lord and get rid of
everything that hinders your
commitment to me, people of Judah
and inhabitants of Jerusalem. If you
do not, my anger will blaze up like a
flaming fire against you that no one
will be able to extinguish. That will
happen because of the evil you
have done
The point here is that the refuse to
listen to God. This refusal is a
rejection of the covenant Partner.
This passage speaks of
commitment to the covenant
Partner. God calls them to get
rid of everything which gets in
the way of that dedication. Alas,
“the evil they had done” implies
just the opposite, they had
rejected God in favor of another
master.
What is “Hardness of Heart”?
In the New Testament
Matt. 19:8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives
because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way.
Mark 10:5 But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this commandment for you
because of your hard hearts
Given what we have seen before. Hardness of heart is a grave evil
against the covenant partner…a rejection, often with the possible
commitment to a different partner in view, and even a willingness to do
injury to those who were (the representatives of) their partner. Simply
put, without justification, they wanted to be free of their legitimate
partner.
The implication of this is that someone wishing to dump their legitimate
marriage partner on grounds as flimsy as “erwat dabar” should have
been understood as being hard of heart without Jesus’ comment. God
does not compromise with hardhearted people, but He deals with their
messes…in this case allowing divorce to free the women from such men.
Mark 16:14 refers to the hardness of the hearts of the Disciples. It this passage
is genuine, it speaks of refusal to believe in the word of their Master.
Did the Pharisees Answer Jesus’ Question: “What Did Moses Command you?”?
Mark 10:2 Then some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked,
“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 10:3 He answered
them, “What did Moses command you?” 10:4 They said, “Moses
permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to
divorce her.” 10:5 But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this
commandment for you because of your hard hearts.
NO! Jesus asked His question in response to theirs. They asked if it was
lawful for a man to divorce his wife…by this they meant, “Is there any
legitimate reason for a man to divorce his wife?:” Jesus’ question then
should not have been answered with Deut. 24:1, because that command
does not offer a justifiable grounds for divorce, but deals with unjust
divorce. Rather than identify a moral grounds, it permitted unjust divorce
for the sake of the woman’s security, but prohibited her further abuse by
blocking any possible return to her prior husband after a subsequent
marriage intervened. No approbation is intended for the divorcing male.
Thus, Moses did not give a commandment that responded to the intent of
their question. So technically, the answer should have been, “Nothing.”
Relation of Apoluo to Righteousness/Adultery in Matthew
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
?
Matthew 1
States that the teaching of
the Law is not abolished.
At least one kind of divorce is
righteous for a man: if
grounded in adultery;
morality of other kinds is
unknown. Question raised if,
since he is righteous if she
breaks her vows, would she
be if he did same?
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for ?
if porneia is not
ground for man
Adultery for
man if woman
divorced
Matthew 5
Apoluo is adultery for man if he
divorces without porneia or if he
marries a woman who herself
divorced. Raises questions: 1):
does the cause of her divorce
matter; 2) does his adultery
happen when he remarries or
when he divorces; is her divorce
adulterous if he breaks his vows?
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man if woman
divorced
Matthew 19
Clarifies that the adultery of 5:32a is
the man’s sin and not the woman’s if
not grounded in her porneia. Question
raised if every re marriage of a
divorce woman causes adultery or if
on an unrighteous kind and at what
point it occurs in the remarriage or in
the divorce that results in a
remarriage. Sundering is absolutely
prohibited and not elsewhere qualified
in any way. I must therefore not be the
same as divorce, but may be the
equivalent of the evil grounds of all
unjustified divorces. Any divorce with
a ground is also such a sundering.
Relation of Apoluo to Righteousness/Adultery in Luke and Mark
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery if
porneia is not
ground for man
Adultery for
man who
marries a
divorced
woman
Matthew 5/19
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man if woman
divorced
Luke 16
Nothing new. It is a
generalized teaching
on divorce without
discussion of the
exception clause. If
not so seen, then
there is a logical
problem between the
gospels.
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man and
woman if
woman
divorced
Mark 10
Clarifies that woman is also guilty if
she divorces, but does not answer
question of when their adultery takes
place (at divorce or remarriage) nor ?
Concerning possible righteous divorce
on her part since he is condemned
generally in Luke and Mark when an
exception is known in Matthew.
Sundering is to be understood as
being the same as in Matt. 19, since
these are the same incident.
What Counts as Adultery?
Statute: You Shall not Commit Adultery. (Exodus 20:15 & Deut 5:19)
Ordinate’s obligation: you must provide the needs of life for your wife
and must not physically abuse her. (Exodus 21)
Subordinate’s obligation: wives must remain sexually exclusive to
their husbands. (Lev. 18 & 20, Deut 22)
Extra-Ordinate obligation: you must not abuse another man’s covenant
relationship by encouraging his wife to breach it. (Lev. 18 & 20, Deut 22)
The Pharisaical misinterpretation: breach is only sexual and only within
the legal marriage covenant; men have the right to end their own marriages;
taking another man’s woman is OK if a divorce occurs first. Their teaching is
in Matthew 5:31 as compared to 32) Hillel was liberal in interpreting the
male’s right. Shammai conservative. Both believed Deut. 24 entailed a right.
The Correction of Jesus: Sexual breach may be mental as well as social.
It is not only sexual, but also committed by causing an ending of a covenant
without cause, both regarding one’s own covenant (Matthew 5:32a) and
another’s covenant relationship. (Matthew 5:32b)
Relation of Divorce (apoluo) to Righteousness/Adultery in 1 Corinthians 7
Verse 11
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man and
woman if
woman
divorced
Synoptics
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man and
woman if
woman
divorced
1 Cor. 7
Referred to by Paul
Verse 15
The primary issue in 1
Corinthians is the unjustified
putting away of the Christian
spouse, not the fact that it the
spouse is a Christian. That is
the historical occasion, not the
moral basis. Thus if an alleged
Christian puts them away the
same conclusion obtains (cf. 1
Tim. 5:8)
If convert’s spouse sunders marriage
for that reason, then believing spouse
no longer restricted by marriage bond.
For her that bond would be
monogamy. This implies freedom to
remarry and that clarifies that sins
related to remarriage in the Synoptics
are at the point of the divorce not the
remarriage. This agrees with teaching
that porneia must be ground for man’s
divorce of his wife.
Wife and husband told not to
separate from spouses. This
admonition must be understood
as involving divorces not
grounded in the sin of the
spouse, since the man is said
to be righteous in Matthew, and
since the woman here is told to
reconcile (which implies sin).
Question remains if all her
divorces would be considered
such. Not clear if she has any
righteous way to divorce
parallel to the man.
Verse 12
Religious incompatibility that is
a result of a conversion is not a
basis for divorce. This is in
agreement with adultery if
porneia is not grounds for man
divorcing wife.
The Relation Of Sunder (chorizo) To Divorce (apoluo)
CHORIZO
APOLUO
Chorizo is the sundering of the marriage bond. It is always an evil because God
insures the bond if the marriage is legitimate (i.e., not incestuous or rebelliously
interfaith). If apoluo is not grounded in a breach of the marriage vows, it is itself an act
of chorizo. Chorizo may not lead to apoluo, insofar as it may not be known or it may
be have been revealed, repented, and forgiven.
The Relation Of Sundering (chorizo) To Adultery (moichao-μοιχάω)
μοιχάω
SEXUAL
unfaithfulness
of a pledged
woman
NONSEXUAL
breaking
covenant
with God
μοιχάω
CHORIZO
Adultery is equated with treachery in Jer. 3:8 “She also saw that I gave wayward Israel her
divorce papers and sent her away because of her adulterous worship of other gods. Even after
her unfaithful [treacherous] sister Judah had seen this, she still was not afraid, and she too went
and gave herself like a prostitute to other gods.”
Significance Of “And Marries Another” To Divorce In The Gospels
If divorce alone was considered treachery/adultery and if remarriage was not
considered adultery, then why does Jesus mention “and marries another” and why
does Paul tell women who have divorced to remain unmarried or be reconciled (1
Cor. 7:10-11?
Paul only mentions that in regard to woman who has sundered her marriage. His
normal word for divorce is different.
Insofar as Jesus commits Himself to the Old Testament Law, we would not expect
Him to change it regarding marriage regulations. Given what we have said,
especially about polygamy, we need only find a logical alternative to the combination
of divorce and remarriage in order to make sense of the OT teaching that it is the
divorce and not the remarriage that is treacherous/adulterous. Consider:
“And marries another” simply identifies the reason the man divorced his wife. The
“and” is refers to historical succession, and does not mean “when.” It has the sense
of “in order to.” This puts the teaching of Jesus exactly in line with OT teaching that a
man is guilty of treachery by failing to provide for his wife according to his marriage
pledge to her.
Simply put, the idea that a man commits adultery in a remarriage or additional
marriage has no precedent in Old Testament teaching. Adultery implies an existing
legal bond.
Interpretation of Matthew 5:31-32 (Summary)
5:31 “It was said,
‘Whoever divorces
his wife must give her
a legal document.’
5:32 But I say to you
that everyone who
divorces his wife,
except for immorality,
makes her commit
adultery,
and whoever marries a
divorced woman
commits adultery.
This is virtually a quote of Deuteronomy 24:1. Hence the “you have
heard” is omitted. The problem is not so much the wording as the implied
Pharisaical interpretation, namely that a man only needed to provide a
writ to satisfy God’s requirements for the ending of a legal marriage.
This shows that Jesus disagrees with something about the above. Since
He has said He has not come to abolish the Law in the smallest detail, he
must be disagreeing with the interpretation of Deuteronomy.
By saying that only immorality is a basis for divorce, and since immorality
was dealt with by execution of the offending wife, there is no grounds
offered as being acceptable to God for a man initiating divorce, in
Deuteronomy 24:1 which is the verse He is commenting on. Jesus also
proclaims that a man using Deut. 24 (especially in order to marry
someone he likes better, is the sin of adultery in God’s eyes.
The problem with the unjustly divorcing man in the last saying is that he
has broken up his marriage wile there is still a binding moral bond. Jesus
now notes that a man who participates in a woman breaking up her
marriage while a moral bond exists, is also guilty of the sin of adultery.
Interpretation of Matthew 5:32a
5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,
except for immorality,
makes her commit adultery…
The translation and interpretation of this verse is problematic.
1) No remarriage of either party is mentioned.
2) It is difficult to know how his unjust divorce “causes her to commit adultery.”
It has been noted that the crucial verb (an infinitive) is passive in form, but is
translated actively, such that it makes her to be the one committing the offense.
Grammarians will often say that this verb is special. That it evolved so that it lost
its active form and should be translate actively, even though it looks passive.
Other grammarians disagree and say that only a similar verb evolved that way,
but this one should retain it’s passive voice. What is the difference?
Active would be translated as it almost universally is: “to commit adultery.”
Passive would be to translate it something like “to be adulterized” with the sin being
committed against her. That makes the most sense, even if it is a “rough read.”
The peculiar form allows for the man to be charged with two offenses: breaking his
vow to provide for her, and implying that she was guilty of breaking her vows.
The Incongruity of the Traditional Interpretation of Matthew 5:32a
Passage:
Exodus
21:10-11
Deuteronomy
24:1-4
Matthew
5:32a
Situation:
Husband
[hates]
rejects wife
Wife is deprived
of the provision
of basic needs
by husband
Woman is
divorced and
cut off from
provision by
husband
Cause of
problem:
Varied but
unjustified
Man finds
second wife
Man finds erwat Man wants to
dabar “wrong”
marry another
with her
woman in her
place
Man dislikes her
conversion to
Christianity
Provision:
Wife freed
from further
abuse and
free to find
support
elsewhere
Woman is free
to go out without
repayment of
bride price
[contract is over,
remarriage not
prohibited]
Woman is free
to remarry any
except him if
she has married
another in
between
Wife is not under
bondage [i.e.,
requirement not to
have another man,
thus she may
remarry
Woman is
divorced and
cut off from
provision by
husband
He makes her
commit
adultery
[allegedly
when she
remarries—
Matt. 5:32b]
1 Corinthians
7:15
Woman is
deserted/divorced
and is cut off from
provision by
husband
Only a Passive Translation can Convey Two Sins with One Word (Matthew 5:32a)
Unjust defamation of a pledged
Woman is a sin precluding divorce
Unjustly divorcing a wife is unfaithfulness against the covenant with her
Deut. 22:13 Suppose a man marries a
woman, has sexual relations with her and
then rejects her, 22:14 accusing her of
impropriety and defaming her
reputation by saying, “I married this
woman but when I had sexual relations
with her I discovered she was not a virgin!”
22:15 Then the father and mother of the
young woman must produce the evidence
of virginity for the elders of the city at the
gate. 22:16 The young woman’s father
must say to the elders, “I gave my
daughter to this man and he has rejected
her. 22:17 Moreover, he has raised
accusations of impropriety by saying, ‘I
discovered your daughter was not a virgin,’
but this is the evidence of my daughter’s
virginity!” The cloth must then be spread
out before the city’s elders. 22:18 The
elders of that city must then seize the man
and punish him. 22:19 They will fine him
one hundred shekels of silver and give
them to the young woman’s father, for the
man who made the accusation ruined
the reputation of an Israelite virgin. She
will then become his wife and he may
never divorce her as long as he lives.
Mal.2:14 …The Lord is testifying against you on
behalf of the wife you married when you were
young, to whom you have become unfaithful [by
divorcing her] even though she is your
companion and wife by law. 2:15 No one who
has even a small portion of the Spirit in him does
this. What did our ancestor do when seeking a
child from God? Be attentive, then, to your own
spirit, for one should not be disloyal to the wife he
took in his youth. 2:16 “I hate divorce,” says the
Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of
violence,” says the Lord who rules over all. Pay
attention to your conscience, and do not be
unfaithful.”
Unjustly divorcing is a sin of
unfaithfulness/defamation
5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his
wife must give her a legal document.’ 5:32
But I say to you that everyone who
divorces his wife, except for immorality,
causes her to be adulterized [i.e.,
commits unfaithfulness against her and
defames her as an adulteress]
Interpretation of Matthew 5:32b
5:32b … and whoever marries a divorced woman
commits adultery.
The interpretation of this verse is more problematic than it seems.
1) This saying, like the first one in this verse is independent. No dual sayings of
Jesus elsewhere ever depend upon each other to be understood. Therefore it is
wrongheaded to insist that her husband causes her to commit adultery when she
remarries.
2) This saying identifies the man who marries a divorced woman as an adulterer.
But Jesus is very loyal to the Old Testament and there is no passage which
implies this. (See the comments on Deut. 24:4, which comes the closest to it.)
Indeed divorcees (along with widows) were only excluded from remarriage in the
case of priests, which implies that others could marry them.
3) If the woman’s first marriage is ended, why is the man held to be an adulterer by
Jesus? Probably for the same reason that the man in the first saying is called an
adulterer. Because he broke up someone’s marriage, i.e., her first marriage.
4) What makes this even more likely is that the country was abuzz with a man who
had done what was condemned in both sayings: Herod Antipas. He had divorced
his own wife without cause and married the wife, Herodias, of his half brother,
Philip. Herod had instigated her divorcing Philip in order to marry him.
Interpretation Of Matthew 5:31-32 (Conclusion)
5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give
her a legal document.’ 5:32 But I say to you that
everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality,
makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery.
Jesus is condemning the teachings of the Pharisees who had “said” that a man
simply needs to give his wife a writ of divorce in order to make the end of their
marriage proper. Instead, Jesus says, the man who divorces his wife without
proper cause commits adultery against her. He is breaking up his marriage.
Refusal to provide for the woman he took to be his wife cannot be ended with a
divorce without that being an act of adultery against her, while making her appear
to be the sinner.
Likewise, the Old Testament had prohibited a man sexually defiling a married
woman as adultery. Jesus wishes to make sure His disciples know that trying to
get around this prohibition by incrementing a divorce, such as Herod did, would
not avoid the condemnation of adultery.
In both cases the sin is at the point of the unjust divorce. Jesus here identifies the
culpable male. In Mark He will also indentify the woman (such as Herodias) as
committing adultery.
The Marital Sins Of Herod Antipas And Herodias
1. Herod Antipas divorced his
wife, the daughter of the
king of Petra. He had not
grounds except the desire
to marry another woman,
Herodias, the wife of his
half brother Philip.
John the Baptist confronts Herod with his immoral marriage.
Matt. 5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever
divorces his wife must give her a
legal document.’
5:32 But I say to you that everyone
who divorces his wife, except for
immorality, makes her commit adultery,
and whoever marries a divorced
woman commits adultery.
2. Herod encouraged his
sister-in-law to divorce his
brother in order to marry
him.
3. The relationship was
incestuous because a man
was forbidden to marry his
sister-in-law while the
brother was still living.
The Pharisees had taught
that if you followed the rules
of providing a divorce writ,
God accepted your divorce.
Interpretation of Matthew 19:3-9
Matt. 19:3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it
lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 19:4 He answered, “Have you not
read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 19:5
and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be
united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 19:6 So they are no
longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one
separate.” 19:7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a
certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 19:8 Jesus said to them, “Moses
permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the
beginning it was not this way. 19:9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his
wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
There are several issues here:
1) What are they testing Jesus about?
2) How does the quote of Genesis clarify the issue? Is He saying that marriages
are permanent?
3) Is Jesus disagreeing with Moses (Deut. 24:1-4)?
4) What does Jesus condemn…divorce and remarriage, just divorce, or just
remarriage?
Interpretation of Matthew 19:3-9 (Cont’d)
1) What were the Pharisees testing Jesus about?
The Pharisees would get no “mileage” by showing that Jesus agreed with one
Pharisaical school or another. So we do not look at their question as a means of
knowing if Jesus sides with Hillel or Shammai.
They might be trying to get Jesus to say something offensive to Herod, who had
recently killed John the Baptist for condemning Herod/Herodias’s incestuous
marriage. But this is unlikely since their question has nothing to do with the right to
marry (incestuously—with which they didn’t agree themselves but did not
condemn), but the grounds for divorce.
Perhaps they were confused about what Jesus actually believed, since in the
Sermon Jesus had allowed for divorce on the grounds of fornication, but in His
confrontation with the Pharisees recorded in Luke 16, He didn’t mention any
grounds. Perhaps they were just as confused about Jesus’ teaching as many
modern scholars, who seem unable to harmonize Luke with the Sermon.
The probability is that they were trying to show that Jesus disagreed with Moses.
Interpretation of Matthew 19:3-9 (Cont’d)
2) How does the quote of Genesis clarify the issue?
Is He saying that marriages are permanent?
The Pharisees came asking about Jesus’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Jesus knows that Deuteronomy 24 can and should only be understood in the
context of the original basis for marriage. The Pharisees want to know what
the legitimate ground was for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 by which a man
could end his marriage. Jesus wanted to redirect their attention away from
(their misinterpretation of) Deuteronomy 24 to the more basic teaching from
Genesis 1&2.
Deuteronomy 24 was all about men wanting to end their marriages on some
basis other than adultery. Genesis is all about men wanting to marry and live
happily ever after. In Genesis men leave all prior relationships with parents to
establish a marital union. In Deuteronomy they want to walk away from that
union for less than justifiable grounds.
It was marriage on the Genesis basis that God “joins” or insures, and the
Pharisees had better keep that in mind or they will find themselves at variance
with the God of the Mosaic Code.
Jesus is not, however, saying that marriage is permanent, because sinful men do
dissolve it. Marriage should be permanent, but isn’t necessarily.
The Teaching Of Jesus On Divorce In Matthew 19
Matt. 19:3 Then some Pharisees
came to him in order to test him.
They asked, “Is it lawful to
divorce a wife for any cause?”
19:4 He answered, “Have you not
read that from the beginning the
Creator made them male and
female, 19:5 and said, ‘For this
reason a man will leave his
father and mother and will be
united with his wife, and the
two will become one flesh’?
19:6 So they are no longer two,
but one flesh. Therefore what
God has joined together, let no
one separate.” 19:7 They said to
him, “Why then did Moses
command us to give a certificate
of dismissal and to divorce her?”
19:8 Jesus said to them, “Moses
permitted you to divorce your
wives because of your hard
hearts, but from the beginning it
was not this way. 19:9 Now I say
to you that whoever divorces his
wife, except for immorality, and
marries another commits
adultery.”
The point of the test was to challenge his previous teachings on Deuteronomy
24, the only passage in the Law which discusses a grounds for divorce initiated
by the husband. In the Sermon He had challenged their teaching on
Deuteronomy 24 and limited divorce to “sexual unfaithfulness” by the wife. In
the Luke 16 encounter he had not mentioned any valid divorce at all. Since
sexual unfaithfulness isn’t relevant to Deuteronomy 24, that left no grounds
Jesus understands that they are interested in finding a cause for a man to end
the legal bond of his marriage, and redirects their attention to the moral bond of
the marriage. There are no moral grounds for doing that. Further, since they
contracted the marriage in order to be together and become one family unit,
why aren’t they working to improve their marriages rather than looking for ways
to get out of them.
The Pharisees were hoping that He would not offer them any grounds because
they knew that Moses mentions “something embarrassing” as the grounds used
by the divorcing first husband in Deuteronomy 24:1. They now believe that they
have Him disagreeing with Moses, insofar as He disagrees with all their schools.
Jesus now corrects their errant view. He says Moses is not providing a “moral”
grounds for divorce but allowing an immoral divorce in order to deal with men so
hard hearted that they would insist on divorce for frivolous grounds. He tells
them that God AND Moses never intended for Deut. 24 to be interpreted as an
escape clause for a husband, and that any husband who takes advantage oft
this “permission” especially for the purpose of disposing of his wife in order to
marry someone he likes better is guilty of adultery in God’s eyes.
Is Jesus disagreeing with Moses (Deut. 24:1-4)?
What are the Grounds for a Man to Initiate Divorce Against His Wife
According to Moses—the Law (Especially Deuteronomy 24:1-4)?
Hillel
Any reason will do
OT
None
Deut.24:1
Rabbinic
Schools
Something
close to
adultery
Shammai
Moses provided no legitimate grounds for a man to initiate divorce proceedings against his
wife. Adultery, which would become a legitimate grounds according to the prophets was dealt
with in the Law by execution. Deuteronomy does not give a legitimate reason to initiate
divorce, but permits (i.e., regulates) divorce on illuminate grounds to protect the woman.
Thus Jesus, by only allowing divorce on the basis of unfaithfulness is denying any legitimate
meaning to erwat dabar in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. He does not thereby disagree with Moses
on grounds for a man to initiate divorce his wife, since Moses treated adultery with
execution, and the prophets with divorce. Jesus does not change the Prophetic practice..
The Relationship Between Deuteronomy 24:1 & Matthew 19:8-9
Matthew 19:8
From
Deut.
24:1
Matthew 19:9
A man who divorces
his wife
A man who divorces his
wife
on the grounds of
erwat dabar
without the grounds of
porneia
is hard-hearted
is guilty of adultery
 Both men divorce.
 A man who only has the grounds of erwat
dabar is hard-hearted (Matt. 19:8). We may
presume that hard-heartedness is a sin, but
what kind of sin?
 To divorce on any other grounds than
porneia is the sin of adultery (Matt. 19:9), so
unless erwat dabar is a species of porneia,
then it is a species of adultery, and the man
of Deut. 24:1 is guilty of adultery, i.e.,
covenant breaking.
erwat
dabar
not
porneia
The Teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19 (Cont’d)
The Disciples Surprise
19:10 The disciples said to
him, “If this is the case of a
husband with a wife, it is
better not to marry!”
The teaching that there is no way for a man to end his
marriage by a just divorce (other than by her adultery) is
shockingly restrictive to the culturally ingrained beliefs of the
disciples. [Hillel’s liberal school being dominate.]
19:11 He said to them, “Not
everyone can accept this
statement, except those to
whom it has been given.
19:12 For there are some
eunuchs who were that way
from birth, and some who
were made eunuchs by
others, and some who
became eunuchs for the
sake of the kingdom of
heaven. The one who is able
to accept this should accept
it.”
Jesus’ response is sarcastic, to the effect that rules only
apply to those who want to play the game.
Jesus concludes the teaching by noting the sorts of people
to whom the rules don’t apply. Eunuchs. Some were denied
by others the means of sexual relations in marriage. Some
denied themselves the use their sexual function. Whether
Jesus is speaking figurative in the last instance or not is not
clear nor important.
This last category may well move beyond a simple sarcastic
retort to speak with admiration to people who have and will
devote themselves to God’s work. Such men as Elijah and
other prophets in the Old Testament and a number of the
“apostles” in the New (John, Paul, Timothy). Paul will pick up
on this theme in 1 Cor. 7, where celebacy is spoken of the
most desirable state for the urgent task of spreading the
gospel…IF…it nets more time for that purpose. If, however
the person spend less time out of frustration over sexual
desires, then they should get married. The determining
factor is the “NET” of quality time to be spent for God.
THE STURCTURE OF JESUS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IN MATT. 5
5:21 “You have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not murder,’ and
‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’
OT law
5:22 But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to
judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and
whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.
Interpretation
5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother
has something against you, 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and
be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.
Advice
5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’
(Deut. 5:17)
(Lev. 19:17)
OT law
(Deut. 5:18)
5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already
committed adultery with her in his heart.
Interpretation
5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away!
Advice
5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’
OT law
5:32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes
her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Interpretation
(Deut. 5:21)
(Deut. 24:1)
(Mal. 2:15)
THE STURCTURE OF JESUS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IN MATT. 5 (Cont’d)
5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not break
an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’
OT law
5:34 But I say to you, do not take oaths at all – not by heaven, because it is the
throne of God, 5:35 not by earth, because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem,
because it is the city of the great King. 5:36 Do not take an oath by your head,
because you are not able to make one hair white or black. 5:37 Let your word be
‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ More than this is from the evil one.
Interpretation
5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
OT law
5:39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right
cheek, turn the other to him as well. 5:40 And if someone wants to sue you and to
take your tunic, give him your coat also. 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one
mile, go with him two. 5:42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one
who wants to borrow from you.
5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’
5:44 But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, 5:45 so
that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil
and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 5:46 For if you love
those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same,
don’t they? 5:47 And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the
Gentiles do the same, don’t they? 5:48 So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect.
*In 2 Kings 5:8 God cured the commander of the army of Syria, the enemy of Israel.
(Lev. 19:12)
(Deut. 10:20)
Advice
(Ex. 21:24)
Interpretation
(Prov. 15:1)
Advice
OT law
(Lev. 19:18
cf. Ps. 58:10)
Interpretation
(2 Kings 5*)
Advice
THE STURCTURE OF JESUS’ INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW IN MATT. 5 (Cont’d)
The Irrelevance Of The Portion Of The Law Not Cited By Jesus
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a woman and she does not
please him because he has found something offensive in
her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to
her, and evict her from his house. 24:2 When she has left
him she may go and become someone else’s wife. 24:3 If
the second husband rejects her and then divorces
her, gives her the papers, and evicts her from his house, or
if the second husband who married her dies, 24:4 her first
husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her
after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to
theLord. You must not bring guilt on the land which
the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Ex. 21:22 “If men fight and hit a
pregnant woman and her child is
born prematurely, but there is no
serious injury, he will surely be
punished in accordance with what
the woman’s husband demands of
him, and he will pay what the court
decides. 21:23 But if there is
serious injury, then you will give a
life for a life, 21:24 eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot
for foot, 21:25burn for burn, wound
for wound, bruise for bruise.
Matt. 5:38 “You have
heard that it was
said, ‘An eye for an
eye and a tooth for
a tooth.’”
Matt. 5:31 “It was said,
‘Whoever divorces his
wife must give her a
legal document.’”
Lev. 24:19 If a man inflicts an
injury on his fellow citizen, just as
he has done it must be done to
him – 24:20 fracture for fracture,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth –
just as he inflicts an injury on
another person that same injury
must be inflicted on him
When Jesus cites a portion of a case law, He does
not speak to the entire law, only the portion cited.
Your Righteousness Must Exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5-6)
Commandment
Pharisaical Righteousness
Kingdom Citizen
Righteousness
6: Do not murder
As long as you don’t physically
strike someone You may be angry
& abusive
Unjustified anger is a form of
murder
7: Do not commit adultery
As long as you don’t bed your
neighbor’s wife you can think what
you want
Lust is a form adultery
8: Do not steal/abuse property
You may treat people as property
by using divorce
Unjustified divorce is a kind of
adultery
9: Do not bear false witness/do not
make street oaths
As long as you don’t use God’s
name you may cite other sanctions
Street oaths are insincere
sanctions of promises
10: Do not covet/give
A just penalty implies the right to
fight for your rights
Christians are hard to pick a fight
with and show love by giving
5: Honor your father and
mother/love your enemies
If you love your countryman you
may hate those who are your
enemies
Our enemies are potential disciples
4: Remember the Sabbath/charity
You may take credit for your piety
Charity is between you and God
3: Do not take God’s Name in vain
You may take credit for your piety
Prayer is between you and God
2: Do not make images/fasting
You may take credit for your piety
Fasting is between you and God
1: No other Gods/treasure &
anxiety
You may make money your
ultimate concern/everyone has a
right to be anxious
The love of money is idolatry
Anxiety is a lack of faith in God
The Nature of the Errors in the Pharisaical Miss-Teachings in Matthew 5
5:21 “You have heard that it was said to
an older generation, ‘Do not
murder,’ and ‘whoever murders will be
subjected to judgment.’
The OT reference is precise, the second approximate but
implied. The Pharisaical miss-teaching is in limiting the
principle behind the Sixth Commandment to its most
extreme application, while ignoring. the root attitude which
gives rise to the offense stated.
5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do
not commit adultery.’
The OT reference is precise, The Pharisaical missteaching is in limiting the principle behind the Seventh
Commandment to it’s most extreme form, while ignoring
the root attitude which gives rise to the offense stated.
5:31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his
wife must give her a legal document.’
The OT reference is approximate but implied. The
Pharisaical miss-teaching is misunderstanding the,
implied, secondary obligation to justify the immoral action
which gave rise to need for the regulation.
5:33 “Again, you have heard that it was
said to an older generation, ‘Do not
break an oath, but fulfill your vows to
the Lord.’
The OT reference is approximate but implied, the second
implied. The Pharisaical miss-teaching is in implying that
the exact form of the regulation does not prohibit breaking
other applications of the principle inherent in the regulation
5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
The OT reference is precise, Pharisaical miss-teaching is
in misapplying the principle inherent In the regulation to
justify personal retaliation.
5:43 “You have heard that it was said,
‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your
enemy.’
The first OT reference is precise, the second not implied in
the OT. Pharisaical miss-teaching is in denying the
antecedent of: “If the neighbor, then love” and erroneously
concluding that the consequent should not only be denied
but intensified to hate.
Relation of Apoluo to Righteousness/Adultery in Matthew
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
?
Matthew 1
States that the teaching of
the Law is not abolished.
At least one kind of divorce is
righteous for a man: if
grounded in adultery;
morality of other kinds is
unknown. Question raised if,
since he is righteous if she
breaks her vows, would she
be if he did same?
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for ?
if porneia is not
ground for man
Adultery for
man if woman
divorced
Matthew 5
Apoluo is adultery for man if he
divorces without porneia or if he
marries a woman who herself
divorced. Raises questions: 1):
does the cause of her divorce
matter; 2) does his adultery
happen when he remarries or
when he divorces; is her divorce
adulterous if he breaks his vows?
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man if woman
divorced
Matthew 19
Clarifies that the adultery of 5:32a is
the man’s sin and not the woman’s if
not grounded in her porneia. Question
raised if every re marriage of a
divorce woman causes adultery or if
on an unrighteous kind and at what
point it occurs in the remarriage or in
the divorce that results in a
remarriage. Sundering is absolutely
prohibited and not elsewhere qualified
in any way. I must therefore not be the
same as divorce, but may be the
equivalent of the evil grounds of all
unjustified divorces. Any divorce with
a ground is also such a sundering.
Jesus’ Divorce Teaching In Mark
10:2 Then some Pharisees came, and to test
him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife?”
10:3 He answered them, “What did Moses
command you?”
10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to
write a certificate of dismissal and to
divorce her.”
10:5 But Jesus said to them, “He wrote this
commandment for you because of your hard
hearts.
10:6 But from the beginning of creation he
made them male and female. 10:7 For this
reason a man will leave his father and
mother, 10:8 and the two will become one
flesh. So they are no longer two, but one
flesh. 10:9 Therefore what God has joined
together, let no one separate.”
10:10 In the house once again, the disciples
asked him about this. 10:11 So he told them,
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery against her. 10:12
And if she divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery.
This is the same incident as in Matthew 19. Their desire
is to expose Jesus’ teaching as being in disagreement
with Moses’ teaching in Deuteronomy 24:1.
Jesus directs them to the Law, knowing that there was
only one main regulation which dealt with the subject of
a man’s (presumed) right to end his marriage by divorce.
Jesus underscores the intention of God in inscribing this
“permission”: to counter the intentions of unjust men. The
counter is in providing for the woman’s future support.
Jesus then directs their attention to the primal intention of
God: to provide companionship for a man through the
covenant of marriage. This institution was intended to be a
permanent relationship. If the moral and legal bond is
ended, that action is against God and therefore a sin. So
the answer in short is: there is no lawful grounds for
divorce. Remember, however that Jesus is speaking of the
Law and not Prophets.
This teaching is somewhat removed from the interaction
on the meaning of Deut. 24. Jesus here gives the
general teaching that any spouse who divorces for the
purpose of remarriage to someone else is guilty of
adultery. Again, in historical context, the tarnished
example is Herod.
Jesus’ Divorce Teaching In Luke
Parable of the cleaver steward
6:14 The Pharisees (who loved money)
heard all this and ridiculed him.
16:15 But Jesus said to them, “You are
the ones who justify yourselves in men’s
eyes, but God knows your hearts. For
what is highly prized among men is
utterly detestable in God’s sight.
16:16 “The law and the prophets were
in force until John; since then, the good
news of the kingdom of God has been
proclaimed, and everyone is urged to
enter it.
16:17 But it is easier for heaven and
earth to pass away than for one tiny
stroke of a letter in the law to become
void.
In this parable Jesus condemns the failure to be loyal to
the Master because of a love of this world’s “treasures”
and justify wrong-doing by arguments from self interest.
When the Pharisees ridicule Jesus for that teaching,
Jesus states that He has been speaking about them. This
opens the question of: wherein do they do this?
16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife
and marries someone else commits
adultery, and the one who marries a
woman divorced from her husband
commits adultery.
Jesus now identifies the exact points of the Law wherein
they failed God. They did not hold Herod responsible for
1) unjust divorce in marrying Herodias and 2) being
complicit in Herodias’s divorce from Philip in order to
merry Herod. The incestuous aspect “goes without
saying.”
Parable of Lazarus and the rich man
This parable states that their disloyalty is so strong that
even if a man named Lazarus came back from the dead it
would not lead them to repentance and proper teaching.
Jesus now contrasts their (claimed) stewardship of the
Law to that of John the Baptist, who was newly slain for
upholding the requirements of the Law on incestuous
divorce (and Herod’s other sins—see next). The
Pharisees had remained silent regarding all of those sins
in order to keep on enjoying their cushy positions as the
people’s religious leaders. Jesus then states that the Law
is not so easily set aside. It must be kept and taught.
Relation of Apoluo to Righteousness/Adultery in Luke and Mark
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery if
porneia is not
ground for man
Adultery for
man who
marries a
divorced
woman
Matthew 5/19
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man if woman
divorced
Luke 16
Nothing new. It is a
generalized teaching
on divorce without
discussion of the
exception clause. If
not so seen, then
there is a logical
problem between the
gospels.
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man and
woman if
woman
divorced
Mark 10
Clarifies that woman is also guilty if
she divorces, but does not answer
question of when their adultery takes
place (at divorce or remarriage) nor ?
Concerning possible righteous divorce
on her part since he is condemned
generally in Luke and Mark when an
exception is known in Matthew.
Sundering is to be understood as
being the same as in Matt. 19, since
these are the same incident.
WHAT DOES JESUS CONDEMN AS ADULTERY?
IS “AND MARRIES ANOTHER” A NECESSARY PART OF THE SIN OF ADULTERY?
Matt. 19:9
Now I say to you that
whoever divorces his
wife, except for
immorality, and marries
another commits
adultery.”
Mark 10:11
So he told them,
“Whoever divorces his
wife and marries another
commits adultery against
her. 10:12 And if she
divorces her husband and
marries another, she
commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18
“Everyone who divorces
his wife and marries
someone else commits
adultery…
For the answer to be “Yes,” there would have to be some teaching in the Old
Testament to that effect. Three points must be true:
1) There should be some place where the marriage of divorced people is
considered adultery. The burden of proof rests on the person who asserts.
2) Polygamy cannot be a moral option at any time or must be discontinued..
3) Divorce cannot be considered adultery (or treachery) if not also
accompanied by remarriage.
This begins a series of seven slides designed
to answer this question.
Relation of Apoluo to Righteousness/Adultery in 1 Corinthians 7
Verse 11
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man and
woman if
woman
divorced
Synoptics
Righteous
if adultery
is ground
for man
Adultery for
man if porneia
is not ground
for man
Adultery for
man and
woman if
woman
divorced
1 Cor. 7
Referred to by Paul
Verse 15
The primary issue in 1
Corinthians is the unjustified
putting away of the Christian
spouse, not the fact that it the
spouse is a Christian. That is
the historical occasion, not the
moral basis. Thus if an alleged
Christian puts them away the
same conclusion obtains (cf. 1
Tim. 5:8)
If convert’s spouse sunders marriage
for that reason, then believing spouse
no longer restricted by marriage bond.
For her that bond would be
monogamy. This implies freedom to
remarry and that clarifies that sins
related to remarriage in the Synoptics
are at the point of the divorce not the
remarriage. This agrees with teaching
that porneia must be ground for man’s
divorce of his wife.
Wife and husband told not to
separate from spouses. This
admonition must be understood
as involving divorces not
grounded in the sin of the
spouse, since the man is said
to be righteous in Matthew, and
since the woman here is told to
reconcile (which implies sin).
Question remains if all her
divorces would be considered
such. Not clear if she has any
righteous way to divorce
parallel to the man.
Verse 12
Religious incompatibility that is
a result of a conversion is not a
basis for divorce. This is in
agreement with adultery if
porneia is not grounds for man
divorcing wife.
Does Adultery Always Refer To An Existing Bond?
If adultery always and only relates to an existing legal bond, why is Israel
called an adulteress after she was divorced from Yahweh? (cf. Jer. 3)
Offense terms often continue to apply to a person who has committed a sin even
after the sin has ended. For example a man is called a murderer after he stops
murder and is incarcerated. The same goes for a thief or an adulterer. Technically
when the sin is expunged it can be discarded. For example Paul says:
1 Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually
immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners,
practicing homosexuals, 6:10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards,
the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom
of God. 6:11 Some of you once lived this way. But you
were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our
God.
Until a person’s past sins are thus expunged they are considered still guilty and
therefore justly identified by a sin committed in the past. That does not mean that
the sin is still being committed after the identifying act is completed. Thus, a
man/woman who commit adultery in an unjust divorce are considered an
adulterer/adulteress for their unjust divorce even when they remarry, though the
remarriage itself is not included in that identifying act.
Is Remarriage Ever Called “Adultery” in the Old Testament?
1) There should be some place where the marriage of divorced people is
considered adultery. The burden of proof rests on the person who asserts.
Argument: Deut. 24 teaches that the divorced woman is said to defile herself when
she remarries another man. Defiled implies the moral defilement of adultery.
Response: Defilement can be ceremonial, but even if it implies some kind of moral
defilement, it is unlikely that it is adultery, because adultery is always elsewhere
punished by execution. Yet this woman is only prohibited from returning to her first
husband. Whatever it does, excludes her from remarrying her ex after another
marriage intervenes. It does not prohibit her from marrying a third husband. This
would be the only time that a woman’s adultery was legally permitted.
Argument: Lev. 21:14 prohibits divorced women from marrying priests. We may
presume that they should not marry anyone else either. Anyway, we are a nation of
Priests, according to Peter.
Response: this regulation also prohibits priests from marrying widows or
prostitutes. The Levirate law required widows to be remarried to the near kin of their
deceases husbands. Former prostitutes are considered clean if they have repented
(e.g., Rahab). It is just a priestly regulation and not relevant to other kinds of
citizens. Not all regulations related to priests in the OT are relevant. Burden of proof
rests on the person who asserts.
Was a Second Marriage Ever Permitted in the Old Testament?
2) Polygamy cannot be a moral option at any time or must be discontinued..
Argument: According to Deut. 17:17 kings should not multiply their wives.
They are examples for us all.
Response: That regulation also prohibits them from multiplying their money
and horses. Clearly they can have more than one shekel and one horse.
Therefore they can have more than one wife. David did not break this
regulation. Solomon did.
Argument: Evil men had multiple wives.
Response: True, but so did Abraham and David. Neither was condemned for
having more than one wife and David was told that though he had three
already he would not have been condemned by God for taking another if it
had not been a married woman (Bathsheba).
Counter argument: the Levirate Law and the fornication laws required men
to take wives without regard to their previous marital status. Indeed the former
assumes that they already have one when they and their “house” are
condemned for NOT taking their near kinswoman who was a childless widow.
Remarriage and Adultery in the Old Testament
3) Divorce cannot be considered adultery (or treachery) if not also
accompanied by remarriage
In Malachi the men of Judah were called treacherous for breaking covenant
with the wives of their youth, without consideration of whether or not they
married anyone else. Groundless divorce itself was considered to have
broken covenant and is the kind of divorce which it is said God hates.
If we define the genus of “adultery” as “breach of covenant,” then we can
have two species, each determined by the vows made or implied.
The man pledges to
provide food, clothing
and sex for his wife,
and not physically
abuse her (Ex. 21)
Breach would be either
to fail to provide in
marriage to or to end
the marriage without
breach on her part OR
to physically abuse her.
The woman pledges to
provide to remain
monogamous (Ex. 21)
Man’s
Woman’s
“Adultery” implies an
existing legal bond
Breach would be to enter into
a sexual liaison with another
man while her husband (legal
bond) lives OR to end her
marriage for the purpose of
remarriage—though the sin in
the latter case is in the
divorce, not the remarriage.
The Ethics of Treacherous Divorce Defined in Progressive Revelation
Moses: Breaking Covenant is Adultery (Ex. 20; Deut. 5)
Moses: A husband must provide for his wife and not abuse her. To not do so is
treachery and she has a right to be free from him (Ex. 21); since a wife
must be sexually exclusive to her husband, a man may not cause
another man’s wife to be non-exclusive (Lev. 18 & 20)
Moses: The wife is protected from hard-hearted husbands by his being
granted permission to (treacherously) divorce her (Deut. 24)
Malachi: Treacherous divorce is hated by God (Mal. 2)
Jesus: Treacherous treacherously ending a marriage is
adulterous, whether committed in one’s own marriage or
in the marriage of another (Matthew 5 & 19)
Paul: Refusing to provide is covenant ending treachery and
remarriage of the innocent is permitted (1 Cor. 7)
Paul’s Comment on Marriage in Roman’s 7:2
Rom. 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband
as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from
the law of the marriage. 7:3 So then, if she is joined to another man
while her husband is alive, she will be called an adulteress. But if
her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she is joined to
another man, she is not an adulteress. 7:4 So, my brothers and
sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that
you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the
dead, to bear fruit to God.
This verse by Paul is often cited as a basis for saying that marriage is permanent.
Actually is does not teach that at all. First, notice that the subject is: “How can I get rid of
my husband the Law, so that I can get married to the spouse (Christ) that I desire more.
In a real marriage, this would be a sinful thought and desire. Second, the wife is not
considered bound to her husband by law if she has a divorce. But divorce is out of sight
and mind in this analogy. Divorce would either be by husband or wife. In the analogy the
husband is the Law. He would not divorce us for our adultery, he would have us
executed, and such we deserve. We cannot divorce “him” because “he” has done no
wrong. Since the Law does not die, so the only way we can be free is for us to die. But
then we cannot marry Christ. So the only way out is for us to die in Christ. Thus free, we
may remarry Him.
Paul’s Principles of Marital Economics; Part 1
7:1 Now with regard to the issues you
wrote about: “It is good for a man not to
have sexual relations with a woman.”
7:2 But because of immoralities, each
man should have relations with his own
wife and each woman with her own
husband.
For Paul, one of the primary reasons to get married is to avoid fornication.
It is God’s established way of handling desire.
7:3 A husband should give to his wife
her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to
her husband. 7:4 It is not the wife who
has the rights to her own body, but the
husband. In the same way, it is not the
husband who has the rights to his own
body, but the wife. 7:5 Do not deprive
each other, except by mutual
agreement for a specified time, so that
you may devote yourselves to prayer.
Then resume your relationship, so that
Satan may not tempt you because of
your lack of self-control.
Having been established to counter immorality, that gain should not be
nullified by neutering the marriage relationship. The married are each
other’s answer to temptation, so the partners should not allow temptation
to lead the other partner astray. This could be done by misguided ideas
that sex is evil and should be avoided even in marriage.
7:6 I say this as a concession, not as a
command. 7:7 I wish that everyone was
as I am. But each has his own gift from
God, one this way, another that.
Paul considers the choice between marriage of singleness to be a given
from God—a gift. He sees the benefits of singleness and desires that for
his disciples, but is a realist at the same time.
7:8 To the unmarried and widows I say
that it is best for them to remain as I
am. 7:9 But if they do not have selfcontrol, let them get married. For it is
better to marry than to burn with sexual
desire.
A return to the basic principle of marriage as a counter for the “distraction”
of sexual immorality. The idea is that the disciple should choose whatever
will net them more quality time serving God.
The Divorce Teaching Of The Apostle Paul To Corinth
1 Cor. 7:10 To the married I give this
command – not I, but the Lord – a wife
should not divorce a husband
7:11 (but if she does, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her
husband), and a husband should not
divorce his wife.
7:12 To the rest I say – I, not the Lord – if
a brother has a wife who is not a
believer and she is happy to live with
him, he should not divorce her.
7:13 And if a woman has a husband
who is not a believer and he is happy
to live with her, she should not divorce
him.
7:14 For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified because of the wife, and the
unbelieving wife because of her husband.
Otherwise your children are unclean, but
now they are holy.
7:15 But if the unbeliever wants a
divorce, let it take place. In these
circumstances the brother or sister is
not bound. God has called you in peace.
7:16 For how do you know, wife, whether
you will bring your husband to salvation?
Or how do you know, husband, whether
you will bring your wife to salvation?
Reflecting on the teaching of Jesus as recorded in Mark 10:12, a woman
should not divorce her husband. Clearly here Paul believes that Jesus
was talking about a groundless divorce because he uses Jesus’ offense
term (“sundering”—italicized and underlined) as stated in Matthew 19
and Mark 10. Paul says that if she does divorce on this basis she should
remain unmarried or be reconciled (this last term implying guilt). This
seems to imply that remarriage was still possible. The husband is told
not to divorce (morally indeterminate term) under similar conditions
Not depending on a specific teaching of Jesus, Paul now discusses
interfaith marriage. Since the marriage was contracted while both were
non-believers, their covenant is considered valid before God. Paul does
not discuss the situation of Ezra 9, where the interfaith marriages were
acts of rebellion against God’s command not to willfully enter into an
interfaith marriage (Deut. 7:3). Nor does he discuss “forced” interfaith
marriages such as Esther faced.
Paul now discusses instances of where an interfaith marriage which
results from the conversion of one spouse AND the unbelieving partner
wishes to divorce because of that conversion. Paul may himself have
gone through that, since his position in Israel as “Grand Inquisitor” and
Pharisee of the Pharisees would seem to have required it—since the
single male was often considered immature and unworthy of leadership..
Believers as said to be no longer under the moral bond of marriage in
such circumstances and therefore should not fight the ending of the legal
bond. This follows the principle of the freedom of the woman whose
husband refuses to provide for her (Ex. 21:10-11). Does this entail the
right to remarry? Yes. The man always had that right by law and the
woman’s only moral legal obligation was not to have a relationship with
another man. If she’s free from the obligation not to have such a
relationship, she is free to contract one—in the Lord.
Paul’s Principles of Marital Economics; Part 2
1 Cor. 7:25 With regard to the question about people who have never
married, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one
shown mercy by the Lord to be trustworthy. 7:26 Because of the
impending crisis I think it best for you to remain as you are.
Where marriage/divorce/singleness is “optional”
Paul’s advice is driven by the situation. Stability in
marriage is desirable.
7:27 The one bound to a wife should not seek divorce.
The married should stay that way.
The one released from a wife should not seek marriage.
The divorced or widowed should stay single.
7:28 But if you marry, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she
has not sinned. But those who marry will face difficult circumstances, and
I am trying to spare you such problems. ...
Being married is not a sin in itself, but theoretically
increases the difficulty of serving God.
An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to
please the Lord. 7:33 But a married man is concerned about the things of
the world, how to please his wife, 7:34 and he is divided. An unmarried
woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy
both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the
things of the world, how to please her husband. 7:35 I am saying this for
your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without
distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord.
Marriage theoretically creates distraction from
serving God. But Paul has already stated that for
those who have physical desire, they may net
quality service time for God by being married.
7:36 If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his virgin, if she
is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he
wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry. 7:37 But the man who is firm in
his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will,
and has decided in his own mind to keep his own virgin, does well. 7:38
So then, the one who marries his own virgin does well, but the one who
does not, does better.
Probably advice to the guardian of an unmarried
woman. Her singleness is desirable though not
mandatory for her to serve the Lord, but if he so
chooses, he obligates himself to providing for her
for the duration. He should consider what is best
for her in making the decision.
7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband
dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes (only someone in the Lord).
7:40 But in my opinion, she will be happier if she remains as she is – and
I think that I too have the Spirit of God!
Singleness for widows is theoretically desirable for
service to God, but when freed by death from her
husband she my remarry a Christian.
The Divorce Teachings of the Apostle Paul to Corinth (Cont’d)
2 Cor. 6:14 Do not become partners
with those who do not believe, for
what partnership is there between
righteousness and lawlessness, or what
fellowship does light have with
darkness? 6:15 And what agreement
does Christ have with Beliar? Or what
does a believer share in common with
an unbeliever? 6:16 And what mutual
agreement does the temple of God
have with idols? For we are the temple
of the living God, just as God said, “I will
live in them and will walk among them,
and I will be their God, and they will be
my people.” 6:17 Therefore “come out
from their midst, and be separate,”
says the Lord, “and touch no unclean
thing, and I will welcome you, 6:18 and I
will be a father to you, and you will be
my sons and daughters,” says the AllPowerful Lord
Reflecting on the prohibition of willful
and freely chosen marriage to an
unbeliever in both the Law (Deut. 7:3)
and the prophets (Ezra 9-10), and the
implication of Jesus in Matthew 10, Paul
strongly prohibits the yoking of a
believer to an unbeliever. This implies a
knowledge prior to the marriage, both of
the Divine prohibition and the
unbelieving status of the marriage
partner.
Quoting Lev. 26:12 and reflecting the
prophetic word in Jer. 3, Paul
commands separation. Since he has
already proscribed contracting interfaith
marriages, it stands to reason that this
reflects the requirement in Ezra 9-10
that such marriages should be ended,
which would entail divorce. They are not
covenants which God joins, and
therefore have no moral bond or divine
sanction.
Four Principles for Dealing with Inter-Faith Covenants
Deut. 7:3 You must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their
daughters for your sons, 7:4 for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then
the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you.
The Ezra Principle
Ezra 9-10
Paul
2 Cor. 6:14-18
Where the intermarriage was, intentional (rebellious—
with full knowledge of God’s will and the
unacceptableness of the marriage partner), the proof of
repentance by the believer is separation through divorce.
The Gibeon Principle
Joshua 9:9-27
Where the intermarriage was an act of culpable neglect in
determining the unacceptableness of the marriage
partner, the penalty is to remain married.
The Esther Principle
Est. 2:1-17; 4:14
Where the intermarriage was a result of a forced marriage,
the believer should remain married to the unbeliever.
The Pauline Principle
1 Cor. 7:12-16
Where the intermarriage was a result of the conversion of
one of the partners, the believer is to remain married. If the
unbeliever divorces them, they are free of the marriage
bond, i.e., may marry a Christian.
Moses as the Basis of the Teaching of Jesus and Paul on Divorce
Exodus 21
Failure to Provide is
Marriage Ending
Leviticus 18 & 20
Sexual interference
with a marriage is
adultery
Deuteronomy 22:13
Unjust defamation of a
wife is a legal wrong
Jesus (Matthew 5:32a; 19:9;
Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18)
Unjust divorce is adultery as
failure to keep marriage vows
Jesus (Matthew 5:32a)
Unjust divorce attacks the
character of the innocent
(Lenski)
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Forcing a woman to
defame herself is
wrong (Walton)
Jesus (Matthew 5:32b)
Destroying someone marriage
by divorce is adultery
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Unjust divorce is
permitted to protect the
innocent
Paul (1 Cor. 7:15)
Divorce for Desertion frees the
innocent
The Propriety of Divorce in the Bible
OT: Divorce is an acceptable penalty for unrepentant, covenant breaking spouses: by
husbands (Ex. 21); by wives (Jer. 3 where it is a substitute for execution as in
Leviticus 20). It is the necessary penalty for men who have broken covenant with
God by marrying illegitimate (pagan) spouses (Ezra 10).
Repentant, legitimate spouses need not be divorced (cf. Jer. 3). If the guilty party is
repentant after the divorce. They may be restored (cf. Hosea 2).
Treacherous divorce by the husband is a legally permitted, not because it is a right
of the husband to end his marriage, but because it is dangerous to force a man to
stay married to someone he hates; the divorced woman is permitted to remarry
(Deut. 24).
NT: The Old Testament teaching is not abrogated, but the hard-hearted husbands who
take advantage of the Deut. permission are identified as adulterers (Matthew 5:32a).
Also identified as adulterers are men who conspire with treacherous wives to divorce
their husbands (in order enable them to marry the interloper) (Matthew 5:32b).
Valid marriage partners are admonished to remain married the their spouses
(Matthew 19 and 1 Cor. 7). Restoration is desirable if possible. (1 Cor. 7)
DIVORCE IN THE BIBLE
Morally Permissible Divorce
Morally Impermissible Divorce
Divorce which disciplines a
unrepentant covenant
breaker
Divorce which ends a marriage
without the covenant being
broken by the partner
1.
Since the nature of a woman’s covenant is to be
sexually faithful to her husband,
Adultery/fornication justifies (Matthew 5:32a;
19:9)
2.
Since the nature of a man’s covenant is to
provide for his wife’s well being, passive or active
abuse justifies (Ex. 21). Since modern conditions
of disease place the wife of a philandering
husband at risk, his sexual infidelity also
becomes a grounds.
3.
4.
Since a non-defensive, physical attack of a wife
upon her husband is contrary to the basic right to
self preservation, it also becomes a justification
for divorce as an act of self defense. Excessive
emotional abuse, which threatens the physical
well being of a partner, is a justification. People
need not be required to live with those who seek
their bodily harm
Since the future security of either partner relates
to their children, Child abuse is a justification.
1.
Since a man pledged to provide,
desertion or groundless divorce is the
breach of the covenant, whether that
divorce is motivated by the determination
to be exclusive to another woman
(Matthew 5 & 19; Mark 10, Luke 16) or
simply because he rejects his partner
(Deut. 24:1 vis-à-vis Matthew 5 and 19)
2.
Since the nature of a woman’s vow is to
remain exclusive to her husband,
desertion or divorce presumes an
unwillingness to keep that vow.
Since marriage is a partnership of the
committed, if both partners after counsel,
wish to end the marriage, Divorce is not
permitted, but there is not sufficient Biblical
basis for saying that it is morally permitted
or not.
The Propriety of Remarriage in the Bible
Men:
Were not denied the right to make multiple covenants if financially able. All
wives must be professors of the Covenant, concubines could be pagans. (cf.
Deut. 7)
Had the responsibility to covenant with women they humbled (seduced or
raped) unless the woman’s male protector refused—even if the offender was
already married. (Ex.22) Was executed if the woman was pledged. (Deut. 22)
Should imitate God in forgiving repentant spouses. (Hosea 2)
Should marry believers (Deut. 7), and then only if the relationship will enable
him to better serve God. (1 Cor. 7)
Women: Were not permitted to have more than one sexual relationship (covenanted
or not) at a time, and were to be executed if one was a legal covenant. When
execution ceased to be practiced, the guilty were punished by divorced. (Ex.
22)
If divorced, they were permitted to remarry, especially if divorced on the basis
of being hated (Deut. 24) or mistreated in the prior marriage. (Ex. 21)
Should marry believers (Deut. 7 and 2 Cor. 6), and then only if the relationship
will enable better service for God .(1 Cor. 7)
Divorce and Child Abuse: #1 Value & Protection of Children
Gen. 1:27 God
created humankind
in his own image,
in the image of God
he created them,
male and female he
created them.
1:28 God blessed
them and said to
them, “Be fruitful
and multiply! Fill the
earth and subdue it!
Ex. 1:18 Then the king of
Egypt summoned the
midwives and said to them,
“Why have you done this
and let the boys live?” 1:19
The midwives said to
Pharaoh, “Because the
Hebrew women are not like
the Egyptian women – for
the Hebrew women are
vigorous; they give birth
before the midwife gets to
them!” 1:20 So God treated
the midwives well, and the
people multiplied and
became very strong. 1:21
And because the midwives
feared God, he made
households for them.
Ex. 21:22 “If men fight
and hit a pregnant
woman and her child is
born prematurely, but
there is no serious
injury, he will surely be
punished in accordance
with what the woman’s
husband demands of
him, and he will pay
what the court decides.
21:23 But if there is
serious injury, then you
will give a life for a life,
21:24 eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, 21:25 burn
for burn, wound for
wound, bruise for bruise.
The principles in these verses are: 1) children are a blessing; 2) that He
blesses those who protect them; 3) they deserve the same protection
before law as adults. Jesus teaches that if someone causes a child to
stumble, God will judge harshly. The metaphorical use of σκανδαλίζω
(skandalizw) only works if the literal meaning also applies. Compare this
to Lev. 19:14 where placing a stumbling block before the blind is a great
evil. Children, like the blind, are defenseless.
Matt. 18:6 “But if
anyone causes one
of these little ones
who believe in me to
sin, it would be better
for him to have a huge
millstone hung around
his neck and to be
drowned in the open
sea. … 19:13 Then
little children were
brought to him for him
to lay his hands on
them and pray. But the
disciples scolded
those who brought
them. 19:14 But Jesus
said, “Let the little
children come to me
and do not try to stop
them, for the kingdom
of heaven belongs to
such as these.” 19:15
And he placed his
hands on them and
went on his way.
Divorce and Child Abuse: #1 Value & Protection of Children (cont’d)
Deut. 21:15 Suppose a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, and they
both bear him sons, with the firstborn being the child of the less loved wife. 21:16 In the day he
divides his inheritance he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the
other wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. 21:17 Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the
less loved wife as firstborn and give him the double portion of all he has, for that son is the
beginning of his father’s procreative power – to him should go the right of the firstborn.
This passage teaches that God does not allow abusing children by attacking
their own deserved inheritance. We may presume that this would also include
a son who refused for whatever reasons to participate in the family, and did not
care for the needs of his aged parents.
Exceptions to this rule would be where the oldest son was foolish enough to
spurn their inheritance (Esau) or when the oldest son (Ishmael) was the
offspring of a half-wife or concubine.
Clearly God has concern for children and their treatment. Abuse is the
opposite of this. If God would protect the inheritance of a child, would He
demand that a child live in a household where their very life or personhood
was endangered? If not, would not the good parent of the child be entitled or
even required to continue care for the child. (cf. Hagar and Ishmael—Gen. 21).
Divorce and Child Abuse: #2 Treatment of Children & Parents’ Reputation
Gen. 9:20 Noah, a man of the soil, began to plant a
vineyard. 9:21 When he drank some of the wine, he got
drunk and uncovered himself inside his tent. 9:22 Ham,
the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and
told his two brothers who were outside. 9:23 Shem and
Japheth took the garment and placed it on their
shoulders. Then they walked in backwards and covered
up their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the
other way so they did not see their father’s nakedness.
9:24 When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he
learned what his youngest son had done to him. 9:25
So he said, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves
he will be to his brothers.
The sin of Ham was visited upon his
son Canaan. The argument for this
runs that the cursing of a child
reflects back upon the reputation of
the parent. Had Noah cursed Ham, it
would have reflected back upon
himself. Thus, to curse Ham Noah
cursed his offspring. The principle
here is that an action against a child
(in this case a curse) is an action
against the chld’s parent.
Lev. 21:9 If a daughter of a priest
profanes herself by engaging in
prostitution, she is profaning her father.
She must be burned to death.
The principle of a child’s behavior
reflecting backwards upon the parent
is seen again by the prostitution of a
priest’s daughter. Her punishment was
horrific because her sin was an attack
upon her father’s reputation—and the
reputation of a priest was to be
spotless.
The principle that reputations of parents
are interrelated to those of their children
is significant. The mistreatment of a
child reflected great disrespect for the
child’s parents.
Divorce and Child Abuse: #3 Value of Children to the Wife’s Security
Gen. 38:6 Judah acquired a wife for Er his firstborn;
her name was Tamar. 38:7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn,
was evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord killed him.
38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Have sexual relations
with your brother’s wife and fulfill the duty of a
brother-in-law to her so that you may raise up a
descendant for your brother.” 38:9 But Onan knew
that the child would not be considered his. So
whenever he had sexual relations with his brother’s
wife, he withdrew prematurely so as not to give
his brother a descendant. 38:10 What he did was
evil in the Lord’s sight, so the Lord killed him too.
These two passages show that God was
extremely opposed to a husband acting
against the “potential” child of a woman. The
stated reason is that the child would preserve
the family name. But this also provided
security for the woman who inherited her
husband’s lands through her child. By
impeding the production of a child, the
husband was attacking the security of the
woman in a way that would be life-threatening
after his death. How much more so attacking
her living children?
Deut. 25:5 If brothers live together and
one of them dies without having a son,
the dead man’s wife must not remarry
someone outside the family. Instead, her
late husband’s brother must go to her,
marry her, and perform the duty of a
brother-in-law. 25:6 Then the first son
she bears will continue the name of the
dead brother, thus preventing his name
from being blotted out of Israel. 25:7 But if
the man does not want to marry his
brother’s widow, then she must go to the
elders at the town gate and say, “My
husband’s brother refuses to preserve
his brother’s name in Israel; he is
unwilling to perform the duty of a
brother-in-law to me!” 25:8 Then the
elders of his city must summon him and
speak to him. If he persists, saying, “I don’t
want to marry her,” 25:9 then his sister-inlaw must approach him in view of the
elders, remove his sandal from his foot, and
spit in his face. She will then respond,
“Thus may it be done to any man who
does not maintain his brother’s family
line!” 25:10 His family name will be
referred to in Israel as “the family of the
one whose sandal was removed.
Divorce and Child Abuse: #4 Child Abuse and Divorce
Mal. 2:15 No one
who has even a
small portion of the
Spirit in him does
this. What did our
ancestor do when
seeking a child from
God? Be attentive,
then, to your own
spirit, for one should
not be disloyal to the
wife he took in his
youth.
Gen. 21:8 The child grew and was
weaned. Abraham prepared a great feast
on the day that Isaac was weaned. 21:9
But Sarah noticed the son of Hagar the
Egyptian – the son whom Hagar had
borne to Abraham – mocking. 21:10 So
she said to Abraham, “Banish that slave
woman and her son, for the son of that
slave woman will not be an heir along with
my son Isaac!”
21:11 Sarah’s demand displeased
Abraham greatly because Ishmael was
his son. 21:12 But God said to Abraham,
“Do not be upset about the boy or your
slave wife. Do all that Sarah is telling you
because through Isaac your descendants
will be counted. 21:13 But I will also make
the son of the slave wife into a great
nation, for he is your descendant too.”
Malachi reflects the Genesis
text. Abraham did not divorce
Sara while seeking the child of
promise, whereas the men of
Israel in Malachi’s time
divorced their Hebrew wives in
order to marry foreign women.
Hagar, thought foreign, was a
half wife, or concubine, which
was allowed by the Law.
But, oddly Abraham did
“divorce” Hagar at Sara’s
demand and with God’s
acceptance. My own view is
that the behavior of Ishmael
(who was a teenager) toward
Isaac, with the support of
Hagar, was child abuse, and
that is why God justified
divorcing Hagar. .
The entire nexus of verses from God’s blessing, to God’s statement of the
value of children, through issues of reputation, justifies the parent of abused
children to be released from the covenant of marriage and taking their
children with them.
Divorce and False Child Abuse; Discipline
Prov. 13:24 The one who spares his rod hates his child, but the one who loves his child is diligent
in disciplining him.
Deut. 21:18 If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or
mother, and they discipline him to no avail, 21:19 his father and mother must seize him and bring
him to the elders at the gate of his city. 21:20 They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son
is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.”
21:21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. In this way you will purge out
wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.
Eph. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. 6:2 “Honor your father and
mother,” which is the first commandment accompanied by a promise, namely, 6:3 “that it may
go well with you and that you will live a long time on the earth.”
6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but raise them up in the discipline and
instruction of the Lord.
We live in an age in which discipline is considered child abuse. The above
passages show that God does permit physical spankings as corrective of bad
behavior. When a child rejects the discipline of their parents, who have given them
life and all they enjoy, they are the sorts of ungrateful people who will cause trouble
in society. Thus society ended their lives before they could cause such trouble.
However, aside from such extreme behavior, the discipline of children was to be
judicious, not provoking to anger, which implies that it was not to be unduly harsh,
which in itself created anger and rejection. Child abuse does not have the good
development of the child in view. It is merely an angry response of the parent to
being allowed to live without interference. It can also arise from more evil
intentions, such as deriving pleasure from harming those who cannot resist.
Divorce and Wife Abuse (Active—Physical/Passive—Failure to Provide)
Ex. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he
must not diminish the first one’s food,
her clothing, or her marital rights. 21:11
If he does not provide her with these
three things, then she will go out free,
without paying money.
21:26 “If a man strikes the eye of his
male servant or his female servant so
that he destroys it, he will let the
servant go free as compensation for
the eye. 21:27 If he knocks out the
tooth of his male servant or his female
servant, he will let the servant go free
as compensation for the tooth.
Deut. 24:1 If a man marries a
woman and she does not please
him because he has found
something offensive in her, then he
may draw up a divorce document,
give it to her, and evict her from his
house. 24:2 When she has left him
she may go and become someone
else’s wife. 24:3 If the second
husband rejects her and then
divorces her, gives her the papers,
and evicts her from his house, or if
the second husband who married
her dies, 24:4 her first husband
who divorced her is not permitted
to remarry her after she has
become ritually impure, for that is
offensive to the Lord.
1 Cor. 7:15 But if the
unbeliever wants a
divorce, let it take
place. In these
circumstances the
brother or sister is not
bound. God has
called you in peace.
The key passage is Exodus 21:10-11. A husband may not even passively abuse his wife.
If passive abuse justifies freedom, i.e., a divorce, then how much more a wife who is
actively abused by her husband. Even a slave had the right to be free from their contract
in physical abuse cases. Deut. 24:1-4 is designed to protect a woman from a “hardhearted man” (so Jesus) by allowing him to divorce her, by permitting her remarriage, and
by prohibiting her remarriage to the abuser. 1 Cor. echos Exodus 21 by proclaiming the
passively abused wife was free of all marital obligations, including the prescription to be
monogamous. In the case of an unjust divorce, that would entail remarriage.
Divorce and Wife Abuse: Destruction of Reputation: #1
Num. 5:29 “‘This is the law for cases of jealousy, when a wife, while under her husband’s
authority, goes astray and defiles herself, 5:30 or when jealous feelings come over a man
and he becomes suspicious of his wife; then he must have the woman stand before the
Lord, and the priest will carry out all this law upon her. 5:31 Then the man will be free from
iniquity, but that woman will bear the consequences of her iniquity.
In the First Giving of the Law, a provision was made for husbands who
became convinced that their wives were unfaithful. A procedure is set out by
which God would miraculously prove, one way or the other whether the
woman was guilty. The consequences of such a sin by the wife was set forth
in Leviticus 20 as execution. No divorce was therefore necessary.
If the man was wrong about his jealousy, the text says that he would be
guilty of “iniquity,” but it does not specify a penalty for his sin. That penalty
was clarified in Deuteronomy 22:13
Divorce and Wife Abuse: Destruction of Reputation: #2
Deut. 22:13 Suppose a man marries a woman, has sexual relations with her, and then rejects her, 22:14
accusing her of impropriety and defaming her reputation by saying, “I married this woman but when I
had sexual relations with her I discovered she was not a virgin!” 22:15 Then the father and mother of the
young woman must produce the evidence of virginity for the elders of the city at the gate. 22:16 The
young woman’s father must say to the elders, “I gave my daughter to this man and he has rejected her.
22:17 Moreover, he has raised accusations of impropriety by saying, ‘I discovered your daughter was not
a virgin,’ but this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity!” The cloth must then be spread out before
the city’s elders. 22:18 The elders of that city must then seize the man and punish him. 22:19 They will
fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, for the man who
made the accusation ruined the reputation of an Israelite virgin. She will then become his wife and he
may never divorce her as long as he lives.
The hundred shekels of silver would have amounted to about eight and a third years
wages. Most men could not afford such a thing and it would have forced them to sell
themselves into indentured servitude. This would place them in a controlled situation in
which they would still have been able to provide for their wife. The requirement never to
divorce fits in the context of her likely inability to be provided for by someone else, her
reputation being soiled.
In our own times, the situation has changed. A woman proclaimed innocent in a court of
law would receive nothing from the court unless she filed a separate action of liable
against him. If she wins, depending on the legal situation where she lives, he might be
given time to correct his libel or he might be fined. In some US states he might also be
considered guilty of a misdemeanor. In no case would he be forced to pay the equivalent
of 8.3 years wages to her and be forced to provide for her for the rest of her life. Indeed
to successfully win a defamation lawsuit, a person generally has the burden of proving
that the slander has injured their professional reputation or experienced financial loss. In
the case of a spouse, such a civil suit is probably doomed to failure.
Divorce and Wife Abuse: Indirect—Criminal Husband
1 Sam. 25:25 My lord should not pay attention to this wicked man Nabal. He simply lives up to his name!
His name means ‘fool,’ and he is indeed foolish! But I, your servant, did not see the servants my lord sent.
25:26 “Now, my lord, as surely as the Lord lives and as surely as you live, it is the Lord who has kept you
from shedding blood and taking matters into your own hands. Now may your enemies and those who seek
to harm my lord be like Nabal. …. 25:31 Your conscience will not be overwhelmed with guilt for having
poured out innocent blood and for having taken matters into your own hands. When the Lord has
granted my lord success, please remember your servant.”25:32 Then David said to Abigail, “Praised be
the Lord, the God of Israel, who has sent you this day to meet me! 25:33 Praised be your good judgment!
May you yourself be rewarded for having prevented me this day from shedding blood and taking matters
into my own hands. … 25:37 In the morning, when Nabal was sober, his wife told him about these matters.
He had a stroke and was paralyzed. 25:38 After about ten days the Lord struck Nabal down and he died.
The story of Nabal is one of a wife strapped with a fool for a husband—a fool
whose actions placed her and her household in danger for their lives. In that
instance God Himself judged Nabal and she was freed from him by his death.
She then married David. David was not the law and had not right to judge
Nabal. But what do we make of the case of Paula and Dennis Rader. Paula
was yoked to the BTK serial killer. His incarceration for his multiple murders
left her without provision and a soiled reputation. In such cases divorce is
justified, even though Dennis’s failure to provide was immediately caused by
his incarceration, the ultimate case was his evil deeds, for which he alone was
responsible. Thus he fits into the Exodus 21 category.
The Bible and “No Fault” Divorce
Matthew 19:5 and said, ‘For
this reason a man will leave
his father and mother and
will be united with his wife,
and the two will become
one flesh’? 19:6 So they are
no longer two, but one flesh.
Therefore what God has
joined together, let no one
separate.”
These verses may prohibit the mutual
ending of a marriage. But the context is
clearly directed against unilateral
cessation. The Pharisees’ question dealt
with the man having the right to send his
wife away (Matt. 19:9 & Mark 10:11). In
Mark this concept is broadened to include
a woman sending her husband away
(Mark 10:12). But what if both want out?
Two Options
Both are sinning
Neither are sinning
1. The direction of Jesus’ teaching is
that they have made a choice to
establish a relationship that should
remain until death. Cf Rom. 7:2.
1. The marriage relationship is not
ontological but legal and social with a
view of serving God better by means of
the relationship.
2. Whether or not they agree they are
sinning by breaking their vows.
2. Sins imply offense against someone. If
no one is offended, where is the sin?
The Bible and “No Fault” Divorce (Cont’d 2)
It is argued that marriages are covenants and not compacts…that the
latter might be ended by mutual consent, but not the former. Yet the
Covenant with Abraham (Isaac and Jacob) and David are clearly
conditional. Covenants between God and men, such as the Mosaic were
formed after the Hittite Suzerainty treaties…agreements between unequal
partners. “Parity” treaties were also known, where the partners were on an
equal plain—mutually established, they might be mutually ended.
Which is a marriage more like? The answer would seem the latter.
The statement that God has joined the two and that therefore the joining
should not be interrupted or sundered, speaks of God insuring that neither
party unilaterally breaks their marriage vows to the other. It is not clear
that a mutual ending of the marriage falls under the category of a
sundering that God will not permit.
Example: A poor elderly couple, where both of the partners had children by
previous marriages. They can no longer care for each other. Their children, living
in different states, could care for their birth parents, but could not afford to care for
the other. The couple might remain married in name only except that the financial
situation would be clarified and expedited by a divorce, with the birth children
being responsible for the dispersion of assets on behalf of their parents,
unencumbered by obligations to the other partner. By mutual agreement the
couple wishes to divorce.
The Bible and “No Fault” Divorce (Cont’d 3)
There are no illustrations of this situation in the Scriptures. The closest one comes in the
love/hate relationship between David and Michal, Saul’s daughter. Founded in romantic love, the
last references to it speak of her despising him in her heart and his angry words to her, followed
by the statement that she was childless till her death (2 Sam. 6:20-23)—perhaps that was not so
much a judgment of God against her but of the fact that they was no more communion between
them. The ending of the relationship between Jacob and Laban seems likewise irrelevant (Gen.
31), as no formal agreement between them existed that had not been fulfilled.
In the NT, Paul speaks of a married couple taking a temporary leave of sexual relations:
1 Cor. 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman
with her own husband. 7:3 A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to her
husband. 7:4 It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not
the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual
agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then resume your relationship,
so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 7:6 I say this as a concession, not as a
command. 7:7 I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another
that.
But what if both agree that they don’t need physical relationship and decide to be single again?
Or that neither wants a physical relationship with the other anymore, and no children are
involved?
Paul’s response focuses upon one major issue: avoiding uncovenanted sex (“immoralities”). If
their marriage was covenanted to avoid this, what now that they seek independence? Can they
avoid temptation after returning to the single state? A counselor might press this issue, but can a
prohibition be established from this text?
The Bible and “No Fault” Divorce (Cont’d 4)
Counsel direction may well focus upon four points:
1. The sincerity of their intention prior to the covenanting of their marriage.
2. The issues that have led them to seek the ending of the relationship. If there are problems in
the relationship, then counsel and not divorce are the first court of resort. If one person is
persistent in offending the other and the other has simply given up under pressure from the
offender, then the minister should step in on behalf of the compliant party and seek to get
the dominant party to bring his or her actions into accord with the Scripture’s standard of
love and righteousness.
3. If the issue is a mutual desire for greener pastures, then the counselor should press for the
couple to fulfill their vows to each other and find their satisfaction with each other rather than
to demean marriage by making it a temporary license to have sexual relations.
4. All this notwithstanding, it is possible that their relationship is destroying each other to the
point that they cannot serve God. Their personalities may have been misunderstood by each
other before marriage. While that discovery should have occurred before marriage, can a
counselor say that once discovered during marriage, it must be ignored thereafter or must
be made to work at all costs? In some cases the couple may have been striving to make
things work for decades without positive results. Must life end for them both with marriage
netting less time for service than would a return to singleness? Does the counselor or pastor
have a right to voice a prohibition to such a couple? On what Biblical basis? These are
difficult issues. In the end the couple must decide before the Lord and will be held
accountable for their mutual decision.
Remarriage After Divorce
OT:
It is the assumption of the Mosaic Law that remarriage after divorce was
permitted, except for one situation. (Deut. 24:1-4) Given that, to argue
otherwise bears the burden of proof.
In the Prophets, remarriage is discussed as the future relationship of Yahweh
to the people against whom He had practiced disciplinary divorce. This kind of
remarriage is a restoration of the partners. As an example to humans facing
the issues, this does not diminish the propriety of the permissions of the Law,
makes restoration a Divinely stated ideal outcome of such disciplinary
divorce. (Cf. Hosea 2:14ff)
NT:
Given Jesus’ statement that the law and the prophets remain, the burden of
proof rests upon those who would deny that remarriage after divorce was
permitted. The interpretation of Jesus’ particular teachings on Divorce should
be harmonized with them. Remarriage is seen as statement of the facts. The
moral issues then center on the divorce. (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18)
Paul permits remarriage of wrongly divorced believers. Attempts to deny his
permission relates to cases of believers “deserted” by professing believers is
wrongheaded. (1 Cor. 7:15) Paul says those who fail to care for their own
families are considered to be apostates, worse than infidels. (1 Tim. 5:8) Paul
does admonish believers to consider remaining single in order to better serve
God. Restoration of broken marriages is ideal. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)
Is Disciplinary Divorce Harmonious with “Submission”?
1 Peter. 3:1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if
some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you
live, 3:2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct. 3:3 Let your beauty not be
external – the braiding of hair and wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes – 3:4 but the inner
person7 of the heart, the lasting beauty of a gentle and tranquil spirit, which is precious in
God’s sight. 3:5 For in the same way the holy women who hoped in God long ago adorned
themselves by being subject to their husbands, 3:6 like Sarah who obeyed Abraham,
calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in
doing so. 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the
weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way
nothing will hinder your prayers.
There are differences of opinion as to what “disobedience to the word” means. Some think it
refers to not accepting a call to salvation, others to disobedience as a Christian. While there is
some similarity to Paul’s comments to Christian woman living with unbelieving spouses (1 Cor. 7),
the illustration of Sara and Abraham inclines me to believe Christian husbands are in view here.
He is misbehaving and she is told to be a model, not a mirror. But what if his misbehavior is of the
sort that disciplinary divorce counters in what we have seen in earlier Revelation?
Any argument that this changes the teachings of the Law, Prophets, the Gospels and the Epistles
(of Paul—which Peter calls Scripture) is unlikely and bears the burden of proof. Believing such an
interpretation cannot offer such support, it must be assumed that the husband’s disobedience
referred to in this passage is not of the sort that would sunder a moral bond of marriage, and that
therefore the admonition to be submissive is not relevant to the subject of disciplinary divorce.
The admonition to husbands should be interpreted in the same way
The Problem Of Modern Marriage Vows
Our modern marriage vows require each other to take each other:
“…to cherish each other for better, for worse, for richer, or poorer, in
sickness or in heath till death parts.”
These are not Biblical terms nor required promises. If they are to be considered
the same as Biblical terms of a marriage contract, then are they broken when in
the first week there is an argument and “cherish” is obviously no longer being
done? Does for worse include adultery or acts of abuse? Does “for poorer”
mean if one spouse squanders all the money and leaves the family destitute?
Does “sickness” mean an even forgiven one-night stand by the spouse which
brings home HIV? Even if we argue with Paul…
Gal. 3:15 Brothers and sisters, I offer an example from everyday life:
When a covenant has been ratified, even though it is only a human
contract, no one can set it aside or add anything to it.
…clearly such promises are intended NOT to include such situations as these.
Exceptions are implied.
Indeed there is truth in the quip of the wag:
“I did take my spouse for better or for worse, but he was worse than I
took him for.”