G-d vs Moses(Matt 19 and Divorce)

Divorce is never an easy topic to discuss. It’s a terrible thing that breaks families and relationships. Relationships are already complex enough and breaking a family apart is even more complex. 

Today the subject of divorce is a matter of debate at every level of society. From the secular regime to the realm of Christian philosophy and even within the Torah observant movement. Justifiable reason for divorce, the effect divorce yields on one's ability to remarry within Torah law, and who divorce has the most negative effect on are matters which are debated heavily. 

The Pharisees also used the subject of divorce to test Yeshua regarding his interpretation of Torah and which of the Pharisaic houses he most aligned with. 

That last point cannot be overstated enough. Christianity for millennia have interpreted the discussion on divorce in Matthew 19 as though the Pharisees are trying to trip up Yeshua or catch him in an inconsistency or find a “gotcha” moment so as to invalidate him and his ministry. If one reads the text clearly though, no such impetus can be derived. This is a view that can only be arrived at if the reader already has this negative view of Pharisees as conniving and scheming prior to reading this passage. As with most every other instance. This actually appears to simply be a moment where the specific Pharisees Yeshua was speaking to are simply inquiring to learn more about Yeshua’s beliefs with no ulterior motive. 

The discussion begins in Matthew 19:3-

“Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?”

This is the question which is so often read from the pulpit of churches with the added tone of deviance and defiance.  As though they are daring Yeshua to disagree with their view on divorce so they can then write him off as a heretical teacher. 

The reason that is not a rational or informed tone to impose on this passage, nor a proper contextual lens to read the passage through, is that there was no “Their view” on divorce. 

There was no unanimous Pharisaic view on divorce. There was actually disagreement on the matter between the two primary schools of thought among Pharisees(Hillel and Shammai)

It’s also worth noting that the question is not inquiring if divorce is allowable according to the Torah at all. Rather, the question they asked Yeshua was if divorce was allowable for any reason. 

In other words the basis of the conversation already assumes that divorce is permissible. The question is if there are any circumstances under which it is not permissible and what those conditions might be. 

More specifically, this Pharisees question is more specific than simply inquiring of Yeshua's position on divorce generally. 

They are asking if he agrees with what has been recorded and regarded as Hillel's position on divorce. 

 Beit Hillel say: He may divorce her even due to a minor issue, e.g., because she burned or over-salted his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,” meaning that he found any type of shortcoming in her.-Talmud Bavli, Gittin 90a:3

(Also Cited in Mishnah Gittin 9:10)

Sidenote: That Jews of this era had moved toward the point of divorcing one wife to marry another more desirable woman suggests that Polygyny/Polygamy had become a bygone practice by this point even though it was not officially outlawed until the 11th century(1000CE).

In verse 4-6 Yeshua gives his response in which he appears to actually disagree with Hillel and for the only single time in all of the Gospels, Yeshua agrees with what's been recorded as Shammai’s opinion on the matter. 

Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds out about her having engaged in a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [devar erva], i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ervat davar] in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1).-Talmud Bavli, Gittin 90a:2

(Also Cited in Mishnah Gittin 9:10)

“He answered, “Haven’t you read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don’t let man tear apart.”-Matthew 19:4-6

Yeshua appeals directly to the Torah(Genesis 1-2) to support his agreement with Shammai’s position.

Taking a position of-“G-d said X therefore X is correct”. 

The response from the Pharisees in verse 7 is where this passage gets confusing for everyone all around from antinomians to pronomians. They invoke Torah Law and  ask Yeshua why it is that Moses commanded regarding divorce in the Torah?

Responding to Yeshua’s “G-d said X therefore X” position with a challenge of “If that's the case then why did G-d also say Y?”

The confusion over this response which poses a challenge for many is that Yeshua says “G-d said” whereas the Pharisees respond with “Moses said” and it is often assumed by antinomians that this is Yeshua making a correction to Torah by contradicting Torah law based on the assumption that Torah is something other than G-ds own law. They posit a G-d VS Moses dynamic to the scenario. 

This is incorrect as we know that Torah is G-ds law(Psalm 119:142) and Moses was G-ds mouth peace.(Exodus 4:15-16)

For pronomians the confusion is a bit different. As most pronomians already understand that Torah is G-ds law and Moses was G-ds mouthpiece. For the pronomian this can appear to be a contradiction within the Torah and thus G-d contradicting himself. 

A large part of this confusion is that there are 2 Greek words here which are being translated as Divorce in many translations. While some translations distinguish between ἀπολῦσαι-(Apolysai) and ἀποστασίου-(Apostasiou) by rendering Apolysai as put away and Apostasiou as Divorcement, Many translations simply render both as Divorce. The result of this translational choice is that understanding exactly how different these two words are and which one Yeshua speaks against becomes nearly impossible to the reader and worse, it is assumed that the translations which do distinguish these words are doing so arbitrarily and without relevance. 

But they are different and mean different things and what Yeshua ends up speaking against is NOT Apostasiou. He speaks only against Apolysai. 

Another challenge many face when unravelling this passage is that it’s written in Greek when Yeshua most likely spoke Hebrew peppered with Aramaic(especially when speaking with Pharisees). Furthermore the Torah is written in Hebrew and not Greek. While many suggest the Septuagint was the most commonly used at the time, that hypothesis contradicts everything about Pharisaic mentality of the first century in Israel proper. 

However the Septuagint can be employed to compare Greek words from the New Testament to their uses in the Septuagint and substitute the original Hebrew word of that passage for the Greek word in the New Testament as a method of guessing what word Yeshua or the Pharisees might have actually spoken. The accuracy of this methodology is impossible to determine but it is not without rational and logical merit. 

When this method is applied to the citation from Torah which these Pharisees are appealing to only one of the Greek words from this passage in Matthew is found. 

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a certificate of divorce, put it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”-Deuteronomy 24:1

The word divorce in the Septuagint's rendering of this passage is Apostasiou. The word Apolysai(to send away) does not appear in this verse. The words for “send her out of his house” are ἐξαποστελεῖ αὐτὴν ἐκ τὰς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ-Exapostelei Auten Ek Tas Oikias Autou.

However when the Pharisees in this passage reference Deuteronomy 24 they say Moses commanded them to divorce(Apostasiou) their wives and to put them away(Apolysai) which is not how the Septuagint renders Moses words. 

While the Pharisees may not have made common use of the Septuagint, they were certainly familiar with it and this citation appears to be a misquote or convenient paraphrase either intentionally or unintentionally. That is of course, assuming the author of Matthew is recording the exact words that were exchanged which is a matter of dispute. 

Bringing this back to the original question. These Pharisees did not ask Yeshua if a man could divorce his wife for any reason. They asked if a man could put away his wife for any reason. 

It is theorized by some that what was occurring in Israel at this time was that men were not divorcing their wives, but they were sending them away.

The effect of this is that the husband, having not legally divorced the wife, is not legally liable to pay her what he would owe her in a legal divorce as spelled out in their Ketubah. This would mean the wife would now be destitute and unable to legally marry another man who might take care of her.

This is something that still occurs today in some Jewish communities which is called Agunah(Chained). 

If this is indeed what was occurring it would certainly have been a problem. Especially since it’s not actually something Moses allowed in the written Torah. 

And it is that fact that informs on Yeshua’s response in verse 8-

“He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so.”

As no such allowance from Moses is found in the written Torah, this is yet another example of Yeshua affirming the Oral Torah given to and given by Moses. Yeshua also specifies one singular reason it was allowed by Moses(thus not for any reason). Yeshua states that hardheartedness is the only reason such a thing was tolerated. That's worth unpacking a bit more. 

What is hardheartedness?

-Verse 8 Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses(G-d) allowed you to divorce your wives.

Many pastors and teachers within Christendom have taken this Hardheartedness to indicate an unwillingness to forgive based on the following verse which mentions and justifies divorce due to sexual immorality. They might summarize the passage as saying that even adultery G-d desires us to forgive to sustain a marriage but because that is a very heavy ask(aka most hearts are too hard to forgive such a betrayal) G-d has allowed divorce. 

Alternatively, many commentators note this seems to indicate some great perverseness among the men of Israel making them unable to live in a world bound by the perfect standard of the beginning. The Pulpit commentary on Matthew 19:8 especially states that in order to feed their own lusts they may have resorted to harming or even killing their wives. And so for the safety of those wives, divorce was permitted. 

The first summary seems rather opposite of what is actually being stated. Especially when the Greek and Hebrew words involved are taken into account. 

The Greek word here which translates as Hardhearted is the word σκληροκαρδίαν(Sklerokardian). This word appears in the Septuagint as a translation for the Hebrew words עִקֶּשׁ־לֵ֭ב(Ikkesh Leb) in such places as Proverbs 11:20 and 17:20.

This word Ikkesh only appears once in the Torah and a total of 11 times throughout the whole of the Tanakh. 

In the Torah it appears in the song of Moses(Deuteronomy 32:5) which speaks of a Perverse and Twisted Generation. 

Ikkesh combined with Leb only appears the 2 times in Proverbs and once in it appears with the Hebrew word לֵבָ֣ב(Lebab) which is translated as Heart also. In this psalm it is being used in a way indicative of wickedness and in fact is equated with a wicked person in the very next line of the verse. 

In fact nearly every appearance of the word Ikkesh in Tanakh is translated as Perverse, Froward, Crooked, or Twisted.

Taking this into account it seems very unlikely that Yeshua's point here is the first notion of having a heart too hard to forgive disloyalty in a marriage. 

Furthermore the punishment in Torah for Adultery is not divorce. It is death. As stated in Deuteronomy 22:22-24

“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both die, the man who lay with the woman and the woman. So you shall remove the evil from Israel. If there is a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man finds her in the city, and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn’t cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor’s wife. So you shall remove the evil from among you. “

So if divorce wasn’t given due to inability to forgive adultery within a marriage, why was it given? Revisiting the verse where divorce is stipulated in the Torah-

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a certificate of divorce, put it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”-Deuteronomy 24:1

Beginning with the clause that a wife finds No Favor in her husband's eyes. If isolated from the rest of the verse, this could be interpreted rather loosely so that anything which displeases a husband might suffice as reason enough for divorce(As Hillel's position is recorded). It could even be further extrapolated that if a husband simply finds a woman he desires more thus causing his wife to lose favor in his eyes, that this too is sufficient to justify a divorce per the Torah. In fact this exact position appears to be the opinion of Rabbi Akiva a little farther down in the same tractate and chapter as Hillel and Shammai’s opinions. 

Rabbi Akiva says: He may divorce her even if he found another woman who is better looking than her and wishes to marry her, as it is stated in that verse: “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes”-Talmud Bavli, Gittin 90a:4

(Also Cited in Mishnah Gittin 9:10)

This would seem very much in line with what some of the Christian commentators have come to understand about Yeshua's statement regarding why divorce was allowed in the Torah. So that understanding may very well be true. 

But this still isolates the "No favor" clause from the verse. Taken as a whole, the verse suggests that there is a specific reason a wife might find no favor in her husband's eyes, and this lends to another understanding of what it means to have a hardened heart in both the stubborn and perverse context.

In verse 9 of Matthew 19, Yeshua acknowledges that πορνείᾳ(Porneia) is a valid reason to divorce a woman. Most translations render this word as Sexual Immorality. The KJV, ASV, and ERV all translate it as Fornication. GOD’S WORD Translation and the Good news Translation render this word as Unfaithfulness. Lastly, the Webster's Bible Translation renders this word as Lewdness.

Generally speaking most Christians still take this to indicate adultery. With translations that render Porneia as Unfaithfulness and Fornication it’s no wonder this idea is the most popular. However, it makes less sense when examining the Greek text and the whole of the verse. 

See, Yeshua actually uses the proper word for adultery in this verse. In the second clause where he states that any man who marries a divorced woman is committing μοιχᾶται(Moichatai). This is the Greek word that actually means "adultery." That being the case, why wouldn’t Yeshua have said-

I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except forμοιχᾶται(Moichatai-Adultery) , and marries another, commits μοιχᾶται(Moichatai-Adultery); and he who marries her when she is divorced commits μοιχᾶται(Moichatai-Adultery) .”

If Yeshua meant that adultery was the only valid reason for a divorce then this would be the most direct way to say it. 

Rather, it seems this word Porneia which Yeshua acknowledges as a valid reason for divorce, means something other than adultery. What then is it’s meaning?

Revisiting the verse in Torah which Yeshua is referencing, it states that this wife who is subject to divorce has found no favor in her husband's eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her.

Given that the Torah prescribes capital punishment for adultery, yet prescribes divorce for the discovery of something Unseemly, it appears that this unseemly thing fits the bill for Yeshua’s use of Porneia in Matthew 19:9.

What then is this unseemly thing?

The words translated as unseemly thing in Deuteronomy 24:1 are עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר(Ehrvat Davar). The first word Ehrvat in the Brown-Driver-Briggs(BDB) Hebrew and English Lexicon as-

1. Nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda

1. pudenda (implying shameful exposure)

2. nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour

3. exposed, undefended (fig.)

Note that each of these seems to hint at something of a sexual nature, though not a sexual act in and of itself. This is where understanding the next word lends understanding. 

The word Davar can be translated as something/thing. According to the BDB Lexicon it can even be rendered Business, Occupations, Acts, Matter, Case, and Manner(by extension). But anyone who has studied Torah and Hebrew for even just a little while will know that it most often is rendered as Speech, Say, Word, Speaking or Utterance.

It seems that this unseemly thing might refer to a tendency for this wife to carry on in behavior and conversation that is rather lewd. Likely not with her husband. Generally speaking men tend not to mind that kind of talk from their wives. Some may even prefer it and it might even go a long way to enhancing intimacy between a married couple. No, rather it is more likely that this behavior and manner of speech is being directed at or carried on with other men. A Behavior which might cause a Husband to suspect adultery may or has already been committed. 

Rashi’s commentary on this makes a direct reference to Gittin 90b in the Talmud Bavli regarding these words. In summary the last part of the prior chapter explains that a bad man allows his wife to behave in shameful ways such as dressing immodestly in garments that are revealing with her head uncovered, dancing in the street, and frequenting the places where men bathe(even to bathe herself).  

It may seem difficult for modern women to understand, but there are certain behavioral and fashion decisions that some women make(generally in the secular world) that suggest a woman is trying to convey her availability to other men. While it is generally defended as a fashion choice, it is usually very obvious that the desired result of that choice is attention from other men which is why the point of such fashion choices are to avoid appearing as spoken for at all costs for fear that men will be reluctant to give their attention to a woman who is appears to have a husband. This is the behavior the Talmud is describing and it says only a bad man ignores it. 

It goes on to explain that it is a mitzvah for a man to divorce such a woman. 

The baraita continues: With regard to this kind of wife, it is a mitzva by Torah law to divorce her, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her, and he writes her a scroll of severance, and gives it in her hand, and he sends her out of his house…And she goes and becomes another [aḥer] man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1–2). The verse called the second husband aḥer, other, to state that this man is not a peer of the first husband. They are morally distinct, as that first husband evicted a wicked woman from his house and this second man introduced a wicked woman into his house.-Talmud Bavli, Gittin 90b:3-4

This understanding of Ehrvat Davar and Porneia makes better sense in the translations of Matthew 19:9 which say that a man may divorce his wife for sexual immorality.  It is not so rigid as adultery being required. It seems a man only needs reason to suspect adultery based on her dress, behavior, and respect for her head covering(the thing which identifies her as a married woman). This is where another definition of being hard hearted becomes very relevant. 

It is very unlikely that even Yeshua intends for a husband to witness such behavior only once and immediately pursue divorce. This kind of thing can be talked about in a conversation between the couple where clear boundaries pertaining to these habits and behaviors can be established. However, refusal to respect those boundaries, especially if more than one conversation and opportunity to correct this behavior is granted, can only be described as a hardened heart. In both the stubborn context intended by modern pastors, as well as the perverse context indicated by the biblical text.

Given Yeshua’s direct statement on this justifiable cause for divorce, it appears that this also is directly implicit in his statement that “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives,”.

Ultimately, this passage doesn’t hold up well as an example of Yeshua teaching against the Torah, the Oral Torah, or the Pharisees. From the very onset of this dialogue Yeshua clearly still holds a Pharisaic position. It’s simply a different position than might have been expected given that it is the position of one particular rabbi he generally disagrees with on everything else. This passage presents a unique situation and likely the only time in the totality of the gospel narrative where Yeshua upholds Shammai’s opinion over that of Hillel. As Shammai was a Pharisee though, Yeshua agreeing with him means Yeshua still held and taught and agreed with a Pharisaic position. Furthermore, Yeshua’s final words on divorce do not negate or contradict the Torah. In actuality they are informed by Deuteronomy 24:1 and rather harmoniously affirm it in that Yeshua's words here insist that aside from adultery(which warrants the death penalty according to Torah), If a woman only behaves as though she is available to other men or passively pursues the attention of other men besides her husband would justify divorce. All while still affirming that according to the Torah, divorce based on the lustful desire to be with a woman other than your wife or any other petty reason is not within G-ds intention for human behavior.