It is unfortunate that theologians on the subject of marriage have biased opinions on what Jesus wanted for marriage and divorce. For example, some will claim that Jesus "forbade" divorce. Therefore, they conclude that "Jesus presumes to teach that what the Law of Moses 'permitted' and regulated was actually the sin of adultery."i Jesus is not teaching this error; the theologians are. In the passage in the "sermon on the mount" He specifically gives an exception for one to "put away a wife" just as Moses did in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.


            PRACTICAL DIVISION OF THE TESTAMENTSdividing line between the Old and the New Testaments

            They either then try and harmonize their misinterpretation of Jesus' teaching with the apostle Paul or completely ignore Paul's writings. The fact is, Paul's teachings were exclusively under the New Covenant whereas Jesus, on the other hand, during His earthly ministry was dealing with repentance toward the Old Covenant prior to its termination.


            But the question is sometimes asked, "Doesn't Jesus say that Moses allowed things that God did not approve of; e.g., divorce?" The answer should be obvious. Nowhere does Jesus deny the authority of Moses nor that Moses spoke and wrote from God. Rather, He commands that when the teachers teach from the authority of Moses, "that observe and do" (Matthew 23:2). He identifies the command of "honoring father or mother" as "Moses said" but at the same time calling it "the word of God" (Mark 7:30). In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus quotes Abraham as saying, "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them" (Luke 16:29, 31). Jesus affirmed that Moses accused the people before the Father (John 5:45). "But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47). Jesus accused the Jews at the temple of not keeping the Law of Moses (John 7:19). Jesus equated obeying the circumcision law on the sabbath with healing on the sabbath (John 7:22, 23). He respected and honored the sabbath law (Luke 4:16).


            • X.21 "I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY"



            The Old Testament was not referred to as the "Old Testament" when Jesus was on earth. The first five books were often referred to as "The Law" and the remaining books were known as "The Prophets." Sometimes the Psalms (also called, "The Writings")ii were distinguished from the "Prophets" (Luke 24:44). But when Jesus was using the name "the Law and the Prophets", He was referring to all of what we call today, "the Old Testament."iii


            Jesus asserts that His teaching during His earthly ministry was not to "destroy" the Old Testament; i.e., meaning to "loosen down" as of a house or tent (2 Corinthians 5:1) or "disintegrate; demolish" (KataluoG2627, Mickelson's). Thayer gives the following meanings: "to dissolve, disunite (what has been joined together); metaphor: 'to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught'; of institutions, forms of government, laws, etc., to deprive of force, annul, abrogate, discard."


            Whereas Paul and Peter by the Holy Spirit that Jesus had exaleiphoG1813 ["rubbed out, obliterated, erased"] the ordinances and shadows of the Mosaic Covenant (Colossians 2:14-17), called "the mystery" in Ephesians 3:1-7, Jesus on the other hand specifically said that what He was teaching in the sermon on the mount was not kataluoing ["dissolving"] the Law and the Prophets. Jesus was fulfilling them.

            • XI.11 "YOU HAVE HEARD IT SAID"


            When Jesus was directly quoting the Law, He would say, "It is written", as He did to the devil during the wilderness temptations (Matthew 4:1ff; Luke 4:1ff). Or, as He answered the lawyer (Luke 10:26), "He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?" When the lawyer quoted the Old Testament passage as written, Jesus commented, "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."


            However, since Jesus used the expression, "You have heard" in Matthew 5, was He not referring to how the Pharisees taught the people, which was called in Hebrew 'שמעתא' "hearing"? The hearings were the connotations and/or traditions added by the Pharisees.iv Commentators (such as McGarvey, Jamieson +, Barnes, and Clarke) all agree that Jesus was especially addressing the "glosses" v that were added to the readings.


            When we compare the Law with what is quoted by Jesus, such an interpretation can be seen as true. For example, with verse 43, "hate thine enemy" is added to the "love" passage commanded in the Law. This is not in the Mosaic passage. The Pharisees may have been interpreting Deuteronomy 32:41 or Numbers 10:35 in connection with verse 43. Such passages, however, when read are actually referring to the hatred of their enemies toward Israel. The Pharisees were in error.


            This is affirmed in Matthew 5:21. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time" (Matthew 5:21). This was also a Talmud expression; that is, as here, "by them of old time", or "to the ancients." The expression is not speaking of Moses or anyone of the inspired prophets, but to those interpreters, the "ancient" teachers before Jesus but since the days of Ezra. These "ancients" had corrupted the Law of Moses by their false glosses which they recited to the people.vi


            "Here Jesus quotes the Jewish oral teaching current in his day."vii It is reasonable then to believe that Jesus was correcting or clarifying what interpretation and connotation the teachers had left in the "hearing" with the people. "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness [DikaiosuneG1343] shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20). Thayer's Greek Definitions states that DikaiosuneG1343 refers to "a doctrine." Jesus is definitely not censuring Moses but the Pharisees. Jesus also says that what He's saying is prior to entering the kingdom. What Law existed before the kingdom came? See more on this subject in X.232 Their Teachings of Right and Wrong.


            • XI.12 "BUT I SAY UNTO YOU"


            During the "sermon on the mount" Jesus would state a subject “It has been said” and then follow it up with His commandment, “But I say unto you” (Matthew 5). He did this in this sermon with “putting away” (verse 32). The observation is made when He concludes the sermon on the mount: "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his teaching: For he taught them as [one] having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matthew 7:28, 29, ESV2011).


            Why were the people "struck" with amazement because of how Jesus taught as compared to how they were accustomed to being taught by the scribes (and Pharisees)? Was it not because of the Pharisees' method of appealing to the "oral interpretations" of the sages, while Jesus affirmed His corrections with "I say unto you."


            Remember Jesus was careful to point out that He was not attacking the Law of Moses since He prefaced His words with, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:18). He was born under the Law of Moses (Galatians 4:4) and He did not violate any of it (Hebrews 4:15). He did not teach against it. Jesus was sinless Himself with the Law (Hebrews 4:15). He did not teach his disciples or audience to disobey it which would have made Him worthy of death (Deuteronomy 13:1).


            It is the opinion of some that God's moral codes continue in Jesus' law but on a much higher and consequential scale (Galatians 6: 2, Romans13, John 15: 12, Hebrews 10: 25 ff.). It is easy to agree with this position in reading the "Sermon on the Mount"; however, when we look closer to the context of Jesus versus the Pharisees, we can appreciate that Jesus is really clarifying the essence of the teachings of Moses and the Prophets.


            • MOSES IS CONFIRMED BY JESUS


            It is a sound argument, I believe, that the reference that Jesus made to His not destroying the Law also assured His listeners that what He is saying does not mean that He wants them to break the Law of Moses which they were under. He would not have told those living in anticipation of His kingdom and during his ministry that they should disobey any of the Law. It cannot be overstated. Jesus was not Moses' enemy.


            Jesus confirms, for example, the Old Testament teaching on loving God and loving one's neighbor (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:18,19; 22:37, 39).* The "Law and the Prophets" hang on these two commands. Which law? The Law that came by Moses (John 1:17). This is what we call the Old Testament. I have heard plenty "sermons" on Jesus' teaching of "love God" and "love your neighbor." This is true. This is Jesus' teaching. But as He points out, He had given that teaching through the Law of Moses and His Old Covenant prophets.


            * "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments" (Deuteronomy 5:10; cf. 7:9).

            "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deuteronomy 6:5; cf. 10:12; 11:1,13; 13:3; 30:6,16,20).

            "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18).

            "[But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God" (Leviticus 19:34; cf. Deuteronomy 10:18,19).



            - Gaylon West. From his latest book: Marriage Made From Heaven.


            Throw Out the Lifeline

            http://www.BibleStudyLessons.net


                      See also "MARRIAGE ON THE MOUNTAIN":

                   

                         

            i Quotes Meier. http://daviddflowers.com/tag/shammai/

            ii"Psalms." Easton's Illustrated Bible Dictionary.

            iii McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nelson, 1999, pp. 334-335.

            iv John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

            v gloss.-"an explanation or addition to the Biblical text." wikipedia.org.

            vi John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible. "Matthew 5:21."

            vii Exegesis of Matthew 5:32-33 and Matthew 19:3-9

            [Prepared for the Dakota-Montana District, Eastern Conference, Fall Pastoral Conference, November 6-7, 1973.] By Gerhold L. Lemke


            Which Divorce Does God Hate?




            Which divorce does God hate?

            A picture containing text about divorce for fornication (ervah) in the Old and New

             

            I have read Brian Kenyon's good article entitled “Which Divorce Does God Hate?”[i]   It refers to the following passage in Malachi:  Malachi 2:16, “For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away [divorce-gw]: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

            This passage on God's attitude towards divorce is abused by various opinions and “law makers.”[ii]  The passage says that God hates “putting away.”   But it also tells us what kind of "putting away" (divorce) the prophet is speaking about.

             WHAT KIND OF DIVORCE DOES GOD HATE?

                      Obviously, He would not consider simply a divorce action itself a hateful act since He (1) allows it under Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-3 and again with Jesus in Matthew 19:9. (2) God Himself divorced Israel.  Again, (3) He commanded the Jews to divorce “strange” wives.  On the other hand, the prophet does say that God “hates” if a person divorces a Scriptural spouse which results in tears upon His altar.

            (1) DIVORCE IS ALLOWED IN BOTH TESTAMENTS

            It is generally conceded that the original purpose of marriage is recorded in Genesis when God creates both male and female.  “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2: 24).   

            DUE TO HARDNESS OF HEARTS. Jesus' explanation of the nature of marriage in, e.g., Matthew 19, is from the Greek translation of Genesis:  man shall cleave to (literally, “be glued” [Mounce, #G4347] but figuratively “abide with”) his wife and they two are to be “one flesh.”  This was God's creative intent.  But sin coming into the world caused God to permit divorce. For example, Jesus said (Matthew 19:5), “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” Jesus referred to Moses as God's prophet who gave God's law that suffered, i.e., "permitted" [x] divorce. "From the first" emphasizes God's original design and intent for marriage. But sin (also in the Garden) hardened man's heart.   Jesus even "upbraided" His close apostles because they had had "hardness of hearts" concerning His resurrection (Mark 16:14).

             

            SOME COMMANDS AND ALLOWANCES ARE IN BOTH OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.  The Law (OT) has been replaced by the Lord's Testament for His Kingdom after His crucifixion.  His death not only saved the faithful under the OT (Hebrews 9:15) but it replaced its authority.  Jesus' Kingdom is compared to “an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old” (Matthew 13:57).  Some “old” things are brought “forth” into the “new”, but some are not.  For example, some things “brought forth” are from the Ten Commandments which are included in “love your neighbor” (Romans 13:9). But one exception is the fourth COMMANDMENT, the “seventh day sabbath.”  There is a new “sabbath” rest awaiting at death: “Then there is left a Sabbath rest G4520 to the people of God” (Hebrews 4:9, ABP+) “when they shall rest from their works like God did His” (v. 10, ABP+).

                           

            The same thing occurs with the marriage law.  Some rules are “brought forth” over to the New.  The original commands for marriage included “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28; repeated to Noah, 9:1, 7).[iii]   Now this law is apparently modified by the New Testament [iv] by Jesus who taught in Matthew 19:12 that one did not have to marry “for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.” This coincides with Paul's statement of his being gifted by being able to contain without seeking marriage (1 Corinthians 7:7-9).

             

            DIVORCE ALLOWED FOR OT CAUSE OF (HEBREW) ERVAH.  The rule for divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1ff) is “brought forth” by Jesus (e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:31,32 and 19:9 and later by Paul[v]). Of course, Jesus would not have repudiated Moses before the cross (He condemned anyone that would: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.”)  Jesus rather explains Deuteronomy 24's “divorce law” but uses this word Greek word for “fornication” for the acceptable reason for divorce while the King James Version[vi] used “uncleanness” (for Hebrew ervah #H6172) in Deuteronomy 24:1-3 as the reason.  The New Testament uses the Greek porneia#G4202, “fornication”, for the Hebrew ervah#H6172).  For example, 1 Corinthians 5:1 uses the Greek word for “fornication” for one having his father's wife “which is fornication” (which is condemned in Leviticus 18:6; 22:11 as KJV's “nakedness” Hebrew ervah, Strong's #H6172, ). In other words, the NT word “fornication” is the OT word “ervah” translated in KJV'S OT as “nakedness, shame, unclean, uncleanness” (King James Concordance).  When Jesus gave the exception cause for divorce in the New Testament, He quoted Moses' exception (Deuteronomy 24:1)!

            (2) GOD PRACTICED DIVORCE: HE DIVORCED ISRAEL.  

            “I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries” (Jeremiah 3:8-10; cf. Isaiah 54:5;  Jeremiah 3:14; 31:32).   God divorced (northern) Israel for cause and yet Judah did the same thing.  We can reason that since the Lord “married” the church (Ephesians 5:23,24) then God (had) divorced Judah as well (2 Corinthians 11:2).  “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding[vii] Israel committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also” (Jeremiah 3:8).  The Targum[viii] records, "I caused them to go into captivity, as those that give a bill of divorce (to their wives) and dismiss them.''[ix]  Deuteronomy 24:1-3 authorized such divorces for “uncleanness” (KJV) that Jesus labeled “fornication” in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.

            (3) MARRYING OUTSIDE OF THE COVENANT was a sin under the Old Testament Law.   

            Judah had married the daughter of a strange god which brought him into close relation with idols and with devils (Malachi 2:11; Joshua 23:12; Exodus 34:10, 16) which broke the Hebrew covenant by that person/s.    It was an abomination and was said to be dealing treacherously (unfaithfully, v. 11).   The man doing this would be “cut off” by God for profaning the holiness of the Lord.  This would happen even though he might otherwise make a “show” of decent worship-offering to God (v.12). 

             

            “STRANGE” WIVES.  God's Law commanded divorce from “strange” wives.  “And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.   Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law”  (Ezra 10:2,3).

             

            WHO WERE “STRANGE” WIVES?  The Septuagint uses allotriosG245 for “strange” wives [meaning “not one's own; foreign; not akin, hostile” - Strong's].  The Law specifically forbade making a covenant of any kind with the people of Canaan which included marriage contracts with them.  Repentance under the Law required divorce (Ezra 10:3).  The “strange” wives were those that would not covenant with Israel's God since the lineage of Jesus includes Ruth who was a Moabitess and Rahab the harlot of Jericho (Matthew 1:5).   Ruth had promised Naomi, “thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (Ruth 1:16).

             

            THE NEW TESTAMENT “CHANGES” SOME THINGS.  The New Testament changed the Law of this “intermarrying”.  The unbeliever's willingness to dwell with a believer determines the sacred validity of the marriage. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14).   Wherein the Jew was required to divorce an alien, there is a change in that Law where divorcing an “unbeliever” is not commanded but that allows an intermarriage to an “alien” to continue if the unbeliever is willing.  That is, the alien must consent (suneudokeōG4909: “to think well of in common; be gratified with”) to dwell with,”by implication to cohabit” (Strong's).  Since Paul was writing by inspiration, the refusal of the alien to be satisfied in this matter, the Law of divorce could be permitted. Other than this rule one should consider the injunction of a widow to "marry only in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:39).

             

            BUT GOD HATES DIVORCING A COVENANT WIFE, i.e., a SCRIPTURAL SPOUSE.  OT Judah also had members who were guilty of causing “tears with weeping and crying out” at His altar.  Covenant in the context refers to the legitimate Law of Moses.   These tears were shed because the husband was divorcing them, the “wife of his youth”, “the wife of his covenant” (i.e., legitimately an Israelite or convert) against whom he is dealing treacherously by putting her (the innocent wife) away.  Such an act God hated.  According to Jesus to divorce a legitimate spouse causes her to commit adultery just like it did under the Old Testament.  Paul recomfirms this in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7.  To prevent fornication (uncleanness, ervah) both husband and wife must faithfully cohabit with (and only with) the legitimate spouse.

            Finally, divorce is not fun. God did not enjoy divorcing Israel. But God's justice demanded it. For a divorce to be excepted and initiated, fornication must have occurred. Fornication is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:18). Vows are broken which is condemned (Ecclesiastes 5:5). For the best scenario, all free participants must ponder seriously beforehand if marrying is for them and if so, both must determine to work with one another and stick with their companion according to God's sacred design.

                 --   Gaylon West
                             Checked by J. W. Ward


            [i]          “Which Divorcee Does God Hate?”  The Harvester, vol. 42, no. 10.

            [ii]          In the appendix of my marriage book I include a history of “church” lawmen who determined and changed the laws of marriage and divorce.  Marriages Designed In Heaven. Available online at lulu.com/shop and Amazon,"books by Gaylon West", etc.

            [iii]            Sefer Hachinuch counts the statement to Adam, “be fruitful and multiply,” as the first commandment of the  Torah . https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4013732/jewish/Be-Fruitful-and-Multiply-The-Commandment-to-Raise-Children.htm.  John Gill's Exposition of the Bible disagrees in this being a command. 

            [iv]          https://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/what-does-the-bible-say-about-marriage.html

            [v]           1 Corinthians 7:3, “Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband”, etc.

            [vi]        Deuteronomy 24:1, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness (Hebrew ervah; Greek “fornication” “ Jesus uses) in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” God's design for marriage is violated by “uncleanness.”

            [vii]         “backsliding.”  Hebrew meshûbâh. “turning away.” 

            [viii]         Targum: Aramaic for “translation”.  any of several translations of the Hebrew Bible or portions of it into the Aramaic language.

            [ix]     According to John Gill's Exposition of the Bible: Jeremiah 3:8.

            [x]     Popular New Testament comments "In the original state in Paradise." Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary: "Tolerated a relaxation of the strictness of the marriage bond - not as approving of it, but to prevent still greater evils." Vincent's comment on the present perfect active of the verb, along with Robertson's, might contradict the permission by saying the original "continued in force." Present Perfect active verb is completely done, with results still felt in the present (completed aspect)."--https://ancientgreek.pressbooks.com/chapter/42/    My comment: Hence, God's intended design continues with violations such as fornication and idolatry affecting current outcome such as was allowed by Moses and Jesus.

             

             

             
            Bible Study Lessons











            my book on marriage/divorce
             !
             !           choice of 2 bindings