|
This
part of the study is an exegesis of the entire text (Matt. 19:3-12).
Matthew 19:3: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting
him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
cause?
At
the time when Jesus lived on the earth, a dispute had been raging for about a
century between the schools of Shammai and Hillel over the proper
interpretation of “something indecent” (Deut 24:1). This was but one of
numerous attempts by the Pharisees to entrap Jesus. They evidently had two
motives: to pit Jesus against Moses and thus charge him with teaching contrary
to the Law; or 2) to cause Jesus to takes sides on the controversial divorce
issue, which would cause him problems.
What
was the answer the Pharisees were seeking in response to their question? Would
they not have been satisfied if Jesus had answered “yes” or “no”? Indeed, they
would have, but Jesus perceived their intentions and did not respond as they
had hoped. Thus, they failed in their effort to cause Jesus to take sides on
the issue that so divided the Jews. And so this would explain why at Jesus'
trial no charge was made that He had taught contrary to Moses regarding the
marriage law.
How
did Jesus respond? The conclusion of some today is that Jesus took sides with
the “Shammai” school, which would mean he fell for the Pharisees’ trap. Since nothing
in this passage or scripture, or elsewhere in the Bible, gives any credence to
the idea that the Pharisees or the Hillel school understood Jesus to have taken
sides with the Shammai school, then it would seem imprudent to conclude and
teach that Jesus sided with Shammai.
Many
assert that Jesus not only took the Shammai position but also contradicted
Moses in teaching new law, which meant that divorced persons could no longer
marry. Again, we find no evidence that the Pharisees understood Jesus to have
contradicted Moses. Since that was apparently one of the main things they were
hoping Jesus would do it is prudent to conclude that their failure to note
(even at his trial) that Jesus contradicted Moses means they did not understand Jesus to have
contradicted Moses by teaching a new and different law.
Jesus
said He Was Not Making New Law
Matthew 5:17-19: Let there be no thought that I have come to put an end to the law or
the prophets. I have not come for destruction, but to make complete. Truly I
say to you, Till heaven and earth come to an end, not the smallest letter or
part of a letter will in any way be taken from the law, till all things are
done. Whoever then goes against the smallest of these laws, teaching men to do
the same, will be named least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who keeps the
laws, teaching others to keep them, will be named great in the kingdom of
heaven.
A Feeble
Quibble:
Some
preachers are now saying Jesus’ words were not applicable to the Jews, but were
just teachings that would go into effect when his law went into effect after his
death. In other words, a command was given to the hearers but they were not
really expected to do anything. How does that theory harmonize with the
following passage:
What thing soever I command you, that shall ye
observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut 12:32).
Asserting
that what Jesus said to sinners under the Law was not applicable to them, that
it did not apply to them, and that they could practice what He condemned is not
only a dodge or quibble, it implies that Jesus spoke without authority and did
not tell the truth.
On
the other hand, if Jesus did change the Law many of the Jewish men would have
had to violate the Law immediately ceasing to be faithful to their wives. Let
me repeat that. They would have had to
violate the law in order to obey Jesus. Who can believe it? In addition, even
if we were to accept that Jesus’ words did not apply before the cross, no New
Testament scripture teaches by command, example, or necessary inference that
the people taught on the day of Pentecost, or thereafter, were told their legal
marriages were adulterous. The only examples we have are marriage was not legal
(Mark 6:18, Lev 20:2, 1 Cor. 5:1) and that is in perfect harmony with what
Jesus actually taught and which, hopefully, you will see before you complete
this reading.
Which
school was correct, Hillel, or Shammai?
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (ASV): When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she
find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her,
that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and
send her out of his house. 2. And when she is departed out of his house, she
may go and be another man's wife. 3. And if the latter husband hate her, and
write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of
his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4. her
former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after
that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not
cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The
text does not really give a specific reason at all for the divorce, and I draw this
conclusion because of verse 3, which says, “And if the latter husband hate her….” Thus, it seems reasonable
that the same criteria (he just did not love her) would have been applicable to
the first husband who was commanded to
write the “bill of divorce” (Mark 10:3) if he was intent on ending the
marriage.
Neither
the Hillel, nor Shammai
Schools of Thought Were
Correct
The
Shammai school held that "something indecent" meant "marital
unfaithfulness," which some today insist is the same thing as “except for
adultery.” However, the Law required the death penalty for this offense, which
means a divorce would not be needed.
The
Hillel school held that the reason for divorce included anything that becomes
displeasing to the man. This was certainly not what Moses intended to be
understood as the reason for his command. Those of the Hillel school were
looking at Moses’ command as being something that was for their benefit, which
was not the case at all. They concluded that, being men, they had God’s
approval to discard “put away” a wife with no more reason than they might have
to discard a garment. Such was not the will of God as is evident from the
following passage:
Malachi 2:16: For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith
that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith
the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not
treacherously.
Moses' aim was ‘to regulate and thus to mitigate an
evil which he could not extirpate.’ The evident purpose was, as far as
possible, to favor the wife, and to protect her against an unceremonious
expulsion from her home and children (International Standard Encyclopedia).
Those
who were not hardened in heart would be obedient to the command of God and
“deal not treacherously” with their wife, which forbade putting them out of the
house. The question of whether adultery was the reason for the command to give
the “bill of divorce” is easily settled by noting the following:
Lev 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with
another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife,
the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Deut 22:22: If a man be found lying with a woman
married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with
the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.
Again,
since physical sexual adultery was punishable by death, we must rule out the
possibility that “adultery” was given as a reason for one to divorce.
The
true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is ably explained by Mike Willis, a
conservative preacher and long time editor of Truth Magazine:
A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was
trying to legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in
which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in
the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for her
future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and yet she could
not live with her husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite
frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was something that would
aid women who had been put away by their husbands.
The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going
to put away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that
she was free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was
designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were giving to
them." Mike Willis, Truth Magazine
(Dayton, Ohio: April 3, 1980), XXIV: 14,
pp. 227-230.
That
the Jews were doing as Mike Willis suggests is evident from the fact that the
Jews are still practicing the same treachery against their wives. (See the chapter
“Jewish Women in Chains” in this book.)
Considering that the Mosaic text (Deut 24:1-4) was actually a command,
rather than a privilege for the men (as is evident from the words of Jesus,
Mark 10:3), and that the command to provide the “bill of divorcement” was not
applicable in the case of marital unfaithful-ness, both the school of
Hillel and the school of Shammai were wrong. Thus, Jesus did not take sides
with either of them.
We
have already discussed, to some degree, the idea that Jesus did not contradict
Moses. As we begin to understand the text from Matthew, we will begin to see
(if we have not seen already) that Jesus did not contradict Moses, which
explains why the Pharisees did not make a charge against Jesus on that matter.
Matthew 19:4-5: And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they
are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder.
What
the Law of Moses said was in contrast with what was from the beginning, because
God gave no provision for divorce in the beginning. What Jesus said was in
contrast with what was from the beginning because it agreed with the Law of
Moses.
Matthew 19:7: They say unto him, Why did Moses then
command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
First,
we see that the “writ of divorce” was a command. Jesus’ reply (Mark 10:3) “What
did Moses command you?” is proof.
Second,
the reason for the command was that men were dealing treacherously with their
wives. This was evidently God’s way to give relief to the wives. If they could
be legally free they could marry another. A man who deliberately refused to set
his wife free, simply casting her out without a divorce decree, was dealing
treacherously with her, or committing adultery “against her,” as Jesus put it
(Mark 10:11).
Matthew 19:8: He saith unto them, Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so.
Moses
“suffered”, that is, he exacted no penalty for what they were doing—it was just
allowed to continue. God gave the command to give the “bill of divorcement,” but
men continued to disobey. One of the reasons men would “put away” and not give
the “bill of divorcement” was the fact that they would have had to return the
dowry they received from the woman’s parents (see ISBE). Of course we know that
men were allowed more than one wife under the Law. Thus, it was nothing for a
man, if he should get tired of a woman, to simply put her away (“send out of
the house”). Nevertheless, when it was done the man and woman were still
married. This put the woman, who was not allowed to have multiple husbands,
in a position of having no man to care for her and no legal/scriptural right to
marry. She needed to be released according to the command of Moses (Deut.
24:1-4). This act of "putting away" was a treacherous deed by the husband, but the Law contained no provision
to punish the men if they did not comply. Jesus did refer to such an act as
committing adultery "against her" (Mark 10:11) but he said it was
“suffered.” Even to this day it is suffered among the Jews. Women in the United States
are not affected because they are allowed to divorce the men.
Matthew 19:9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth
adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
First,
what Jesus said was not in contrast with the Law of Moses because it was
identical to the Law of Moses. Certainly Jesus was not saying, “Moses said this, but I’m changing it
to this.…” That would have resulted in an immediate uproar and stoning. Yet it
was not even brought up at his trial.
Paraphrase
of verse 9:
Whoever shall send his wife out of the
house and marry another, commits adultery against her, unless he sent her away
because of fornication, which is being committed because of the unlawful
relationship.
The
above must be the meaning because the Mosaic text (which was the basis for the
discussion) was needed (and therefore written) because of the treacherous
practice of Jewish men who were sending their wives away without completely
freeing them from the marriage, which would enable them to marry another.
It
appears that the Pharisees’ first question was about "putting away," with
no implication of thoughts of ending a dead marriage in a legal and scriptural
way. But, when Moses was mentioned they answered with both "put away"
and "bill of divorcement." It seems plausible that Jesus went back to
their original question about "putting away" without the “bill of
divorcement” and that he made his succeeding comments with such in mind.
The Exception Clause
The
exception clause, found in verse 9 of Matthew 19 and verse 32 of Matthew
chapter 5 has been the root of more controversy than perhaps any other biblical
text. I shall briefly try to explain how it relates to what we have already
learned. Note the following passage:
Ezekiel 10:11: Now therefore make confession unto the
LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the
people of the land, and from the strange wives.
God
gave no command to divorce those “strange wives.” Why? They were not
legal marriages. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed
to end. The translators of the New Jerusalem Bible were on the right
track (except in rendering apoluo as
divorce). They translated the passage as follows:
But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife,
except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and
anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Mt 5:32).
Matthew 19:10: His disciples say unto him, If the case
of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
First,
it was not the Pharisees but the disciples who commented on Jesus’ teachings. Certainly,
they were not intending to place doubt upon the wisdom of God in instituting
marriage. They understood Jesus to be saying that if the marriage is not going
to be legitimate, such as the case where the woman is a forbidden foreign wife,
brother’s ex-wife, or other forbidden relatives, it is best not to marry that
particular woman (Gen 24:37; Mt 14:4; Lev 20:17; 20:21).
Matthew 19:11: But he said unto them, Not all men can
receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
Those
who could receive the saying would simply be the ones to whom it applied–those
whose marriage was illegal/unscriptural and resulted in fornication.
Matthew 19:12: For there are eunuchs, that were so
born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by
men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
To
understand the above passage we must go back to verse ten. The disciples stated
that it was not good to marry if the “case of the man be so with his wife.”
What case? An illegal/unscriptural marriage. In the above passage, Jesus states
that men who cannot find a woman, except one that is not lawful to marry, had
best remain celibate. Those who are eunuchs, having not the capability to have
sex, certainly would have no problem with not marrying. They would have no
problem accepting the saying.
Conclusion:
This
exegesis is logical, scriptural, and hermeneutically sound and allows for God,
Jesus, his apostles, and his disciples, to be seen as fair and just. All should
be able to accept the teaching in this thesis because the original teaching of
God on marriage is respected, no families need to bust up (if their marriage is
legal) and legally divorced persons, innocent of sin or not, need not remain
celibate. The practice of requiring celibacy is something that is contrary to
the very reason given for marriage (1Cor 7:2).
Marriage
is dissolvable (contrary to Catholic decree) if done legally, and those who
have been through an unfortunate divorce are not still bound. This is evidently true because of the clear teaching of Paul
and the lack of biblical or historical evidence to support the practice of
breaking up legal marriages and imposing celibacy.
When
a divorce takes place one or both parties may have been guilty of sin, but the
sin(s) is forgivable. The last thing that should happen to one disheartened
because of a divorce is that he/she be required to maintain a permanent
position that makes the endeavor to live the Christian life even more
difficult.
| 
