A lot of people are confused about the biblical accounts of divorce and remarriage. I am going to try and clear this up here in a short article.
First, it is important to understand Duet. 24:1-4. The law of divorce as given by Moses. Note: It is only four verses and not forty verses. This is a short and simple law! But out of these small verses caused great arguments and confusion concerning divorce to the Jews. Not that they were fighting about all the "What if" situations but solely what constituted "uncleanness"?
The scribes tested Jesus on this because in their mind there was no clear answer what "uncleanness" was. If there was they would not have tried to "test" Him with it. They new that if a woman committed adultery she was to be stoned to death. But if a woman committed adultery why then was the man allowed to divorce his wife?
Jesus straighten out what uncleanness was meant to be in the Gospel accounts so we should not still be arguing over this as the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees did two thousand years ago. It does not seem to be the source of contention in the early church (like circumcision, the law of Moses, food sacrificed to idols etc..) as seen in the Epistles and book of Acts (other than what Paul addresses in 1 Cor. 7:10-15). Our fights are now the opposite of the Jews. Not that we don't understand what "unleanness" was meant to be in Deut. 24:1-4 but all the "what if's" and how to apply that teaching in Christians lives who no longer live according to the law.
Remember this next point when reading the rest of this article or other teachings about divorce and remarriage. Jesus and Paul only spoke few words about divorce and remarriage. So, the more simple a teaching is the easier it should be to understand. As we might say about a jacket, "One size fits all, except for someone with extra broad shoulders." Think simple answers to complex questions and not the other way around. The early church did not have a big problem with this topic (other than what was addressed in 1 Cor. 7:10-15, 39) so we shouldn't either.
If Jesus went back to the law of Moses then so should we. First, there is not a lot of loop holes and "what if's" about divorce and remarriage in Deut. 24:1-4 nor was it seen in Jesus teaching in Matt. 5:31-32, 19:2-9. This is very important to note. Otherwise, there would be a lot more teaching about this by Jesus or Paul.
Now yes, this is the law, but it is important to understand the law according to the Gospel teachings. Then by doing this we can further understand 1 Cor 7:10-11 "...command, not I but the Lord" Paul's letter referring back to Jesus teaching concerning divorce.
Many times Paul talks about his epistles and says to spread or share this with the rest of the churches. So, many of his teaching, taught by revelation of Jesus Christ, was considered not taught from man but by God and should be spread for all to read. Its like this, one church had some questions concerning a "matter" (1 Corinthians letter) and when Paul prayed he was given answers from God. He then said share this with the other churches!
In order to understand why Moses said these specific commands (Deut. 24:1-4) it is important to comprehend marriage and betrothal as directed by God through scripture.
Here is a simple illustration. A man paid a "price" as Jesus paid a price for His bride. This is called the 'bridal price'. The bridal price could be set by the father (parents) or set by what was the current price for virgin daughters (Ex. 22:16-17, Duet. 22:29).
The man paid this price then entered into a legal betrothal with his wife. God so looked at this betrothal as marriage that if anyone transgressed this betrothal they were stoned to death Deut. 22:23- as committing adultery. And needed a "writ of divorce" to end the betrothal (Joseph was minded to 'put away' Mary secretly). It says we are betrothed unto Christ right now as a church and will soon enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb (in the last day).
The man paid the price because she was under the authority of her father Numbers 30:2-16 while young and still living in her fathers house. God made the woman for man, he being created 1st (1 Tim 2:13-14) and was taken out of man (1 Cor. 11:2-16) put him to lead his wife thus the curse put the woman under the complete "rule" of her husband (Gen. 3:16) establishing the rule-of-thumb "law of the husband" Rom. 7:1-2, 1 Cor. 7:39.
Paul also used the "law of..." to explain a general and complete bondage of something by a set of rules.
When Paul says in Rom 7:1 "for I speak to those who know the law" he was referring to what he said next to these believing Jews... "that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives."
Paul goes on and states some simple truths that have dominion over another in Chapter 7: "another law" vs. 23, "law of husband" vs. 2-3, "law of sin" vs. 7:23, 25 "law of God", "I find a law that evil is present with me" vs. 21, "law of my mind" vs. 23, "law of Spirit" 8:2, "law of sin and death" vs.3 and briefly spoken of earlier the "law of faith" 3:26.
This law (Gen. 3:16) was the reason why Paul says a wife is under the law of her husband. When Paul addresses submision of the woman he also goes back to this law and said in 1 Cor 14:34 "as the law also says". What the law does is lock her, in a way, under his authority not to be able to free herself from his "rule". Man is never said to be under the law of his wife.
That is why Rom 7:1-6 says that if the woman takes on a second husband she would be committing adultery against the "law of her husband". The man, although suggested by scripture not to take on more than one wife (husband of one wife 1 Tim. 3:1-3) it was not considered sinning or committing adultery to take on a second wife (Lev. man not to neglect his second wife etc... and many other Old Testament examples).
Now with understanding some of these concepts you can understand why (highly accepted by most Jewish scholars and Christians alike) that the law of Moses only allowed man to divorce his wife and not the other way around. A woman, by law, did not share that same concessions.
Jesus is speaking to the multitudes concerning the "law" in the Gospel accounts of divorce and remarriage. It is important to note that the Gospel of Mark was written to primary a Gentile audience. That is probably why it says in Mark 10:11-12 that if the 'woman' divorced her husband...
When we look at Matt. 5:31-32, and Matt. 19:9 we see the verse (the 'exception' clause) was written with two parts in mind. We can really see this by Luke 16:18 the man in the first part and the woman in the second part clearly defined (with their individual teachings).
When Matt. 19:9 mentions the exception clause it is only clearly understood to be speaking about the man. The second part of the illustration of verse 9b does not specifically say the exception clause is also pertaining to the divorced woman. Now many will argue and say the sentence structure 'suggests' or basic hermeneutics or exegesis suggest etc. ect. ect. but it doesn't. It would only be speculation for someone to teach that without a question of a doubt. And it is not provable either way in the Greek. But when reading the rest of the scripture, concerning divorce and remarriage, you can see that verse 9b was a general teaching concerning a divorced woman (no specific exception clause in mind).
It is impossible to prove that Matt. 19:9a and 9b was either speaking about the same woman (the woman in part a was the same woman who marries in part b). As well as it is impossible to prove or say that the exception clause of Matt. 19:9a either included or excluded the woman from Matt. 19:9b. But it is important to note that it was obvious to those there listening who understood the law of Moses hearing this teaching by Jesus.
At that time there was not a lot of question or confusion about what Jesus was speaking of in Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:9. Jesus was only addressing what adultery was in regards to remarriage for both the man and the woman. Jesus summed it up on one verse. REMEMBER, all Jesus did was define the interpretation of "uncleanness" found in the woman (Sexual immorality) of Deut. 24:1-2 by giving illustrations who was guilty of adultery when they remarried concerning this Law of Moses. Nothing more, nothing less. Jesus was not giving a new teaching here.
First, it is important to understand Duet. 24:1-4. The law of divorce as given by Moses. Note: It is only four verses and not forty verses. This is a short and simple law! But out of these small verses caused great arguments and confusion concerning divorce to the Jews. Not that they were fighting about all the "What if" situations but solely what constituted "uncleanness"?
The scribes tested Jesus on this because in their mind there was no clear answer what "uncleanness" was. If there was they would not have tried to "test" Him with it. They new that if a woman committed adultery she was to be stoned to death. But if a woman committed adultery why then was the man allowed to divorce his wife?
Jesus straighten out what uncleanness was meant to be in the Gospel accounts so we should not still be arguing over this as the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees did two thousand years ago. It does not seem to be the source of contention in the early church (like circumcision, the law of Moses, food sacrificed to idols etc..) as seen in the Epistles and book of Acts (other than what Paul addresses in 1 Cor. 7:10-15). Our fights are now the opposite of the Jews. Not that we don't understand what "unleanness" was meant to be in Deut. 24:1-4 but all the "what if's" and how to apply that teaching in Christians lives who no longer live according to the law.
Remember this next point when reading the rest of this article or other teachings about divorce and remarriage. Jesus and Paul only spoke few words about divorce and remarriage. So, the more simple a teaching is the easier it should be to understand. As we might say about a jacket, "One size fits all, except for someone with extra broad shoulders." Think simple answers to complex questions and not the other way around. The early church did not have a big problem with this topic (other than what was addressed in 1 Cor. 7:10-15, 39) so we shouldn't either.
If Jesus went back to the law of Moses then so should we. First, there is not a lot of loop holes and "what if's" about divorce and remarriage in Deut. 24:1-4 nor was it seen in Jesus teaching in Matt. 5:31-32, 19:2-9. This is very important to note. Otherwise, there would be a lot more teaching about this by Jesus or Paul.
Now yes, this is the law, but it is important to understand the law according to the Gospel teachings. Then by doing this we can further understand 1 Cor 7:10-11 "...command, not I but the Lord" Paul's letter referring back to Jesus teaching concerning divorce.
Many times Paul talks about his epistles and says to spread or share this with the rest of the churches. So, many of his teaching, taught by revelation of Jesus Christ, was considered not taught from man but by God and should be spread for all to read. Its like this, one church had some questions concerning a "matter" (1 Corinthians letter) and when Paul prayed he was given answers from God. He then said share this with the other churches!
In order to understand why Moses said these specific commands (Deut. 24:1-4) it is important to comprehend marriage and betrothal as directed by God through scripture.
Here is a simple illustration. A man paid a "price" as Jesus paid a price for His bride. This is called the 'bridal price'. The bridal price could be set by the father (parents) or set by what was the current price for virgin daughters (Ex. 22:16-17, Duet. 22:29).
The man paid this price then entered into a legal betrothal with his wife. God so looked at this betrothal as marriage that if anyone transgressed this betrothal they were stoned to death Deut. 22:23- as committing adultery. And needed a "writ of divorce" to end the betrothal (Joseph was minded to 'put away' Mary secretly). It says we are betrothed unto Christ right now as a church and will soon enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb (in the last day).
The man paid the price because she was under the authority of her father Numbers 30:2-16 while young and still living in her fathers house. God made the woman for man, he being created 1st (1 Tim 2:13-14) and was taken out of man (1 Cor. 11:2-16) put him to lead his wife thus the curse put the woman under the complete "rule" of her husband (Gen. 3:16) establishing the rule-of-thumb "law of the husband" Rom. 7:1-2, 1 Cor. 7:39.
Paul also used the "law of..." to explain a general and complete bondage of something by a set of rules.
When Paul says in Rom 7:1 "for I speak to those who know the law" he was referring to what he said next to these believing Jews... "that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives."
Paul goes on and states some simple truths that have dominion over another in Chapter 7: "another law" vs. 23, "law of husband" vs. 2-3, "law of sin" vs. 7:23, 25 "law of God", "I find a law that evil is present with me" vs. 21, "law of my mind" vs. 23, "law of Spirit" 8:2, "law of sin and death" vs.3 and briefly spoken of earlier the "law of faith" 3:26.
This law (Gen. 3:16) was the reason why Paul says a wife is under the law of her husband. When Paul addresses submision of the woman he also goes back to this law and said in 1 Cor 14:34 "as the law also says". What the law does is lock her, in a way, under his authority not to be able to free herself from his "rule". Man is never said to be under the law of his wife.
That is why Rom 7:1-6 says that if the woman takes on a second husband she would be committing adultery against the "law of her husband". The man, although suggested by scripture not to take on more than one wife (husband of one wife 1 Tim. 3:1-3) it was not considered sinning or committing adultery to take on a second wife (Lev. man not to neglect his second wife etc... and many other Old Testament examples).
Now with understanding some of these concepts you can understand why (highly accepted by most Jewish scholars and Christians alike) that the law of Moses only allowed man to divorce his wife and not the other way around. A woman, by law, did not share that same concessions.
Jesus is speaking to the multitudes concerning the "law" in the Gospel accounts of divorce and remarriage. It is important to note that the Gospel of Mark was written to primary a Gentile audience. That is probably why it says in Mark 10:11-12 that if the 'woman' divorced her husband...
When we look at Matt. 5:31-32, and Matt. 19:9 we see the verse (the 'exception' clause) was written with two parts in mind. We can really see this by Luke 16:18 the man in the first part and the woman in the second part clearly defined (with their individual teachings).
When Matt. 19:9 mentions the exception clause it is only clearly understood to be speaking about the man. The second part of the illustration of verse 9b does not specifically say the exception clause is also pertaining to the divorced woman. Now many will argue and say the sentence structure 'suggests' or basic hermeneutics or exegesis suggest etc. ect. ect. but it doesn't. It would only be speculation for someone to teach that without a question of a doubt. And it is not provable either way in the Greek. But when reading the rest of the scripture, concerning divorce and remarriage, you can see that verse 9b was a general teaching concerning a divorced woman (no specific exception clause in mind).
It is impossible to prove that Matt. 19:9a and 9b was either speaking about the same woman (the woman in part a was the same woman who marries in part b). As well as it is impossible to prove or say that the exception clause of Matt. 19:9a either included or excluded the woman from Matt. 19:9b. But it is important to note that it was obvious to those there listening who understood the law of Moses hearing this teaching by Jesus.
At that time there was not a lot of question or confusion about what Jesus was speaking of in Matt. 5:31-32 and Matt. 19:9. Jesus was only addressing what adultery was in regards to remarriage for both the man and the woman. Jesus summed it up on one verse. REMEMBER, all Jesus did was define the interpretation of "uncleanness" found in the woman (Sexual immorality) of Deut. 24:1-2 by giving illustrations who was guilty of adultery when they remarried concerning this Law of Moses. Nothing more, nothing less. Jesus was not giving a new teaching here.
Last edited:
