Marriage, Divorce and YHWH: Do Matthew and Sirah Contradict?
Do Matthew And Ben Sira Contradict?
By James Trimm
It has been alleged in the past that there is a contradiction between Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9 which allows a man to divorce his wife only for the cause of “fornication”, and Ben Sira who advises his student to divorce the wife who “does not go as you direct” (Ben Sira 25:25-26).
But do these passages truly contradict one another? One basic rule of Hermeneutics (objective rules for understanding the Scriptures) is called Analogia Scriptura. This rule tells us that if we understand two passages in such a way that they contradict each other, then we are misunderstanding one or both of them. Similarly the Sixth Rule of Hillel tells us if two passages seem to conflict, one or more other passages can often resolve the conflict.
To begin with we must understand Yeshua’s teaching on divorce in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9 where Yeshua is commenting on Deut. 24:1. The Torah passage in question is:
When a man takes a wife and marries her,
and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes
because he has found some unclean matter in her,
and he writes her a bill of divorcement,
puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,...
(Dt. 24:1)
Here Yeshua presents a Yalemmedenu Homiletic Midrash on Gen. 2:24 &
Deut. 24:1. The keywords for the midrash are: "man"; "put away" and
"wife." The Midrash takes the following format:
Question/dialog:
19:3 And the P'rushim approached him, and tempted him,
saying, "Is it right for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"
Initial passages:
19:4 And he answered and said to them:
"Have you not read that he who made man the beginning,
'made them male and female' (Gen. 1:27)
19:5 And said,
'Wherefore shall a man shall leave his father
and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one
flesh' (Gen. 2:24)
Exposition:
19:6 And now then, they are no more two but one flesh
only. What therefore Elohim has joined together
man cannot separate."
Further question/second text:
19:7 But they said,
"And why then did Moshe then command
to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away
if she was not pleasing in his sight?" (Deut. 24:1, 3)
Exposition:
19:8 And he answered them and said,
"Because Moshe on account of the hardness of your hearts,
allowed you to put away your wives,
but from the beginning it was not so.
19:9 And I tell you,
every man that has put away, or shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and takes another,
commits adultery. And whoever takes the divorced also
commits adultery.
Yeshua's midrash is very relevant to first century Jewish halachic
debate on this issue. Yeshua's use of Gen. 1:27 to prove his halachic
position is paralleled in the Dead Sea Scrolls:
...they are caught in two traps:
fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes
although the principle of creation is:
"male and female He created them."
(Damascus Document Col. 4 line 20 - Col. 5 line 1)
except for the cause of fornication – This halacha of Yeshua is given
four times in Scripture (Mt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk. 10:2-9 & Lk. 16:18)
but only in Matthew is this "escape clause" included giving men the
right to divorce their wives in a case of the charge of davar z'not
essentially "a word of fornication".
Again, the Torah passage in question is:
When a man takes a wife and marries her,
and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes
because he has found
some unclean matter (ervat davar) in her,
and he writes her a bill of divorcement,
puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,...
(Dt. 24:1)
In the first century a major debate was ongoing as to the meaning of
the words for "unclean matter" (davar ervat) in this text. (The Hebrew
word davar can mean "word" or idiomatically "matter". The debate is
recorded in the Mishna as follows:
The House of Shamai say,
"A man should divorce his wife only because
he has found grounds for it
in unchastity (davar ervah)
, since it is said,
"Because he has found in her
an unclean matter (ervat davar) in anything (Dt. 24:1)"
And the House of Hillel say,
"Even if she spoiled his dish, since it is said,
"Because he has found in her
an unclean matter in anything (Dt. 24:1)"
Rabbi Akiba says,
"Even if he found someone else prettier than she,
since it is said,
"And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Dt. 24:1)"
(m.Gittin 9:10)
The controversy surrounded the ambiguity of the phrase "matter of
uncleanness." This phrase in Hebrew can be taken literally, or can be
taken as an idiomatic expression for fornication. Yeshua interprets
davar ervat (to mean davar z'not which the Peshitta (both in Matt.
5:31-32 and in Mt. 19:9) literally translates but which the Old Syriac
paraphrases in Mat. 5:31-32 with "it is said against her `adultery'"
and in Mt. 19:9 "a word of adultery".
In the Scriptures YHWH/Messiah is represented as a bridegroom with Israel being His bride (Hosea 2:16; Is. 62:5; 66:5-13; Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29; Rev. 18:23; 21:9; Song of Songs). This relationship serves as a model for our own marriages:
Wives be subject to your husbands as to our Adon,
Because the husband is the head of the wife,
Even as the Messiah is head of the Assembly; and he is the life-giver of the body.
But even as the Assembly is subject to the Messiah,
So also wives [should be subject] to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, as also the Messiah loved his Assembly,
And delivered his nefesh for its sake,…
(Eph. 5:22-33 see also 1Cor. 11:3).
After the time of Solomon the Kingdom of Israel split into two kingdoms known as the two Houses of Israel. The Southern Kingdom became known as the Kingdom of Judah. The Northern Kingdom became known as the Kingdom of Israel. This Northern Kingdom was also often called "Ephraim" after its most prominent tribe. 2Kings 17 tells us of how the Assyrian king Sargon II took the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom captive in 723 BCE and resettled them so that "none was left except the tribe of Judah" (17:18). These came to be known as "the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel". They were divorced by YHWH (Jer. 3:8 )
Northern Kingdom rebelled against the rightful king, High Priest and Temple. They established their own non-Davidic King, their own High Priest and their own Temple at a new location in the Northern Kingdom. They were unwilling to submit to YHWH’s headship and go as YHWH directed. They, in effect, started their own new religion.
In Jeremiah Chapter 3 the two houses of Israel are discussed. Notice that Israel and Judah are allegorical sisters in this prophecy (Jer. 3:6-7) In Jer. 3:8 YHWH says:
And I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Yisra'el
had committed adultery,
I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce;
yet her treacherous sister Yehudah did not fear,
but went and committed whoring too.
(Jer. 3:8 - The Scriptures Version)
However YHWH did not divorce Judah as well, as that would have left no remnant. Instead the Prophet Hosea compares the two Houses of Israel this way:
"Ephrayim has surrounded Me with lying,
and the house of Yisra'el with deceit.
But Yehudah is still wandering with El,
and is true to the Set-apart One."
(Hosea 11:12 - The Scriptures Version)
YHWH gave the House of Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away in keeping with Deut. 24:1. The House of Israel had refused to acknowledge his headship and refused to go as YHWH directed.
Now the Hebrew word translated “fornication” in Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9 is Z’NOT. This word does not only refer to “fornication”. The Hebrew word z'not can refer to sexual immorality, usually by a woman, but it can have other meanings as well. This word
can refer to one who is an idolater (Lev. 17:7; 20:5-6; Deut. 31:16) or to one that goes astray from YHWH (Ps. 73:27). In fact this word can be translated “going astray”:
For, behold, they that go far from You shall perish;
You do destroy all them THAT GO ASTRAY from you.
(Ps. 73:27)
Husbands hold the same kind of headship over their wives that Messiah holds over the Assembly:
Wives be subject to your husbands as to our Adon,
Because the husband is the head of the wife,
Even as the Messiah is head of the Assembly; and he is the life-giver of the body.
But even as the Assembly is subject to the Messiah,
So also wives [should be subject] to their husbands in everything.
(Eph. 5:22-27 see also Gen. 3:16; Eph. 5:22-27; 1Cor. 11:3; 14:34-35; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:2-5; 1Kefa 3:1-7).
(This authority must never be abused, as the husband is likewise commanded to love the wife, honor her, and treat her as a delicate vessel (Eph. 3:22-31; 1Kefa 3:1-7)).
Just as the House of Israel was guilty of Z’NOT because they had refused to recognize His headship, had gone astray and would not go as He directed, the wife who refuses to acknowledge her husband’s headship “goes astray” (Z’NOT) and does not go as he directs. Thus Ben Sira advises his students:
Allow no outlet to water,
and no boldness of speech in an evil wife.
If she does not go as you direct,
separate yourself from her.
(Ben Sira 25:25-26)
And this in no way contradicts Yeshua’s statement:
…every man that has put away, or shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and takes another,
commits adultery.
(Mat. 19:19 see also 5:31-32)
Don’t forget to support this work with your contributions, tithes and offerings.
Through our free Bible Correspondence course and other free literature and Operation Wake Up Call we are reaching a lost world with Torah and Messiah. Through our blogs, literature and podcasts we are also feeding young believers milk and mature believers nice juicy steaks.
You make this work possible.
You can donate by going to the chip-in counter at http://www.nazarenespace.com; or donations can be sent by paypal to donations@wnae.org
Donations can also be made out to “Nazarene Judaism” and sent to:
Nazarene Judaism
PO Box 471
Hurst, TX 76053
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by CJC on -
Shalom:
Regardless pf *reason* any conseqence against a married woman is very great. Women today cannot afford to live in the shadow of The Law and be ignorant of the heavy foot of unjust societal persecution coming against them. Humanity is more than two ideals who fell in The Beginning of Creation. Society may have adopted political correctness and to the hurt of still another generation. Patriarchal *correctness could be the continued downfall of still more women if The Law is left to interpretation without a just perspective.
So, as a relief for you Andrew regarding the ifs'? and whys? of a particular couple throughout time, I have as a rebeitzen offered you a considerably gracious plausability.
1) Not every get is set in motion with the cause being sexual infidelity.
2) Many women do have lived within the walls, and consequence of abuse because no KNOWN infidelity has taken place.
3) Perspective is must become more than an ornament in in a persons' vocabulary. G-d looks at the union and disunion of two individuals with Mercy and Justice.
Sincerely, CJC/rebeitzen
Sincerely, rebeitzen
-
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on -
a woman is required to leave her husband if he violates the marriage covenant.
-
Permalink Reply by CJC on
-
A man when PLANS to initiate the Get with the INTENT of *marrying UP with somone else is guilty of the extra-marital intent as if he has already commited the act; extra-marital offense is not only a physical offense; the pshycological,spiritual, and financial offense can leave lasting scars.The so called *requirement* of a woman to leave the man is dependent again upon the interpretation of The Law.
Sincerely,CJusticeC/rebeitzen
-
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on
-
i have a response to this, but its against the rules of nazarenespace, so i can't say it.
-
Permalink Reply by Garth Grenache on
-
Now of course, I'm getting blocked by Trimm who only allows people to say nice things to him like how his ministry is important and how we should all send him money.
You people who know better but affirm, that you may be affirmed, be careful. What is honourable in man's eyes is abominable to the Father. Do not be united with those who teach to commit adultery through second marriages.
Trimm,
'You make yourself a teacher, and teach against Messiah's people to commit adultery,
(http://nazarenespace.com/forum/topics/marriage-divorce-and-yhwh-do?...)
and teach them that to be truly united they need to be circumcised in the flesh,
(http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blogs/the-seven-laws-of-noah-a-be...)
And on every page you affirm your lust for money, begging us all to contribute to your false ministry.
...
YHWH will have his way with you, because some of what you say is good, but then will destroy you if you do not repent from your false teaching, your presumption and your greed.'
-
Permalink Reply by 3rxqash0xupnt on
-
I am a late arriver to this discussion, here are my two cents:
* erwat is the standard euphemism for literal sexual misconduct. It is used countless times in that context in Leviticus. Such interpretation of erwat for Deut 24:1 is substantiated by Yeshua's interpretation of the matter in the Gospels.
Therefore the following conclusion drawn by the Mr. Trimm:
Allow no outlet to water,
and no boldness of speech in an evil wife.
If she does not go as you direct,
separate yourself from her.
(Ben Sira 25:25-26)
And this in no way contradicts Yeshua’s statement:
…every man that has put away, or shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and takes another,
commits adultery.
(Mat. 19:19 see also 5:31-32)This is twisting simple and plain. Yahushua's words ring true today as then, " How adroitly you set aside the command of Elohim in order to retain the your tradition." Mark 7:9
Why not just draw the simple and logical conclusion that Sirach is not inspired of God?
-
Permalink Reply by James Trimm on
-
The Hebrew word translated “fornication” in Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9 is Z’NOT. This word does not only refer to “fornication”. The Hebrew word z'not can refer to sexual immorality, usually by a woman, but it can have other meanings as well. This word can refer to one who is an idolater (Lev. 17:7; 20:5-6; Deut. 31:16) or to one that goes astray from YHWH (Ps. 73:27). In fact this word can be translated “going astray”:
For, behold, they that go far from You shall perish;
You do destroy all them THAT GO ASTRAY from you.
(Ps. 73:27)
Yirmeyahu said:I am a late arriver to this discussion, here are my two cents:
* erwat is the standard euphemism for literal sexual misconduct. It is used countless times in that context in Leviticus. Such interpretation of erwat for Deut 24:1 is substantiated by Yeshua's interpretation of the matter in the Gospels.
Therefore the following conclusion drawn by the Mr. Trimm:
Allow no outlet to water,
and no boldness of speech in an evil wife.
If she does not go as you direct,
separate yourself from her.
(Ben Sira 25:25-26)
And this in no way contradicts Yeshua’s statement:
…every man that has put away, or shall put away his wife,
except it be for fornication, and takes another,
commits adultery.
(Mat. 19:19 see also 5:31-32)This is twisting simple and plain. Yahushua's words ring true today as then, " How adroitly you set aside the command of Elohim in order to retain the your tradition." Mark 7:9
Why not just draw the simple and logical conclusion that Sirach is not inspired of God?
-
Permalink Reply by 3rxqash0xupnt on
-
The verse in Sirach is saying that a woman may be dismissed if she does not attentively satisfy every command of the husband. Isn't that the jist of "go as you direct"? At worst this wording could be percieved as a justification to relegate the woman's role in marriage as that of mere servant, which in this context has no dignity.
Frankly the verses preceding this passage read as misogynistic to me, as though women are by nature more evil than men. Will we forget that men can be extremely evil too? The (human) author says that Eve was reason we all die. Scripture says her name is "mother of all life" (Chawah). Why cast blame? We are all imperfect. This words are very human in outlook.
In as much as the passage is an exhortation to choose wisely a wife it is well and good.
When it says a man may dismiss a wife for speaking boldly the fact is Yahushua says "except it be for fornication."
Obviously it is better if a wife doesn't speak outlandishly, but your reasoning clearly is that of the Pharisees, the wording of whose question belies their view, "May a man put away his wife for any cause?"
Even after your swirling of reasoning and fancy shmancy slight of hand illusive logic, the bitter is still the bitter, and the sweet is still the sweet.
-
-
In the Scriptures a man seems to be made accountable to keep his house in order. Yet you are telling me his wife can do anything under the sun just as long as she does not commit adultery and he can do nothing and must remain her husband and be held accountable for not keeping his house in order at the same time... How would that be just?
-
Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on
-
Let us take a look at the word "fornication" and "adultery".
Fornicate appears to mean along the lines of to pervert. Adultery appears to mean along the lines of breaking/defiling.
I take Messiah's statements that we are not to divorce except when the marriage has become perverted or defiled.
I believe the husband only has a right over familial issues, not over personal issues of his family members. Thus, a father cannot divorce his wife when it does not involve a crime against his family. If its a personal insult from a wife, he cannot divorce her. Its only when she rebels against and defies his familial authority, that is when she must be divorced. Why? Because defying your husband's authority IS adultery and IS fornication. This is my stance on the matter. But if she complains to her husband, or does some other sin against her husband that doesn't involve rebelling against his familial authority, oi do not think divorcing is just.
-
Permalink Reply by 3rxqash0xupnt on
-
That is certainly one side of the coin but the other is also extremely important to keep in mind. What is written in the talmud? R. Akiva argued, 'He may divorce her even if he found another woman more beautiful than she. (Git 9:10).
Messiah's words were most likely directed at the those who apopted the leniency of the Hillelite position in order to satisfy their carnal desires after the the wife of their youth had lost her figure.
It is true, however, that at times it is perhaps advisable to break company with a marriage mate. I think if that is the case, it is only necessary to make sense of the situation to remember that we are not justified by the law, and if we happen to break a law by getting a divorce, then our salvation is not in jeopardy, because it is impossible for us to keep the law perfectly. An aberration of the law is not the end of the world, so long as you humble yourself and admit you have failed the law, and set your mind not to do it again.
It is very important to keep in mind Lev 26:40-42 for such cases.
My opinion is that it is indeed a missing of the mark to get a divorce. If necessity dictates one should divorce, then one should repent before YHWH and ask forgiveness and it will likely be given him/her.
If on the other hand you twist the words of Messiah to mean that divorce is completely legal for any cause like the Talmud and the Hilellites say, in practice you never feel any need to repent for missing the mark, and your spiritual health is weakened because in YHWH's eyes you have sinned and not repented. And that because you insist on interpreting Scriptures according the program of the Hillelites.
James Trimm said:In the Scriptures a man seems to be made accountable to keep his house in order. Yet you are telling me his wife can do anything under the sun just as long as she does not commit adultery and he can do nothing and must remain her husband and be held accountable for not keeping his house in order at the same time... How would that be just?
-
-
I think the issue here is simply the wife who refuses to be submissive to her husband's headship.
We are not talking about arguing over the TV remote here, nor are we talking about a prettier girl.
© 2013 Created by James Trimm.
