Divorce For Every Cause

[Guest TaBiblia]

Because men could so easily put away their wives, you may understand why the law of Moses required a written bill of divorcement. It was for the purpose of stopping the Arabic practice of simply "putting away" a wife at will. Before this, it was only necessary for a man to say "I have put her away," and the matter was settled.

MAT 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

MAT 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.

Jesus is not saying here that divorce was and is not now permitted. He is simply saying that from the beginning when God made the woman for the man Adam, it was not His plan for them to separate. He intended there to be one woman for one man. Of course, if sin had not entered there would have never been any need for divorce and "from the beginning" it was not His plan for there to be divorce. But because of the entering in of sin into the social order and the hardening of their hearts it had become necessary to, in a sense, make allowances in the original law for certain situations.

GEN 2:23 And Adam 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.

GEN 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

You must remember that the original plan in the Garden of Eden did not allow for man"s fall into sin. But, since that did happen, it became necessary for considerations to be made in cases where sin entered into marriage.

Before Moses permitted a "bill of divorcement," adultery was not an excuse for putting away a wife under Jewish law. The penalty for adultery was death, not divorce. Thus, another reason for Moses permitting a bill of divorcement. It became obvious that, due to their adulterous nature, a large percentage of Israel would be put to death because of the penalty of death for adultery.

LEV 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man"s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour"s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

DEU 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

THE DISPUTE

There are more than 300 disputes between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai recorded in Talmudic records, but the debate over divorce "for every cause" was a dominant one during the time of Jesus. This question was asked of Jesus for the purpose of stirring up dissention and controversy.

The "Hillel/Shammai Dispute" arose over the question of cause for divorce. And it was particularly over the question of divorce "for every cause" and particularly the word "uncleanness."

FOR EVERY CAUSE

The phrase "for every cause" in this case came from the School of Hillel. It had become the custom for men to put away their wives for almost any excuse. Divorces were obtained for every imaginable reason, such as: women not seasoning food right, appearing in the streets with uncombed hair, or talking too much or too loud in the home. Men actually put away their wives for having bad breath, and used countless other silly "causes" for di vorce.

Deu 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 in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Hebrew for the word "uncleanness" in this verse is "ervah," and it is translated: uncleanness, shame, nakedness. "Ervah" comes from the root word "arah" which means: to uncover, make bare, discover.

The Hillel school believed this word to mean "anything uncovered or discovered" by the husband to his disliking. (Thus, the phrase "every cause.") The debate between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai was over this word and this word only. They had no argument with any of the other statements in the passages which go through verse four of Deuteronomy chapter twenty-four. However, their oral traditions had given them a loop hole (because of the unclear definition of the word uncleanness) to put away their wives "for every cause." And they did not like the idea of anyone taking that away from them.

The School of Shammai believed the word to mean uncleanness in the sense of "moral and criminal adultery." I use the word criminal here because adultery was, in fact, a criminal offense with a death penalty prior to Moses" instituting the bill of divorcement.

If the word uncleanness (as used in Deu 24:1) had not been defined by Jesus in Mat 19:9 (which I will give in a moment), the debate would still be unsettled even for Christians today. One thing we should establish right away is the fact that when studying the subject of divorce in the bible, you should not complicate the subject with the question of remarriage. Questions about divorce were concerning just that (divorce) and not the question of remarriage.

Questions concerning remarriage were not necessary. All Jews understood that if they had scriptural grounds for divorce, then the right to remarry was automatic. The Hillel/Shammai dispute was over the word uncleanness and what constituted a scriptural right to divorce. Again, the subject of remarriage was not a problem at all between the opposing groups. They had a clear understanding that they could remarry if they had a scriptural right to divorce (as I will show in a moment). This is a point that I will make repeatedly, since it is so misunderstood and of great concern to so many people.

In Deu 24:1 the scriptures give the acceptable reason for divorce. Verse two gives permission to remarry when the reason for divorce is as described in verse one, and there was, and is, no debate over this portion of the scriptures. A SCRIPTURAL RIGHT TO DIVORCE IS A SCRIPTURAL RIGHT TO REMARRY.

DEU 24:2 And when she is departed out of his house, SHE MAY GO AND BE ANOTHER MAN"S WIFE.

The question in the following verse was an intentional effort to create controversy since the House of Hillel knew that Jesus rejected their oral traditions and promoted the written Law. It was a question designed to bring anger against Jesus because this was a major point of contention between the views of the Hillelites and the Shammaites of that day.

MAT 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?

The answer Jesus gives in the following verses forever settles the question about divorce. His was the final word as far as Christians are concerned. Although the debate has continued for all these centuries and the Jewish interpretations remained on the side of the Hillel point of view, there should not be any misunderstanding on the part of Christians today.

MAT 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.

Again, when Jesus made the statement "from the beginning it was not so" He was not saying that it was not presently permitted. He simply said that from the beginning it was not God"s plan. It is very obvious that He was not saying divorce was not permitted because He continues on to give an exception (which turns out to be many). There are many scriptures which confirm that it was and is permitted under certain conditions, both in the Old and New Testaments.

After going through all of the explanations of the original plan, He gives the definition of the word uncleanness which was what their question was all about. According to Jesus" answer in the following verse, the word uncleanness from Deu 24:1 means fornication.

MAT 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.

Remember that none of their questions had anything to do with remarriage. The right to remarry was never a question. The right to divorce was the problem. Every Jew understood that if they could get Jesus to come down on their side of the question of uncleanness and what constituted a lawful divorce, they would automatically have the right to remarry as proven in Deuteronomy 24:2.

John the Baptist was killed over this very question. The Hillel opinion of divorce for "every cause" was the prevailing practice of that day. No doubt this question was raised because the Pharisees hoped to stir up the people against Jesus on this subject: in hopes that He would be killed, just as John the Baptist had been.

I must continue to stress the point that when Jesus gave His answer, He did not take away their right to remarry. As I said before, the right to remarry after divorce on scriptural grounds was understood from Deu 24:1-2; and Jesus left that as it was. Therefore, anyone questioning their right to remarry is concerned about the wrong question. Their concern should only be about the divorce.

Jesus did confirm the Shammai view on cause for divorce to some extent. However, when He interpreted uncleanness to be fornication, He gave a broader definition of the cause for divorce than that which the Shmmaites gave, which was adultery.

The word fornication does encompass more sins than does the word adultery, but it does not permit divorce for "every cause" which was promoted by the Hillelites. The difference in these two words is explained in the next chapter. Jesus informed both groups that from the beginning it was not God"s will that anyone divorce. However, because of the hardness of their hearts, it had been permitted. Let me repeat Matthew 19:9 here.

MAT 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.

Let me say here that since scripture does not contradict itself, any other passages dealing with divorce must agree with Matthew 19:9. Since the question is settled in Matthew 19:9, any other passages on the subject must be interpreted in the light of the circumstances described in their own individual text so as not to contradict the simple statement made by Christ here.

For example, if a passage insists that one remain married to their spouse and seems not to allow divorce at all, it must be accepted that the sin of fornication (as given for a reason for divorce in the passage above) is not present. If, in fact, fornication (including all of its definitions which I will give later) is involved, then the verse above (Mat. 19:9) comes into play and divorce is permitted.

Passages which seem to contradict Matthew 19:9 and do not allow for divorce at all are misunderstood by the reader. Such passages pre-suppose that the sins as listed under the definition of fornication are not present. This, as I have said, is a simple truth --- since scripture cannot contradict itself.

This is a sample page of a complete work available to those who are interested in this subject at no required charge. Just link to us below.