Marriage Divorce and Remarriage

 

Part 2.

 

Rex Banks

 

 

 

 

Matthew 5:31, 32.

 

Context.

 

a. Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:31, 32 occurs in the Sermon on the Mount (chpts 5-7) the first of five discourses in the book of Matthew which begin in a specific context and which end with the formulaic expression "The result was that/ and it came about that when Jesus had finished..." (7:28 c.f. 11:1; 13:53; 19:2; 26:1, 2).

 

b. In the course of this sermon (5:21 – 48) we have what are sometimes called “the six antitheses.”  Synonyms given for “antithesis” include “a direct opposite” “contrast” “converse” “reverse” and in this section Jesus uses such expressions as “You have heard that the ancients were told,” and “You have heard that it was said” followed by the adversative “But I say to you…” Among the Jews the explanations of the Mosaic Law which were read in the schools were called “hearings” and the expressions “it was said" or "it hath been said" are Talmudic idioms. Thus it is evident that in large measure Jesus here "contrasts the people's misunderstanding of the law (of Moses [Rex]) with the true direction in which the law points according to His own authority as the law's 'fulfiller' (...v17)" (D. A. Carson Expositors Bible Commentary).

 

c. In this section Jesus also “goes further than the Law into the very heart” (A.T. Robertson Word Pictures). He deals with “the first principles underlying the revelation contained in the Law… expound(ing) its commands as a revelation of God’s permanent will for them and all men as men” (A. Lukyn Williams). The problem was that “a person might indeed keep the letter of it without being in any sense at all truly righteous in the eyes of God!” (James Burton Coffman).  By way of explanation we will say a word about five of the six “antitheses” before giving some attention to Matt 5:31, 32.

 

d. Matt 5:21, 22 “You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the Supreme Court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. Etc.” Note that:

 

The traditional teaching of the Jews on this matter (“YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER”) reflects the teaching of Moses (Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17). In Deut 16:18 Moses commanded:"You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” The ‘court” here was the court in each city and town, the “lower court” and from it appeals could be made to the Sanhedrin.

 

Note that Jesus does not contradict the Law of Moses which said “You shall not commit murder” but He goes further and condemns the anger which lies at the root of murder (v 22ff). Even in the O.T God had commanded “You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart…” (Lev 19:17). 

 

e. Matt 5:27, 28 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”  (On the Old Testament teaching on adultery see Lesson 1). In the present context the relevant point is that Jesus does not reverse the Law of Moses which said “You shall not commit adultery” (v 27 c.f. Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18) but rather He points out that at the heart of the matter is lust and intention (v 28). The following from the Talmud is of interest:

 

"Rabh Gidal and R. Jochanan were wont to sit at the place of dipping, where the women were washed; and when they were admonished by some of the danger of lasciviousness, R. Jochanan answered, 'I am of the seed of Joseph, over whom an evil affection could not rule.'"

 

f. Matt 5:38, 39. “You have heard that it was said ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil etc” (vv 38, 39). Note:

 

 In the O.T. the so called "law of the tooth" (lex talionis Ex 21:24; c.f. Lev 24:19-20; Deut 19:21) was given to the "the judges" who were responsible for applying this law. The judges were guided by this principle to make restitution appropriate to the loss. Restitution was not to exceed or come short of the loss. Far from encouraging personal revenge this law instructed the judges to make the punishment fit the crime.

 

The “law of the tooth” was never intended to become the means of obtaining personal justice or revenge. The Israelite was to told “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18). Thus the Mosaic Law forbade vindictiveness and personal revenge. 

 

In the N.T Christians are also forbidden to take their own revenge (Rom 12:17) and judges also punish criminals with divine approval (Rom 13:4). Paul sought the protection of the civil authorities on occasion (Acts 16:37-40; 25:11).

 

Again it is evident that Jesus is correcting, not the Mosaic Law itself, which forbade vengeance and commanded love for one neighbour (Lev 19:18) but rather a misuse of this Law. “It seems that the Jews had made this law (the execution of which belonged to the civil magistrate) a ground for authorizing private resentments, and all the excesses committed by a vindictive spirit” (Adam Clarke).  “The Pharisaic perversion of the old law actually sanctioned private revenge, on the ground of a statute intended for the guidance of the courts of justice…” (J. M. Gibson).

 

g. Matt 5:43-45 “You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'  "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” Note that:

 

The Mosaic Law taught love for one’s neighbour (Lev 19:18 see above).

 

It seems likely that again Jesus is correcting rabbinical perversion of the Law. Gill says that

 

“(The Jews) “bred their scholars in hatred and malice against their enemies. This arises from a mistaken sense of the word ‘neighbour’, which they understood only of a friend; and concluded, that if a friend was to be loved, an enemy was to be hated; not the Gentiles only, but anyone, among themselves, which could come under that name.”

 

According to Jewish teaching, “as to the Gentiles, with whom we have no war, and likewise to the shepherds of smaller cattle, and others of that sort, they do not so plot their death; but it is forbidden them to deliver them from death if they are in danger of it."

 

Clearly, once again, Jesus was not opposing the teaching of the Mosaic Law, but the corruption of that Law.

 

h. Matt 5:33-37.   "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.  "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.  "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.” But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.” Note:

 

(i). Easton’s Bible Dictionary defines an oath as   “A solemn appeal to God, permitted on fitting occasions (Deut 6:13; Jer 4:2), in various forms (Gen 16:5; 2Sam12:5; Rth 1:17; Hos 4:15; Rom 1:9), and taken in different ways (Gen 14:22; Gen 24:2; 2Ch 6:22).

 

(ii) Moses commanded Israel: "You shall fear only the LORD your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name” (Deut 6:13).   The Mosaic laws concerning oaths were not meant to limit the widespread custom of making oaths, so much as to impress upon the people the sacredness of an oath, forbidding on the one hand swearing falsely (Ex 20:7; Lev 19:12; Zec 8:17, etc.), and on the other swearing by false gods, which latter was considered to be a very dark sin (Jer 12:16; Amos 8:14)” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

(iii) In the Old Testament God, told Israel to “swear (shâba‛) by His name” (Deut 6:13) yet in Zechariah 5:3 we read “This is the curse that is going forth over the face of the whole land; surely everyone who steals will be purged away according to the writing on one side, and everyone who swears (shâba‛). Clearly there is a kind of swearing in the Old Testament which is authorized, and a kind of swearing which is forbidden. Context tells us that the kind of swearing which is forbidden in Zech 5:3 is false swearing.

 

(iv.) Jesus’ words in Matt 5:33-37 must be harmonized with the fact that Paul, under inspiration, employed an oath on several occasions: “But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth” (2 Cor 1:23); “(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying”) (Gal 1:20 c.f. Rom 1:9; Phil 1:8). When Caiaphas said to Jesus "I adjure (from exorkizo “to extract an oath, to force to an oath” [Thayer]) the Lord responded. It seems clear that as in the Old Testament, there is a kind of swearing in the New Testament which is authorized, and a kind of swearing which is forbidden. Again context is important.

 

(v) In Matt 5:34-36 Jesus gives examples of the kind of oaths which are forbidden, namely oaths which invoke heaven, earth, Jerusalem and one’s own head. In similar vein, James urges us not to swear “by heaven or by earth or with any other oath.”  “For ‘other’ (James) used the word ‘allos’ which means ‘numerical distinction of objects of similar character.’ Had he intended to make a blanket condemnation of every kind of oath, he would have used ‘heterous’ and thus indicated those of a different kind.  Thus, both Jesus and James discussed the abuses practiced by the Jews rather than judicial oaths” (W.T. Hamilton, Difficult Texts of the Old Testament Explained).

 

(vi). The Jewish teachers had adopted the practice of “differentiating between what was binding and what was not… (and in doing so) wittingly or unwittingly they encouraged evasive oaths and therefore lying” (Carson). This is what Jesus has in mind when He speaks of the Pharisees as “blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.'” Likely it is such vain swearing, not all oath-taking which Jesus forbids in Matt 5:33-37.

 

Again, it is likely that in these verses Jesus is not opposing the teaching of the Mosaic Law, but the corruption of that Law.

 

Conclusion: The point is that in the five antitheses above ("you have heard...but I say to you”) a good case can be made that Jesus is not correcting the Old Testament, but rather criticising the understanding of certain Old Testament passages which many Jews had adopted, or intensifying the meaning of the passage by showing its ultimate significance. This being the case we would expect Jesus’ teaching about divorce in Matt 5:31, 32 to harmonize with the Mosaic Law, perhaps while correcting certain popular misunderstandings of that Law or explaining its ultimate meaning. In the next section we will see that a careful reading of the text reveals that this is the case.