Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: July 2, 2006
A REVIEW OF “A STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES
CONCERNING MARRIAGE & DIVORCE” (Part 3)
Ben Justice
We wish to continue our review of Brother Bill Haley’s study of the scriptures
concerning marriage and divorce. I want to stress again, as I did at the beginning
of this review, that I by no means get any pleasure out of exposing false doctrine.
But, we all must understand that God’s word teaches us to expose error. Souls are
at stake. I am sure brother Haley would agree with this. I am certainly open to
any criticism that he or anyone else might have relative to the things I have
written. I am sure that he sincerely believes that what he has written in his study
is the truth. However, it simply is not. It is my sincere and prayer that he will go
back and restudy these issues and make the necessary corrections.
As we ended last week’s article, we were considering the Lord’s teachings as set
forth in Matt. 19:3-9 and what Brother Haley had to say about these scriptures.
Several times, he said that the uncleanness (unseemly thing) in Deut. 24:1 is
defined as “fornication” by Jesus. It would do us well to examine Deut. 24:1.
Again, the passage reads, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come
to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in
her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out
of his house.” This is the scripture the Pharisees had in mind in Matt. 19:3 & 7.
They asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause” (Matt.
19:3), and “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her
away” (Matt. 19:7).
The “Uncleanness” of Deut. 24:1
During the time of Jesus, there were two schools of thought concerning what the
phrase “some uncleanness” meant and what interpretation should be placed upon
it. The two interpretations were based upon the positions of two famous Jewish
Rabbis. One was the school of Hillel and the other the school of Shammai. The
school of Hillel was very liberal in their interpretation and said that a man could
divorce his wife for just about any cause, even burning her husband’s food. As we
will see later, the school of Hillel was wrong in their interpretation.
The school of Shammai said, “A wife is not to be divorced, unless for adultery only”
(Wayne Jackson, The Teaching of Jesus on Divorce & Remarriage — A
Critical Study of Matthew 19:9, Pg. 1). As we will also see later, the school of
Shammai was also wrong in their interpretation.
It seems by the question the Pharisees asked Jesus in Matt. 19:3 that they sided
with the Hillel interpretation of Deut. 24:1. They said, “for every cause.” However,
this may not be what they really believed, because they were not sincere in asking
their question. These Pharisees may have asked the question to represent how
other Jews interpreted Deut. 24:1.
The question is, “Does Jesus agree with Hillel’s exposition of Deut. 24:1 or
Shammai’s exposition?” These Pharisees would certainly be anxious to know
which side Jesus was on. Lenski explains the situation before Jesus:
If, for instance, he should agree with Hillel and the common Jewish practice, the
Pharisees could side with Shammai and charge Jesus with moral laxity. If he sided
with Shammai who held that only actual shameful conduct could be a cause for
divorce, Jesus could be reproached for his own friendly treatment of sinners. The
choice of either view would involve Jesus in the Jewish party disputes. If, however,
as the Pharisees most likely expected, Jesus should reject both Hillel and
Shammai and declare himself against all divorce, they could charge him with
contradicting even the law stated in Deut. 24:1. The Pharisees felt quite certain
that they had asked a question which Jesus could not answer without causing
great harm to himself (R.C.H. Lenski, Commentary On Matthew, Pg. 728).
It is evident that the Pharisees were trying to create conflict between the Lord and
Shammai and his followers, or between the Lord and Hillel and his followers. If the
Lord should answer their question by saying there is no cause for divorce, then he
would be contradicting the Law of Moses (Deut. 24:1). Also, Jesus had already
stated in Matt. 5:32 that “fornication” was the only exception for divorce, and so, if
he said here in Matt. 19 that there was not a cause for divorce, then he would not
only be contradicting the Law of Moses, but also what he had taught earlier.
The original Hebrew word for “uncleanness” is erwah. Vine writes that it is found
53 times in the Old Testament (W.E. Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old and New Testament Words, Pg. 157 under “nakedness”). Strong defines it as
“nudity, lit. (esp. The pudenda [the external genital organs, esp. of a woman — BJ])
. . .” (James Strong, The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, #
6172, Pg. 482). In Wilson’s OT Word Studies, he says, “nakedness; that which
causes shame” (William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies, Pg.
460). Keil & Delitzsch say, “nakedness, shame, disgrace” (C.F. Keil & F.
Delitzsch, Commentary on The Old Testament — The Pentateuch, See
Deuteronomy, Pg. 950). The Pulpit Commentary states, “literally, a thing or matter
of nakedness, i.e., some shameful thing, something disgraceful” (W.L. Alexander,
The Pulpit Commentary — Deuteronomy, Pg. 381). A footnote in the KJV says,
“matter of nakedness.” The word is used in a spiritual sense in the OT (see Is. 47:
3; Lam. 1:8; Eze. 16:8, 36-37) and in a literal and physical sense, such as it is in
Deut. 24:1. In Gen. 9:22-23, the Hebrew word is actually translated “nakedness.”
The word does not refer to adultery, because adultery was punishable by death (Lev.
20:10; Deut. 22:20-21), yet Deut. 24:2 clearly teaches that she is not to be put to
death — “And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s
wife.” She could hardly be another man’s wife if she is dead. Brother Haley said
that the “uncleanness” refers to “fornication.” While it is true that all fornication
is not adultery, all adultery is fornication. The phrase in Deut. 24:1 points to
something very serious; it has to do with nakedness, but it is less than adultery.
Therefore, the two schools of thought (i.e., Hillel and Shammai) were both wrong
concerning the interpretation of this expression in Deut. 24:1 and so is Brother
Haley.
Brother Haley emphasized more than once that Jesus did not change or destroy the
law. While it is true that Jesus upheld the law and stated the consequences for
violating the law (Matt. 5:17-19), this does not mean Jesus did not give new
revelation, which in fact he did with reference to marriage, divorce, and remarriage.
Please consider the striking contrasts between Deut. 24:1-4 and Matt. 19:9.
DEUT. 24:1-4 TEACHES MATTHEW 19:9 TEACHES
Some uncleanness is the exception Fornication is the exception for
for a writing of divorcement (this is not a lawful divorce
fornication or adultery as has already
been proven.) If the marriage dissolves on
grounds other than fornication,
She may go and be another’s man’s wife. neither the man nor the woman
has the right to remarry. Such
If the latter husband hate her and gives constitutes adultery.
her a writing of divorcement, her former
husband may not take her again to be his wife. Whoever marries the one put
away for fornication commits
adultery.
Since Jesus did not violate the law or taught anyone to violate the law, and since
there are obvious and clear differences between Deut. 24:1-4 and what Jesus
taught in Matt. 19:9, it, therefore, must be the case that Jesus gave new
revelation. This revelation would become effective under the Law of Christ — the
Christian dispensation (see the other examples given in last week’s article). Lord
willing, next week we will finish this review.