Expert: Joe Norman - 12/23/2008

Question
Hello Joe- I am finding your teachings very simple and enlightening. It seems like when it comes to divorce and remarriage, most churches are so quick to grab a few verses and run with them. I think maybe it is a satanic influence to keep people in bondage,guilt, pain and hurt.

I've read some of your responses about divorce and remarriage. You mentioned that in Matt 5:32, Jesus is correcting the Pharisees who are questioning him about divorce and remarriage.(and that he was NOT speaking to the Church) Can you please expand on that verse? I really need to understand it. And also you mentioned that the Christian church was not even in existence until the day of the Pentecost. Can you play expand on that with scriptures?

Thank you so much!

Answer
Hi Amy,

Thank you so much for your kind words and for asking me your questions. I am more than happy to expand on Matthew 5:31,32 and when the church was established.

Let's begin by looking more deeply at the context of Matthew chapter 5. To fully understand those two verses above, we need to see what has been said just prior to this and see who was being spoken to as well as the context of what is being said. In the beginning of the chapter, Jesus is talking to His disciples and does the whole series of those who are blessed. Then He makes some important statements that cannot be ignored. Look at the following with me:

Matt.5:17-20
17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus Himself said he did not come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them. Then He tells them that not one letter shall fall away until all is fulfilled. He also gives a warning not to break the least of these commandments...speaking of the Law of Moses and the Prophets. In verse 20, Jesus tells them they must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

So already we see that the focus is on the Old Law and not New Testament Christianity. Now let's continue. Starting in verse 21, Jesus does a whole series of statements that have repeated phrases in them. He will say "Ye have heard it said"....then He will say, "but I say unto you". Jesus is doing a compare and contrast method of teaching. The thing they "heard" was teachings from scribes and pharisees which are indeed in the Law of Moses and the Prophets. When Jesus says, "but I say unto you", He is not giving new commands. He is showing that the scribes and pharisees had missed the deeper meaning behind the commandments.

First is "Thou shalt not kill"(verse 21) - then one who is "angry" with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment and whoever says "Raca" shall be in danger of the whole counsel; and whoever says, "You fool" will be in danger of hell (verse 22). In verses 23 and 24, He speaks of offering a gift at the altar and the importance of being reconciled to your brother before giving at the altar. Again, this shows Jesus is speaking of the Law of Moses and the Prophets and NOT new commands to Christians.

In verse 27, Jesus mentions "Thou shalt not commit adultery". When we read verse 28 Jesus says that everyone who looks on a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultery with her already. Jesus goes on in verses 29 and 30 to say if your right eye (or right hand) causes you to sin, pluck it out or cut it off. I do not believe He was expecting anyone to literally pluck out an eye or remove a hand. He was illustrating the seriousness of the matter. But again, this is NOT instructions to Christians.

Here are the verses you and I are most concerned with right now. Verses 31 and 32. I am using the American Standard because I believe it translates these passages more correctly than any other version.

Matt.5:31,32
31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

First, what does Jesus quote that was "said"? Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorcement. I believe that this again is NOT a quote from the Law of Moses, but what the scribes and pharisees were teaching. This is true of ALL that Jesus addresses in this chapter. They were being told to give a bill of divorce but no other real instructions to limit when this should occur. Moses did give more instruction in Deuteronomy 24.

Deut.24:1-4
1 When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Moses mentions a reason for the man not wanting to stay married. He said, "if he found some unseemly thing in her". The Hebrew word in question is "ervah" and there are not any real clear definitions of this word in my opinion. In most cases though, the word is usually translated as "nakedness", but I don't think that fits either. I believe it had to be something he did not notice until after he was married. Yet it was the husband's decision. Now let's look at Matthew 5 and verse 32.

Jesus is basically replacing what the Pharisees took out...the cause of the ending of a marriage, but He is also addressing another problem. It was a direct result of the incorrect teachings of the Pharisees on divorce that cause Jewish men to not even see a need to provide a "bill of divorce." You can plainly see in Deuteronomy 24 there were three steps to the Jewish divorce.

1. Write a bill of divorce
2. Put the bill in her hand
3. Send her away or put her away

Jesus began by saying everyone who "puts away his wife, unless for the cause of fornication, makes her an adulterous." This is said differently in Matthew 19, but the way He says it here tells us something I think is important and yet many ignore it. It is the act of "putting away" that causes the woman to be guilty of adultery. Ask yourself how this is possible? The context we can clearly see is the Law of Moses in contrast to how the scribes and Pharisees taught the Law. We see that divorce when the woman has the bill in her hand frees her to marry another man and NOT be an adulterer. This is a fact.

The ONLY thing that makes sense to me is she would be an adulterer if she was "put away" without the bill of divorce or if she was divorced for a reason contrary to the reason Moses gave for giving a bill of divorce.

In Jesus' day, there were two main schools of thought on the Law and Prophets. They were the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel taught that a Jewish man could divorce his wife for most any reason - even if she burned his meal. Shammai said it could only be done if she was guilty of unchastity...sexual sin of some sort. Hillel's teaching was far more popular at this time. It stands to reason that if a man thought he could divorce for any reason, he would also conclude it did not matter whether or not he gave a bill of divorce either. I have found evidence that Jewish men are sending wives away without the bill even today....but that is just a side note. Let's just focus on reasons for divorce for a moment.

If Hillel's teaching was far more popular (and it was), what do you think was wrong that needed to be corrected? The reason needed to be clarified and the consequence if the reason was not what the law had meant. Jesus was not replacing Old Testament teaching on divorce and remarriage. He was correcting many errors of teaching from the scribes and pharisees and adultery and divorce and remarriage were just two of many areas they were teaching incorrectly about then.

One other thing to point out is the tense of the verbs in verse 32 is present tense. This indicates that the "committeth" is not continuous, but a one time act. Also, keep in mind that in the Law of Moses, a second marriage was not considered adultery when a bill of divorce was given. It would be adultery if the first marriage had not ended with a bill of divorce. That bill freed the woman to marry another man without sinning. Yet, if a man divorced for silly reasons like a burnt meal, he would be sinning by breaking his marriage covenant over something so trite. He would also force her into adultery in the fact that she would no longer be able to fulfill her marriage covenant to him if he sent her out of the house.

Now let me expand some on when the Christian church was established. There are many times in all the gospels that John the Baptist and Jesus would say something like "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" or "the kingdom of God is at hand." (Matt.3:2; Mk.1:15 for instance). Also, study all of Acts chapter 2. It is important to note that prior to Acts chapter 2, NO ONE was ever baptized in the name of Jesus and the events of Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost took place not long after had been raised from the dead, spend 40 days with the apostles, and ascended to Heaven.

This was also the first sermon preached about Jesus dying on the cross and being raised from the dead. Peter quoted to them a prophecy from the book of Joel which he said was fulfilled in what they were seeing and hearing that day.

Also, it is important to note that the first time anyone was called Christian, it was recorded in Acts 11.

Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Having said all this, please do not think I am saying that NOTHING in the gospels applies to Christians. I do believe Jesus did address future Christians at times and taught what I call "eternal truths" as well. These are truths that have always been true and always will be true. They do not change with the change of covenants. But clearly the Jews were to follow the Law of Moses closely and Christians were to put their focus upon the New Covenant or New Testament. We still need the Old Testament for many reasons, but when we seek to learn what is required and expected of Christians, we generally look to Acts through Revelation. The gospels are generally preparing us for the New Covenant and helping us to really see that Jesus IS the Son of God.

When we investigate the context of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 and all the parallel passages on divorce and remarriage in the gospels, we see the context is the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Jesus is trying to correct error that came from the scribes and Pharisees.

I do pray that this really helps to answer your questions and deepen your understanding, but as always, feel free to ask me more questions anytime.

In Christ, Joe Norman