Marriage, Divorce and YHWH: Do Matthew and Sirah Contradict?

Marriage, Divorce and YHWH
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

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 19, 2011 at 5:49pm

Deuteronomy 34:10, "No prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom YHWH knew face to face."

All throughout the Scriptures we are pointed to Moses, and Moses points us toward Yeshua. Everything else seems, though it is inspired by God, is more like commentary.

The problem with viewing all Scripture (and apocryphal writings) as equally authoritative is that, as Christian pointed out, you end up in a situation where you have to "find some way to rationalize, not matter how big the discrepancy might be", and I have seen you do this on a number of occasions. That's why I take Torah as an absolute standard.

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

Christian, i have found contradictions in books and have rejected them upon such. This is why I rejected Jasher, 2 Enoch, and the Revelation of Sedrach, among others, because i saw they had contradictory teachings with the rest of the Scriptures.

I have yet to run into an example of Scripture that i currently regard as Scripture that i view as a "difficult" passage. Everything i read i take literally, as the author intended it to be taken.

What I do is as follows Christian:

1.A passage with the current interpretation i am reading it seems to contradict another passage.

2.Can this passage be understood logically and fit the context of what is being spoken, in any other perspective than is currently being used?

3.After rejecting the perspectives that cannot fit the text, we are left with several perspectives that could all fit the context, or at least it would seem on the surface. then what happens is i seek what the context of the overall book is and also compare it to the context of Scripture.

4.I only accept things that can fit the context perfectly.

5.Textual critcism is usedt o determine if the error is more likely a scribal error, or part of the originl./ if deemed part of the original, it simply must be rejected.

As to Jesse, your idea of hierarchy of Scripture, it is nonexistent except in the case of the Torah. You view the Torah alone as Scripture, whereas the rest of what you call Scripture is viewed as people's personal interpretation not guided by God. This is false advertisement on your part. As for me, I regard all the books as Scripture, becaues His people wrote as having such authority, and such authority is self-evident.

Where did you get this idea that Torah alone is Scripture? Certainly Enoch would disagree.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 命 on February 19, 2011 at 6:50pm

Let me clarify my earlier statement: I suppose that you have a predisposition (unfair bias) toward Sirah; I'm not talking about Matthew here.

Andrew, I incidentally think you are ignoring or are unaware of many contradictions and signs of textual corruption in many or most of the extra-biblical books you consider canon.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 19, 2011 at 6:53pm

By "rationalize" I mean to go to great lengths to justify the difference between two texts, when this justification is not correct to the true nature of either text.

One such example was the obvious contradiction between Jubilees and Testament of Levi, though I've no desire to rehash that discussion, just giving an example since you asked.

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

This is not a problem. By "rationalize" i assume you mean the negative connoation in which one interprets text in such a way that it is a clear violation of the intent of the author, not the positive meaning it can have in which one seeks a rational interpretation of the text. If two books are contradictory, one of them is just not authoritative, its as simple as that. If you can sufficiently demonstrate conradictory things that are inherently contradictory through the demonstration of textual criticism, then something has to be rejected as Scripture. Making these canonical decisions is not a problem to the concept of authoritative canonicity of others writings. Could you offer at least just one example in which i apparently rationalize, in the sense of itnerpreting it contrary to the spirit of the text?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Trimm on February 19, 2011 at 6:54pm

Christian,

It is an intersecting question. Typically a Tanak book would take priority over a NT book, but in the case of the Apocrypha, there is the issue of the question of the shorter canon. Of course we have two rules of hermeneutics which deal with this issue. The second rule of Hillel says that two passages may appear to contradict until a third passage resolves the conflict. There is also a protestant principle of hermeneutics called the Analogy of Scripture which says that if we understand two passages in such a way that they contradict, we are misunderstanding one or both or these. So one might simply respond that if you (Christian) understand a passage in such a way that they seem to contradict, you are misunderstanding one or both of them, and a third passage may reconcile the apparent conflict.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 19, 2011 at 8:43pm

Jesse, you are unbelievable. That is something i am 10,000% convinced on, and i did not go to any extreme lengths at all. It seems you are ignorant of the language of Hebrew to suggest that i was not justified in my interpretation when I clearly was. There are other times where you could make a much better argument that i was not being honest to interpretation to the text, but this is instance is perhaps the worst one you could use as an example in my opinion, in all honesty.

As to your claim Christian, I would be entirely unaware of any errors, rather than intentionally ignoring them. I can honestly say that I have nothing that i know of in which i ignore that I know contradicts my beliefs.

I agree with you, James Trimm, to the point that is how it is to be done if indeed both those books are Scripture.

James Trimm and I are of the opinion (I assume) that divorce in Sirach and Matthew are not passages that taken literally contradict, but rather we believe that those passages simply appear to others with a false bias to be literally saying something it was never intended to say, literally or allegorically.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 19, 2011 at 9:02pm

Now now, brother Andrew, don't get your knickers in a bunch. I am reasonably acquainted with Hebrew, though much moreso with Greek.

The fact of the matter is- and many others can verify this- that you will squeeze water from a rock to justify contradictions.

I have a very high opinion of many of your ideas, but this is an area in which your subjective desire (to have certain texts not contradict) outweighs the obvious (objective) nature of the facts at hand. Not being rude, just honest.

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

Jesse, you are unbelievable. That is something i am 10,000% convinced on, and i did not go to any extreme lengths at all. It seems you are ignorant of the language of Hebrew to suggest that i was not justified in my interpretation when I clearly was. There are other times where you could make a much better argument that i was not being honest to interpretation to the text, but this is instance is perhaps the worst one you could use as an example in my opinion, in all honesty.

As to your claim Christian, I would be entirely unaware of any errors, rather than intentionally ignoring them. I can honestly say that I have nothing that i know of in which i ignore that I know contradicts my beliefs.

I agree with you, James Trimm, to the point that is how it is to be done if indeed both those books are Scripture.

James Trimm and I are of the opinion (I assume) that divorce in Sirach and Matthew are not passages that taken literally contradict, but rather we believe that those passages simply appear to others with a false bias to be literally saying something it was never intended to say, literally or allegorically.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Onieu bahn Duid on February 19, 2011 at 9:09pm

i never thought you rude in this post, just incorrect =). Maybe if you looked at certain passages you thought were objectively clear, and read them again in context, you might change your mind. We'll have to see with certain examples some day perhaps.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J. Jury (אליהוא) on February 19, 2011 at 9:35pm

Agreed. :-)

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

We'll have to see with certain examples some day perhaps.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CJC on March 6, 2011 at 4:55pm

Regarding the subject:Marriage, Divorce, and YHWH: Do Matthew and Sirah contradict?

1) *Unclean Matter IN Her refers to any number of abounding consequence. sadly, in the spiral of Patriarcal rule the Hebrew woman found with burnt toast was even the recipient of divorce until the declarations of Moses against such a cruel consequence.

2) Finding some reason to of *uncleaness* could also reveal the unfidelities of the husband IF he brought home the consequence of HIS fornications to the wife of his youth. Be it manifest as thought action, word, or deed, infidelity contaminates the marriage bed, and thus defiles the sacred intent of marriage. Harmony has no pleasure in disharmony, and certainly makes for noise not music.

3) Hence, a bill of divorcement in some cases may be considered an act of mercy BECAUSE of Love.

4) In such an instance of the above case, the woman would be set free from the bondage of sin, and death perhaps from her former husbands' STD, or declarations of Lust toward another woman. Such a woman who is set apart would be observed as *free to remarry,* and NOT be considered unfaithful.

5) Much of the Law has been sadly determined to be against the woman simply because The Law for much of the ages has been offering a yield sign to the man.

6) *Perfect Love casts out the torment of fear.*

Sincerely, CJC,rebeitzen

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CJC on March 6, 2011 at 5:35pm

The declarations of Moses offered more than Hope for women; the inference embeded therein appropriated the inherent concern for,

1) The man so *seeking* a get without the prescribed grounds for such an action. A person already seeking some other was considered the unfaithful one NOT the wife. again; she would be set apart through an act of merciful concern would be set apart rather than chaining her to a man who did not love her any longer.

2) Infidelity contaminates; regardless of the obvious physical connections, the thought straying were condemed by The Law.

Sincerely, CJC/rebeitzen

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 命 on March 6, 2011 at 5:56pm

I don't recall it being written that she got a sexual disease, that is a very bold and baseless accusation against our fore-mother.

Anayahu Priel (Andrew P) Carlson said:

Marriage provides many more things than sexual relations. To divorce her for such i think is not right. I don't recall Yaakov divorcing Bilhah after she was given a sexual disease from Reuven.