Hardness of Heart and Divorce

I would like to discuss the phrase "hardness of heart" in both Mark 10:5 and Matthew 19:8.

Mark’s account:
He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.”

The phrase "hardness of heart" has been interpreted by some as if it means sinfulness, but the Old Testament use of the word suggests that stubbornness would be the better interpretation. The Greek word used is σκληροκαρδίαν and it is a combination of σκληρός (hard/stubborn) and καρδία (heart). This same combined word occurs elsewhere only in Mark 16:14. There we see the stubborn disbelief of the disciples.

Mark 16:14
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.

It is likely that the phrase "hardness of heart" is an allusion to an Old Testament text because the word is an invention of the Greek Septuagint. In one particular passage in the Septuagint, we see this phrase being used in Jeremiah 4:4.

The Masoretic Hebrew text:
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts

The LXX Greek text:
Circumcise yourselves to your God, and circumcise your hardness of heart

This occurs after the appeal to Judah in Jeremiah 3 to heed the warning of what happened to Israel, who was divorced by God. The chapter opens with the only clear allusion to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in the Old Testament. This is the same text the Pharisees quoted to Jesus!

If this is the context to which Jesus was alluding, the stubbornness is that of the unfaithful partner who refuses to repent. In such cases, divorce was graciously permitted for the victim - as evidenced by what God Himself eventually did with Israel.

Jeremiah 3:8
I [God] gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries.

Jesus goes on to state that marriage is a contract that is supposed to last for life, but the original divorce law had been given to cope with cases of habitual stubbornness, where there was a refusal to repent for broken vows. As such, divorce is not compulsory for such offenses, like the Pharisees taught, it is instead based on the response of the offending spouse. The victimized spouse should always allow room for forgiveness, but this can only happen if the offending spouse is repentant.

RDKirk said:

No, it was because of the stubbornness of the husband in refusing to refuse his wife's repentance.

Remember that in speaking about divorce, Jesus was speaking only to men because only husbands could perform the act of divorce. In the circumstantial context, Jesus was speaking to husbands--specifically Pharisees. In the context of His response, He was still speaking about husbands.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
...
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.

It's all about the husbands, not the wives. That single "your" didn't suddenly become all-inclusive. The entire passage is about husbands.

The example of God's dealing with Israel is the example of a husband repeatedly accepting his wife's repentance, as long as she is willing to repent. Hosea is also relevant here.

Click to expand...

If Jesus is alluding to Jeremiah 3 and 4 (which was the argument I put forth) then it is clearly the stubbornness of the spouse who committed the offense.

Did God [the offended] refuse the repentance of Israel [the offender]? No. It was the offender who was not repentant.

RDKirk said:

Jesus was not alluding to Jeremiah (which He would have called one of the Prophets), because He specifically referred to "Moses" (which was the Law).

Click to expand...

Did you read my argument on why I feel this was an allusion to what Jeremiah wrote? If so, can you address my points and why you think they fail?

RDKirk said:

There are no "what ifs." Your points about alternate allusions fail because Jesus explicitly stated that He was referring directly to the Mosaic Law.

Click to expand...

And Jeremiah was referring to the same exact Mosaic law - Deuteronomy 24. I don't see this a contradiction. Jeremiah's context fits well, if not perfectly, with the point Jesus wanted to make. Plus, Jesus used the same exact phrase that Jeremiah did. Do you assume this was just coincidence and not intentional?