It has been debated that Jesus in Matthew 19:8 has said that Moses had given the permission to divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 because of the hardness of the heart of the Jews and this was not God's will. That obviously creates a problem as it implies that the Old Testament is not a true reflection of God's will. So is Jesus, like in the Sermon on the Mount, re-interpreting the Law of Moses or is He changing the Law of Moses?
In Deuteronomy 24:1 the wording reads as follows:- "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:" The word for 'uncleanness' is 'erwah which means 'nudity'. The same word is used in Leviticus 18 and is translated as 'nakedness' meaning to have sexual relationships with. The same word could also mean something shameful.
So two school of thought was there amongst the Jews - one which believed that divorce was permissible for infidelity and one who believed it was permissible for anything shameful. Jesus, in His answer sides with the first interpretation and so he is not saying that Moses was wrong but that he is being interpreted wrongly. This wrong interpretation is because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews.
Some however do not accept the Matthean exception which permits divorce for adultery and insists that Malachi 2:16 us absolute when it says "God hates divorce". However for us who believe in the inspiration of the scriptures we have no problem with the Matthean exception.
The Pauline in I Corinthians 7 exception has proved more controversial. Paul says in I Corinthians 7:10-11 that while divorce was not permissible, separation was. So some spouses have walked out on the basis of this verse. I do not think that this verse is a permission to separate, but rather a ban on a second marriage if one has waled out on the first.
More controversial is the interpretation of I Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases". What does it mean to say that if ones spouse leaves him/her he/she is not under bondage. Does it mean that if you have been abandoned by your spouse you are free to remarry? That is how I have interpreted it, but many conservative scholars do not agree.
In other words, according to Paul, if you walk out on your spouse you cannot remarry, but if your spouse walks out on you, you can.
Of course none of this is meant to be read with an intention to walk out on ones spouse, but with a heart to understand the mind of God in a difficult situation. Ultimately Malachi hit the nail on the head when he said "God hates divorce".
In Deuteronomy 24:1 the wording reads as follows:- "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:" The word for 'uncleanness' is 'erwah which means 'nudity'. The same word is used in Leviticus 18 and is translated as 'nakedness' meaning to have sexual relationships with. The same word could also mean something shameful.
So two school of thought was there amongst the Jews - one which believed that divorce was permissible for infidelity and one who believed it was permissible for anything shameful. Jesus, in His answer sides with the first interpretation and so he is not saying that Moses was wrong but that he is being interpreted wrongly. This wrong interpretation is because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews.
Some however do not accept the Matthean exception which permits divorce for adultery and insists that Malachi 2:16 us absolute when it says "God hates divorce". However for us who believe in the inspiration of the scriptures we have no problem with the Matthean exception.
The Pauline in I Corinthians 7 exception has proved more controversial. Paul says in I Corinthians 7:10-11 that while divorce was not permissible, separation was. So some spouses have walked out on the basis of this verse. I do not think that this verse is a permission to separate, but rather a ban on a second marriage if one has waled out on the first.
More controversial is the interpretation of I Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases". What does it mean to say that if ones spouse leaves him/her he/she is not under bondage. Does it mean that if you have been abandoned by your spouse you are free to remarry? That is how I have interpreted it, but many conservative scholars do not agree.
In other words, according to Paul, if you walk out on your spouse you cannot remarry, but if your spouse walks out on you, you can.
Of course none of this is meant to be read with an intention to walk out on ones spouse, but with a heart to understand the mind of God in a difficult situation. Ultimately Malachi hit the nail on the head when he said "God hates divorce".
