Did Yehoshua Contradict His Father Regarding Divorce? (Rough Draft)

Did Yehoshua Contradict His Father regarding Divorce?
Chris Schaefer ©2009

Matt 5:31-32 (NKJV)
32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery

Matt 19:9-10 (NKJV)
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

The above verses have been used by the church and Messianic congregations as a means of forbidding divorce for any reason other than physical adultery. The result is a two pronged pitchfork. One prong makes it seem that with the exception of physical adultery, no divorce is allowed whatsoever: this has resulted in countless men being rendered impotent against rebellious wives, because after all, she can act like the devil, she can even lead the children astray, but if she doesn’t commit physical adultery he’s stuck with her, right? How many men can endure that sentence till the day they die? Of course many cannot bear up under such an edict, and so the other prong is they pretend the verses don’t exist and just simply divorce and remarry. The divorce and remarriage statistics in the church verify that this has indeed been the case.

Is the Torah eternal? Did Yehoshua come to make up His Own Torah in conflict with that of His Father’s? If the Words which Yehoshua spoke were from/inspired by His Father, how could He possibly contradict His Father’s words?

Let’s check the Father’s words on divorce.

Debarim 24:1-4 (AFN-T)
When a man has taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he has found some [dvar] uncleanness [ervah] in her,; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hates her as well and writes her a bill of divorcement, and gives itin her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife again, after that she is rutually impure.

It is significant that the word ervah is used. It can mean nakedness and could imply sexual impurity, but then again, what man would not want his wife naked at times. Isn’t nakedness in the marriage bed a good thing? Well ervah can also mean uncovered.

Let’s see how the apostle Pallu understood the symbolism of covering for a wife:

Qorintyah Aleph/First Corinthians 11:5-15 (RSTNE
5 But every woman that makes prayers, or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is the same as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman does not have a head covering, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn, or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to veil* his head, because he is the image and glory of YHWH: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have a symbol of AUTHORITY on her head because of the unclean fallen demons.**

If a woman refuses her husband’s authority over her, she is insubordinate, therefore she is positionally uncovered a.k.a ervah!

So if we look back at the Devarim 24:1-4 passage, If a woman is insubordinate, wouldn’t an expected result be that she would eventually not find favor in husband #1’s eyes? And if husband #2 ends up hating her, wouldn’t insubordination be a plausible cause for his hatred? So clearly that is the the context of Debvarim 24:1-4 since Devarim 22:13-21 and Bemidbar chapter 5 take care of physical adultery.

Now let’s take this a step further
1Schmuel 15:23a. (RSTNE)
For rebellion [mer ee 4805] is as the sin of witchcraft [keh sem’ 7081], and insubordination [paw tsar’ 6484] is as iniquity [aw ven’ 205] and idolatry [teraphim 8655].

All throughout the Tanakh, sexual immorality is likened to idolatry, and visa versa.
If idolatry can be compared to sexual immorality, then sexual immoraltiy can be an idiom for idolatry. Idolatry is obviously declared an euphemism for insubordination in 1 Schmuel 15:23. The context of 1 Schmuel 15:23 Is King Shaul’s chronic rebellion and insubordination against YHWH.

Shaul’s rebellion was compared to witchcraft, or more specifically divination. Divination is the rejection of YHWH’s authority in favor of demonic authority. The king was supposed to be subordinate to YHWH, but Shaul repeatedly refused. Finally YHWH rejected Shaul as king. Likewise, if a woman rejects her husband’s authority by being rebellious and insubordinate, then by default she is under demonic authority! If YHWH wouldn't continue to put up with Shaul’s rebellion, why would YHWH expect a husband to perpetually put up with a chronically rebellious/insubordinate wife?

Mattityahu 5:31-32 (RSTNE)
It has been said, ‘Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a Get of divorce.” Therefore I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication [gk:porneia/ heb:zenuth*], causes her to commit adultery, and whoever shall marry her that is undivorced [Aramaic: sh’bikta] commits adultery.

Mattityahu 19:9 (RSTNE)
And I say to you, Whoever shall divorce his wife, except it be for fornication [gk:porneia/ heb:zenuth*], and shall marry another [gk: alleen], commits adultery; and whoever marries her who has >not yet been divorced [Aramaic: sh’bikta] does commit adultery.

sh’bikta means: not yet divorced, or incompletely/improperly divorced.

As Yehoshua’s manner always was, He corrected the religious leaders' twistings of the Scripture. They wanted an OK of their idea of it being alright to divorce a wife for whatever reason. However Yehoshua showed that the only valid reasons for divorcing a wife were for adultery and insubordination (chronic) which are both codified as fornication (porneia and zenuth).

*From Eliyah’s online article Divorce and Remarriage (note,: I don't exhaustively endorse all aspects of Eliya's article but I think he makes many excellent points, and so am in agreement with much of what he says.)

“The use of this word "porneia" to refer to idolatry is quite frequent throughout the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the "old testament" that was in use at the time. This word family (#4202 "porneia) is used 36 times in the Septuagint. A remarkable fact is how this word family is used. It is used to describe physical marital unfaithfulness only twice, but it is used to describe the spiritual harlotry/idolatry 36 times! The complete list of these verses are as follows: Genesis 38:24; Numbers 14:33; 2 Kings 9:22; Isaiah 47:10; 57:9; Jeremiah 2:20; 3:2, 9; 13:27; Ezekiel 16:15, 22, 25, 33f, 36, 41; 23:7f, 11, 14, 17ff, 27, 29, 35; 43:7, 9; Hosea 1:2; 2:4, 6; 4:11f; 5:4; 6:10; Micah 1:7; Nah. 3:4. I have also studied the Hebrew Matthew (DuTillet version) of Matthew 19:9 and found that it uses Hebrew word #2184 "zenuth", a noun which means "whoredom". Out of the 9 times it is used in the "old testament", it is used to describe idolatry 7 times with the other 2 instances being unclear whether idolatry or literal whoredom is intended. The complete list is: Num. 14:33; Jer. 3:2, 9; 13:27; Ezek. 23:27; 43:7, 9; Hos. 4:11; 6:10. In consideration of the core meanings of "zenuth" and "porneia", they certainly could possibly be used to describe literal harlotry. But since "zenuth" and "porneia" are used so frequently to describe idolatry, it is certainly worth investigating whether or not Yahushua could have been allowing for divorce when a person is married to a spouse who is an idolater/unbeliever. This is especially true when you consider the Torah based prohibition against marriages to unbelievers, the examples of disastrous marriages to unbelievers, the importance stressed on bearing righteous children of Elohim, the divorce of pagan wives in the book of Ezra, and the fact that Yahushua said it was the hardness of hearts that inspired Moshe to not outright forbid divorce.”

Comment by DR on December 14, 2009 at 9:13am: Yes, she is. And she shouldn't be allowed to sail at all until she learns respect. ;)

Although your analogy is limited, I believe, in that it doesn't correctly address what the apostles and Yehoshua Himself taught on the subject. There's nothing I know of, for example, in Scripture that compares marriage to a ship or that says we should push a rebellious wife off the plank. ;)

Comment by Yaacov on December 14, 2009 at 8:01am: On a ship, if the first mate over-rules the captain and takes over the ship, he has committed mutiny which is desertion from his proper role. Likewise, when a wife commits mutiny, then is she not deserting her proper role?

Comment by DR on December 14, 2009 at 7:16am: Paul states that divorce between a believer and an unbeliever is only permitted if the UNBELIEVER deserts the marriage,

That's what I meant to say. Sorry if it wasn't clearer. :)

Comment by Lev/Christopher on December 14, 2009 at 1:29am: I am in broad agreement with DR on this one with one qualifier: Paul states that divorce between a believer and an unbeliever is only permitted if the UNBELIEVER deserts the marriage, not the other way round, confirming that the believer's calling is to exert a sanctifying influence. In other words, the believer has a greater responsibility than the unbeliever.

So I have to agree with DR on this one, though I would prefer to use the term "elevated" rather than "reformed" the Torah (implying that the Torah was defective, which it was not) - the principles of Torah remain unchanged but the nature of our responsibility has shifted in the New Covenant - we are expected now to endure injustice for love's sake. And it is by this means that we will come to resemble the Messiah and recognise him when He comes.

I also have to say that I fully understand an empathise with Yaacov all the way down the line. You have been through hell and back so many times, brother. I have been there. Indeed, were I in your situation, I would probably feel much the same - passions run high when things go wrong in the "holy of holies" of relationships. Having failed in this department more than once and having (I hope) learned some bitter lessons I do feel it is right of me to say this (without pointing any fingers or accusing anyone of being deficient, irresponsible, etc.): the whole point of the atonement and a life IN Messiah is, by being baptised into death of self (that's what baptism denotes - an agreement to die...which is more than cutting off a mere prepuce), to allow Yah'shua in, to kick self out, and so allow Him to resolve our agonies IN us as though He Himself were present in the situation, which He is. The Old Covenant is about rights and responsibilities (the 'minimum' or bottom line - naked justice) but the new is about triumphantly overcoming injustice - not through justice - but through redeeming love. What we don't want to do (and goodness knows, we all do it to our shame) is to start a 'justice war' - that's not what the New Covenant is about, something so many Messianics misunderstand, and so end up re-inventing the New Covenant by calling it a 'renewed [Old] Covenant'. It isn't. It's a totally different approach - a messianic (christian) approach.

One thing which has given me inner shalom (peace) is the understanding (and acceptance, I hope, more or less) that there is no justice in this world. Accepting that helps get us off focussing on our 'rights' and more on our responsibilities. Then, when we come to realise that in seeking to be responsible in our own strength we discover that is impossible (without destroying yourself), and this forces us into seeking what the flesh actually hates (loathes) and struggles to resist: DEATH TO SELF. Then - and only then - can Yah'shua empower us to endure the impossible and come out victorious, let His light shine in us, and by means of that light (which is not our own) to overcome the adversary in those who, for whatever reason, have let the enemy in to their hearts. This is the "ministry of suffering" which I have so often preached about (and so often failed at myself).

We can always find scripture to justify ourselves if we want to because scripture does contain basic justice in it. We can, if we want to, choose the minimalist path of seeking rights - that is 'Old Covenant' - that is Torah without Messiah. But we have been called to something higher, as I think DR is intimating which, while it does not call us to abandon justice and Torah, is nevertheless inviting us to engage in something much greater and glorious: the way of the cross. Few choose it because the flesh abhors is. But it is what we have been called to as overcomers.

I have to say, in conclusion, that I do agree with the NKJV and renditions of most other translations because I believe this is the true sense for those willing to walk the way of the cross. And no one said it was easy, only that it was worth it.

So, yes, I can see justification for separation - absolutely - but not for divorce.

Comment by DR on December 13, 2009 at 6:59pm: Shalom Yaacov.

I'm not sure I can agree with this interpretation, although that's because I believe Yehoshua "reformed the Torah" (so to speak) and that, because of that, marriage is on a higher plane.

I see that you favor the RSTNE. As you know, I'm not an Aramaic Primacist myself, but note how George Lamsa translates both Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9:

It has been said that whoever divorces his wife, must give her the divorce papers. But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, causes
her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is separated but not
divorced, commits adultery.

AND:

And the Pharisees came up to him and were tempting him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause? But he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he who made from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said, Because of this, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. Henceforth they are not two, but one body; therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate. They said to him, Why then did Moses command to give a letter of separation and then divorce her? He said to them, Moses, considering the hardness of your heart, gave you permission to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. But I say to you, Whoever leaves his wife without a charge of adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman thus separated commits adultery.

It would seem then, according to Lamsa (and an interpretation that agrees with the Greek) that the only grounds for divorce is adultery. Also, note 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3:1-6. It would seem that Yahweh WANTS a believer to remain with an unbeliever if they committed themselves to one another. Under the Old Covenant, it was prohibited to preclude idolatry, but in the New Covenant, the hope is that through the sacrificial love of the spouse, the unbelieving spouse might be won over. But if they depart, then the spouse seems free to re-marry.

Because of that, I'm not sure you can justify divorce on a metaphorical definition of "adultery" as used in the Tanach. The Scriptures do, however, seem to justify separation and I think that would be in order here.

Purchase the WHOLE Website by clicking here