Is Jesus Just Explaining The Divorce Law Of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?

In Matthew 5:31-32, Jesus said "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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." On the surface it would seem obvious that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 24:1 in this passages, and then giving his new covenant teaching on the subject in contrast to that old covenant teaching of Moses. But many brethren among us are now rejecting this understanding, and instead are teaching Jesus was just explaining the true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in Matthew 5:31-32 (and Matthew 19:3-9). They then make a jump (with no justification), and say therefore the teaching contained in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 applies to us today under the new covenant.

Jerry Bassett used this approach as a basis for his false teaching on the subject that is presented in his book "Rethinking Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage." Samuel Dawson teaches the "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is adultery, and since the woman put away in Deuteronomy 24 could remarry (and since the teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 still applies today according to this view), the put away guilty fornicator can remarry under the new covenant. Others teach that "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 is not adultery, and since the woman put away in Deuteronomy 24 could remarry (and since Deuteronomy 24:1-4 still applies today), an innocent put away person can remarry under the new covenant.

Jesus Is Contrasting The New Law With The Old Law

It is strange to me how so many could believe that in every instance in Matthew 5:21-48, Jesus is just correcting false interpretations of Moses’ law, when all in six cases that He speaks of what "was said by them of old time," Jesus essentially quotes Moses’ law (verses 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, and 43a). Since when is a false interpretation of God’s word correctly represented by an exact quote from God’s word? Let’s look at one of the cases in detail to illustrate what is going on in all six cases – the case that is perhaps the clearest of all in showing Jesus is in the (preparatory) process of establishing a new law in this section. In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus says "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: … But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Is Jesus just correcting a false interpretation of Moses’ law here by giving the true understanding? The unmistakable answer is no. What Jesus presents in verse 33 is not a false interpretation of Moses’ law. Leviticus 19:12, Numbers 30:2, and Psalms 15:1,4b clearly taught it was wrong to "forswear thyself" (swear to do something and then fail to follow through on that commitment). And Jesus’ contrasting teaching in verse 34, "Swear not at all," is absolutely not the true meaning of Moses’ law; instead it is plainly different than Moses’ law. Moses’ law taught it was right to swear, but just wrong to forswear thyself. Jesus’ teaching is stricter than that. He is teaching you shouldn’t even swear to start with. His is new covenant teaching. We see the exact same thing taught in James 5:12.

Nowhere in Matthew 5:21-48 is Jesus only giving the true interpretation of Moses’ law. He is giving new covenant law. And this includes Matthew 5:31-32, where Jesus is contrasting (with the contrast word "But") his new (same as in the beginning, Matthew 19:3-9) law on divorce with Moses’ old law. Jesus’ and Moses’ divorce laws are critically different.

Jesus’ Divorce Law Is Different Than Moses’ Divorce Law

Many differences between Jesus’ law on divorce and Moses’ law on divorce can be pointed out. In Deuteronomy 24:1-2, the one who was divorced had the right to remarry another, while Matthew 5:32b and Matthew 19:9b specifically forbid the remarriage of the put away spouse. In Deuteronomy 24:3-4 the put away woman could not go back to her first husband if she remarried and the second marriage ended in divorce or death, but the new testament demands she must go back if the first divorce was unscriptural (Matthew 5:32, I Corinthians 7:10-11). Leviticus 20:10 teaches the adulterer was to be stoned, while Matthew 19:9 teaches, not that they are to be stoned, but that the adulterer could be divorced. In addition, Deuteronomy 21:11-14 allowed a man to get rid of a foreign wife simply if he had "no delight in her." The New Testament allows no such thing, not even close.

Here the debate turns to whether or not "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 refers to adultery. The point has been made correctly for many decades that "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot refer to adultery, because adulterers were not divorced under Moses’ law, they were stoned (Leviticus 20:10). But Samuel Dawson and other false teachers say the adulterer was only put to death when there were two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6); that Deuteronomy 24:1 is talking about divorce for fornication when there were not two witnesses. Thus they think they have Matthew 19:9 and Deuteronomy 24:1 equivalent/compatible on this point. This idea, that Deuteronomy 24:1 could be talking about divorce for adultery, when the adultery was not witnessed by two or more, sounds plausible on the surface, but Mr. Dawson and others are overlooking the significance of two important test cases found in Moses’ law, and another important verse concerning two or three witnesses.

Two Tests For Sexual Immorality

It is true a person could not be put to death under Moses’ law without incontrovertible proof. But there was at least one other valid form of proof (a test of God) that was acceptable in addition to the proof of two or more actually witnessing a woman caught in the act of adultery. In Deuteronomy 22:13-21, we are given the case of what is sometimes called the "tokens of virginity" test. If a man suspected his wife had not been a virgin when he married her, then he could bring it up before the elders of the city. The parents of the wife then had the opportunity to bring the tokens of their daughter’s virginity (bloody sheets) to the elders to prove her innocence. If they could not produce these tokens of virginity, their daughter’s guilt was assumed. Now normally someone wouldn’t be stoned without two or three witnesses to the act, but in this case, because she failed God’s test, that was considered good enough proof, and the people were instructed to stone the immoral woman (Deuteronomy 22:21).

In Numbers 5:13-27 we have another test given. This one was for sexual immorality after the marriage. It is commonly called the "bitter water" test. If a man suspected his wife of adultery, but there were "no witnesses against her" (verse 13), the man was to take his wife to the priest. The priest was to cause the woman to drink the bitter water (holy water with dust put in). If the woman was guilty of adultery, then the Lord would cause (I take it supernaturally) her belly to swell, and her thigh to rot. If this did not happen, she was considered to be innocent of the charge. Here is valid proof of sexual immorality just like in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, and I think it is safe to say the instructions of Lev 20:10 (stoning) were to be carried out in this case also. Numbers 5:30-31 seems to indicate such, and divorce is certainly not mentioned.

Remember, Deuteronomy 24:1 is talking about a woman "found" in uncleanness. This indicates there was not just some suspicion of guilt, but that there was valid proof. But if adultery was involved, valid proof would lead to death, not divorce. So Mr. Dawson’s point that Deuteronomy 24:1 could be talking about adultery (witnessed by less than two), because no one could be put to death without two witnesses, is falsified. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 clearly gives a case where another form of proof, in absence of two witnesses, was good enough for stoning. Therefore the proposition that Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot be talking about divorce for adultery (because the sentence for adultery was stoning, not divorce) still stands. And that leads again to the conclusion that Jesus is not explaining the true meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in Matthew 5:32 and 19:3-9, but instead is teaching something different (His new law).

The 2 Or 3 Witnesses Rule Applies To All Offenses

An "ungetoverable" problem with Mr. Dawson’s theory that Deuteronomy 24:1 is talking about divorce for unwitnessed adultery, is that under this supposed scenario, a man wouldn’t be able to divorce his wife without 2 or 3 witnesses either. Deuteronomy 19:15 shows the 2 or 3 witnesses rule applies to "any" accusation of sin, not just to capital offenses. So it would take 2 or 3 witnesses (or another form of valid proof) for a man to "convict" his wife of adultery, regardless of whether the penalty was to be death or divorce. If the man had 2 or 3 witnesses (proof), the instruction was for the wife to be stoned. If he had no proof, if it were just his word against hers, he had no right to have her stoned or to divorce her. She wasn’t just assumed guilty and divorced just because he accused her. Proof was required. Divorce for "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 had to have been divorce for a proven non-capital offense; so something other than adultery.

Conclusion

Jesus’ law on divorce is stricter than Moses’ law (as previously shown). Those who try to bring Deuteronomy 24:1-4 into the new covenant do so with the intent that the looser teaching of Moses on the subject applies to situations today. But Moses’ divorce and remarriage law does not apply today; Jesus’ law does. Jesus shows this in Matthew 5:31-32 by quoting Moses’ law from Deuteronomy 24:1, and then giving his contrasting ("But") teaching that divorce is wrong except for fornication. Jesus shows this again in Matthew 19:8-9 by admitting Moses did allow divorce for reasons other than fornication, before pointing out … "but from the beginning it was not so." Verse 9 shows Jesus’ teaching was going to be the same as in the beginning, that his teaching was – divorce except for fornication, followed by remarriage, is adultery.

Will the new methods of introducing more exceptions never end? Jesus’ teaching is simple and straightforward. Divorce is always wrong, "saving for the cause of fornication" (Matthew 5:32).

hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 57 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com