My friend, I’m enjoying this conversation, thank you.
“Is it a punishable offense to agree with Shammai?” I asked this question because you mentioned Matthew 19 and Mark 10 were about the debate between Hillel and Shammai.
Why would the Pharisees have to tempt Jesus into a 'punishable offense'? There were other scholars in the Mishneh and Talmud who had differing opinions. Why would differing over an interpretation of law or tradition have to be a punishable offense? They may have been trying to get him into trouble with Rome over taxation or execution questions and with the Sanhedrin over other questions, but that seems unlikely with this question.
Follow me now, Matthew 19 and Mark 10 records the Pharisees attempting to trap Jesus because of his teachings leading up to this point. If he truly was teaching fornication only divorce then where is the rub, where’s the trap? Is it a punishable offense to agree with Shammai?
You left out the traditiona view, the RCCC view.
There is no reason to think this has to be a 'punishable offense.' They could just have just been trying to trip Jesus up or show him up.
“What are the commands given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4?” I asked this because you mentioned there is only one command, not to take back the the original wife. Many, including MacArthur who is my favorite Bible teacher, make this claim but I don’t agree with him either 😅
Including NIV translators and the translators of the interlinear. But the key factor here is the interchange between the Pharisees in Christ. In both Mark and Matthew his opponents say that Moses COMMANDED giving her a writing of divorce, and Christ says he ALLOWED it. He attributes Moses allowing it because of the hardness of their hearts.
The idea that Moses is describing a hypothetical scenario-- not saying thus saith the Lord to God endorsing divorce and remarriage-- followed by a command not to take the wife back after she remarries.
The key issue here is the words of Christ--His commentary-- allowed divorce v. the Pharisees interpretation that a divorce certificate was commanded.
Here’s why. In the exegetical portion of Matthew 5 Jesus gives us 6 examples of biblical text followed by exegesis. Thou shall not murder… Thou shall not commit adultery… And the third is: Whoever sends away must give a certificate… Jesus then continues with the commands about swearing oaths, eye for an eye etc.
Point is, by Jesus’ own words, the command in question via Deuteronomy 24 is, whoever sends away must give a certificate. Once we see this, we can almost guess what he’s going to address in the following verse (Matthew 5:32), those who were sending away without a certificate.
A few problems-- Jesus does NOT quote the Torah about giving the certificate of divorce. That's not a quote, and it isn't a quote from the LXX either, not from a version I've seen of the LXX. If you have other evidence, please show it. This is 'It hath been said.'
And look at this verse:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Where does the Old Testament say to hate your enemy? Again, this is clearly not a quote from the Old Testament. The first part is, but Jesus is referring to contemporary teaching on the Old Testament, and He corrects it.
Another problem is your imaginary interpretations here do not match what Jesus said.
Matthew 5
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall
put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall
put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
It is clear from these verses that a woman who is put away with a certificate in her hand is indeed put away. That is clear from the scenario in Deuteronomy 24, where the man gives her a certificate and then... what? Puts/sends her away.
Clearly the man who gives his wife a certificate and puts her away has indeed put away his wife, and is included in 'whosoever shall put away his wife' in verse 32.
Also worth nothing at this point, Jesus doesn’t void or create any tension whatsoever with the other 5 biblical texts in this portion. Should come as no surprise really, he does warn the hearer starting in verse 17, essentially stating we aren’t to misunderstand him, that he comes not to destroy one jot or tittle. 🤷♂️
There is lots of tension between Biblical texts, at least in the minds of interpreters when reading them. It happens a lot. Whether kings are good or bad is another issue with tension. Every man did what was right in his own eyes for their was no king makes having a king sound like a good thing, but then Israel rejects God by asking for a king.
But you are assuming destruction of a jot or tittle. The tension decreases if you accept Jesus' interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 instead of the Pharisees. The Pharisees took the scenario Moses set up as a command. Jesus said Moses allowed them to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts.
Many imply Jesus had some sort of problem with Deuteronomy because of his response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19 & Mark 10: “Moses for the hardness of your heart allowed you this, but from the beginning it was not so…” Again I would ask, who wrote Deuteronomy?
That is a confusing question because the Word made flesh was called 'Jesus' at His birth at the incarnation. Again, the command is not to marry the wife again. In the situation where a man puts away his wife, gives her a certificate, another man takes her etc. he is not to take her as his wife again. You, like the Pharisees, are interpreting the certificate part as a command, rather than a scenario under which the command was given.
And if you read those opening verses to the sermon on the Mt., the Lord says unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. So he is requiring higher than the status quo morality.. Not putting away your wife for burning the bread... with a certificate, his higher morality than just making sure to give her a piece of paper.
Did Moses sneak Deuteronomy 24:1-4 into inspired cannon against the will of God and somehow it remained for 2000 years until Christ could void it in person, right after he states he won’t void a jot or tittle?
No, again, I am not a big NIV fan, but carefully read that translation and the interlinar.
The Torah says not to put a stumbling block in front of a blind man. Does that mean you have to blind someone so you can keep that command? You also don't have to divorce your wife with a certificate to keep the command not to remarry her if another man remarried her. A man being blind isn't a desirable scenario, and you don't have to make that happen. Divorcing your wife with a certificate isn't a desirable scenario, and you don't have to make tha thappen.
“Is Jesus simply righting our view of Deuteronomy to be that of fornication only divorce?” Viewing Deuteronomy 24 as fornication only divorce doesn’t erase the permission to remarry, which still leaves a contradiction.
Whose permission to remarry, and where is that? This Deuteronomy 24 passage does not give permission to remarry. It says if a man puts away his wife and she remarries, and is divorced or her next husband dies, the first husbands is not to take her as his wife again. It is withholding permission to remarry.
———
If Jesus was addressing the improper practice of putting away without a divorce certificate, all this goes away, no mental gymnastics required.
No, such an interpretation contradicts what jesus plainly says. A woman put away with a certificate is a woman put away, and Jesus' words apply. In fact, the Pharisees had just asked him about the scenario of a woman being put away WITH a certificate when he made this statement:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Why would the disciples say this if Jesus were just saying (which He clearly wasn't) 'Make sure you give a woman a piece of paper if you divorce her."
Look at this verse.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Either the traditional or Protestant interpretation work with verse 10. Jesus is restricting freedom to divorce over the views the disciples had had. They probably thought like Shammai Pharisees before they heard Jesus' teaching. But if they pretty much couldn't get a divorce, and this was the first time they contemplated or heard this teaching of Jesus, then they might respond this way.
But it makes no sense they would say that if Jesus was just saying, "Make sure to give your wife a piace of paper before you kick her out of the house." A little piece of parchment, papyrus, might have cost more to them, than to us, but not that much, and they could have written on wood or stone. (That's the way to get back at the ex-, and make sure the stone is heeeaaavy.)
1
