The Pharisees only brought the subject up to try to trick Jesus, but He used it as a great history lesson for the future. As you know, the rabbis prior and to that time disregarded the Mosaic directive in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, where divorce was permissible if the wife was found to be “unclean” (Hebrew word “ervah”, translated as shame in Isaiah 20:4, nakedness in Genesis 9: 22-23, and comes from the word arah, which means to “make bare, empty, make naked, uncover”). In the chapter 24 portion of Deuteronomy, it talks about that wife departing after being released, and she was allowed to be another man’s wife. It does stipulate, though, that any subsequent divorce for the same reason will not free her; she would be defiled in perpetuity.
In prior Deuteronomic verse (22: 13-19), a wife innocent of those charges of impurity had recourse. The Hebrew word “ervah” speaks to sexual impurity, but its lack of clarity could well have been to protect women, as the penalty for adultery was death for both parties (22:22) and some scholars believe it was stated in a more general sense so that women wouldn’t be executed (there was rampant impurity in those days). This kind of reminds me when Jesus came to the woman who was “caught in the act”. Of course, there had to be a second party, a man, and probably all of them one by one, but the essence was to trap Jesus and brand the woman. Thankfully Jesus did some writing and their consciences spoke loud and clear. His writings in the sand of what I believe are the ten commandments, did their work – they pricked the conscience of those pointing the finger at the woman.
Again, the thread here is of continuous behavior – unchecked and unchanged. Later schools of thought around the time of Jesus, believed a man could divorce his wife for burned toast – for example. Women had no rights, so the Mosaic law did introduce some structure for those innocent.
Forward into Jesus’ day, when He responds to the Pharisee’s trappings and Jesus goes way back beyond Moses – to the creation of man and woman. Jesus says that Moses allowed it because of the hardness and harsh treatment by men of the women, but that this wasn’t so from the beginning; it certainly wasn’t God’s intention for marital relationships.
I was reading the original Greek and in our rendering, Matthew 19:9 has a proviso for the exception of fornication, as does Matthew 5:32. The term fornication, which is the Greek “porneia”, means “idolatry, fornication”. It comes from the word “pernao”, meaning “to sell off, the surrendering of one’s purity in any manner”. Surely God does and should put the full weight of holiness against this breakdown of moral fiber.
In the ancient Greek, there was little grammar, but I was interested in the way verse 9 islisted. It has a semi-colon in between the exception for fornication, in the ancient Greek a semicolon was our current question mark, which I found interesting, but that last part behind the semi-colon “and whoso marrieth her which is put away, committed adultery”,is connected to the former part and therefore, because the exception here is for those whose bonds have been broken by fornication/adultery, the latter part is not part of the instruction and would only apply to those who are divorced/remarried outside of the exception rule. One is free in those cases, as in the I Corinthians 7:15 portion about an unbeliever leaving – abandonment instruction.
Today as I was praying about this, the Lord brought me to the story of the woman at the well. We know that Jesus both fulfilled the law and received its penalty of death for our sins, so how He dealt with people is a picture of the intention of biblical purpose, for Jesus would never contradict His own treatise.
Jesus initiates the conversation with this woman of Samaria – with whom He culturally should not be talking to. He enters into questions and He draws her into theology and reality, as He confronts her behavior. Jesus tells her to call her husband (verse 16), full well knowing she wasn’t presently married, but was living with a man and also had five previous husbands. Surely she would fit the bill of one defiled by Mosaic law or any standing law of any kind.
The woman understands that He is Messiah and goes and tells the town folk. Her story is included in the canon of the Scripture, not as a rebuke, but as a redemption at the well of salvation. In addition, in reference to the story of the woman caught in the act – where Jesus said “Go thy way and sin no more”, adds clarity to redemption’s purpose, that we change into His image and that God gives us a path forward.
I stand by my belief that the sin of intention, habitual behavior, and lack of repentance are the determinations for God’s judgement.