From nan@ncw.netWed Apr 24 00:43:34 1996 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996
15:17:00 -0500 From: "Nicholas A. Nelson" <nan@ncw.net> Reply to:
markslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list
<markslist@jackson.freenet.org> Subject: The bill of divorce

    The Bill of Divorce

    It is clear from the context of Matthew chapter 5 that Jesus
is not addressing or correcting problems with the law of Moses.
In verse 19 he states:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven". (AV)

Certainly Jesus would not make such a statement and then go on to
correct the Law of Moses or change it in any way. To do so would
make Him the least in the Kingdom of heaven. This point is very
important to properly understand the text. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus
is simply responding to the false teaching of the Jewish leaders
in verse 31. They taught that if you wanted to put away your wife
you simply had to give her  a bill of divorce. Jesus corrected
this error by teaching what the Law of Moses actually taught on
the subject. The law of Moses taught that the bill of divorce was
conditional and could not be given without cause. Jesus stated
that the cause was fornication. To understand what Jesus taught
it becomes important to understand what the Law taught on the
bill of divorce. After all Jesus was born and lived under the law
of Moses.

Ga 4:4  "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent
forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," (AV) )

    Not only that but he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel so
it should be no surprise that he would teach them more accurately
the law they and He were under.

Mt 15:24  "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel". (AV) )

    The law that the bill of divorce is based on occurs in Dt.
    24:1-4;

1  "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
indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and
puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2  and she
leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, 3  and
if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a
certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out
of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be
his wife, 4  then her former husband who sent her away is not
allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been
defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you
shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you
as an inheritance." (NASB)

    The NASB say's the condition for giving the bill of divorce
is that the husband has found some indecency in her. The KJV says
he has found an unseemly thing in her.

The Hebrew word translated unseemly thing or indecency is defined
as meaning: 06172 `ervah {er-vaw'}

 from 06168 AV - nakedness 50, nakedness + 01320 1, shame 1,
 unclean 1, uncleanness 1; 54

 1) nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda 1a) pudenda (implying
    shameful exposure) 1b) nakedness of a thing, indecency,
    improper behaviour 1c) exposed, undefended (fig.)

    Literally the word means a "matter of nakedness". In Dt. 24:1
the idea is that the husband found that His wife had exposed
herself for the purpose of sexual relations with another. (Jesus
tells us that the unseemly thing or the indecency is
"fornication" Matt. 5:32) The following texts translate this word
as "nakedness". In each case it is apparent that the "nakedness"
is for the purpose of having sexual relations.

Le 18:6  None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to
him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD. Le 18:7  The
nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt
thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her
nakedness. Le 18:8  The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou
not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. Le 18:9  The nakedness
of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy
mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover. Le 18:10  The nakedness of thy
son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their
nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own
nakedness. Le 18:11  The nakedness of thy father's wife's
daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt
not uncover her nakedness. Le 18:12  Thou shalt not uncover the
nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near
kinswoman. Le 18:13  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. Le 18:14
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother,
thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. Le 18:15
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she
is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Le 18:16
Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is
thy brother's nakedness. Le 18:17  Thou shalt not uncover the
nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take
her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her
nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. Le
18:18  Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her,
to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Le
18:19  Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her
nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. Le
20:11  And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath
uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be
put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Le 20:17  And if a
man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's
daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is
a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their
people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear
his iniquity. Le 20:18  And if a man shall lie with a woman
having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath
discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of
her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their
people. Le 20:19  And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy
mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth
his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. Le 20:20  And if a
man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his
uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die
childless. Le 20:21  And if a man shall take his brother's wife,
it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's
nakedness; they shall be childless.

    From these passages it is clear that the "unseemly thing or
indecency" as it is translated in Deut. 24:1 is sexual imorality.
This is the only reason the bill of divorce was to be given. The
text of Deut. 24:1-4 indicates that once a bill of divorce is
given, the wife guilty of fornication may marry and be another
man's wife. It also clearly states that if she should remarry
after being divorced for fornication, she may never remarry the
original mate.

    That this was the Jew's understanding and practice concerning
the bill of divorce is clear from what the law itself states in
other text.

    Consider the discussion that takes place in Lev. 21:7, 13-14
over who the sons of Aaron could  or could not marry. The priests
had restrictions because of their special relationship to God in
the priesthood.

Le 21:7  They shall not take a wife [that is] a whore, or
              profane; neither shall they take a woman put away
              from her husband: for he [is] holy unto his God. 13
              And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14  A
              widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an
              harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take
              a virgin of his own people to wife. (AV)

    Even the Priests daughters might find themselves being put
away according to the statute of Deut. 24.

Le 22:13  But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced,
                and have no child, and is returned unto her
                father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of
                her father's meat: but there shall no stranger
                eat thereof. (AV)

Observations: A. There are four (possibly five) classes of women
    that were eligible for marriage. (The expression "profane
    women" may refer to the prostitute or the the women put away
    by bill of divorce and not another class of women) A priest
    of the family of Aaron could only marry one of the classes,
    (the virgins).

1. Those who were at one time harlots could marry but not to  a
         priest. According to the Hebrew scriptures a women was a
         harlot if she had committed one act of fornication
         before marriage. A women was also a harlot according to
         the normal meaning we give to the word. Obviously they
         would not be practicing harlots, for practicing harlots
         were given the death penalty under the law. (one such
         ex-harlot who could marry was Rahab, Joshua 6:22-25, who
         seems to be in the genealogy of Jesus in Matt. 1:5, plus
         countless others who had lost their virginity before
         marriage).

 2. A profane women may be one who would be considered unclean
because of the actions of her parents. Such as a women born out
of wedlock. Or it could refer to a child born of a mixed marriage
(Jew, Gentile). Or even refer to a Gentile women. These could all
marry but not a priest of the line of Aaron. (Deu. 23:2-3)

3. Those who were widows could marry but not a priest of the line
of Aaron. A classic example would be Ruth of the Book of Ruth.

4.  Those who had been given a bill of divorce could marry but
not a priest of the line of Aaron.

5.  Virgins were the only women which a priest of the line of
Aaron could marry.

    B. These texts teach that women guilty of fornication were
not always put to death. Some were given a bill of divorce for
their fornication.

    C. The implication of these texts is that anyone but the
family of Aaron could marry a divorced woman. (This would be in
agreement with Deut. 24:1-4.)

    From my studies I have concluded that the  bill of divorce
was a personal and private alternative to the courts. A women
found guilty of indecency (fornication) by the courts was put to
death. (Deut. 22:13-22) If a man did not want to have his spouse
put to death but could not stay married to her because of her
fornication, could give her a bill of divorce.

    Clearly this seems to be what Joseph was preparing to do with
Mary in Matthew chapter one. (Matt. 1:18-25) As far as Joseph was
concerned Mary had been unfaithful. No man could come to any
other conclusion than Joseph did. She was pregnant and he knew he
wasn't the father. He did not want to take her before the courts
so he planned to put her away privately (that is give her a bill
of divorce). The text says that he was a righteous man for
wanting to do it this way.

    Under the law this would have made it possible for Mary to
become another mans wife. In reality Mary was not guilty of
fornication and a bill of divorce given to her would not have
been given upon the condition stated in Deut. 24:1-4. Of course
God intervened and told Joseph that Marry was indeed a virgin and
he could take her to be his wife. The point is that Joseph would
privately have given a bill of divorce to a women who he knew to
be unchaste and God says he was a righteous man for wanting to do
it this way. This was the alternative that God gave to a man, who
lived under the law, instead of the death penalty, through the
courts.

    The Jews use of the bill of divorce also indicates that this
interpretation of Deut. 24 was what the Jews understood the bill
of divorce to be. It was privately given to a unfaithful spouse
allowing them to go and be another man's spouse. Below is a
standard bill of divorce taken from "The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia" Vol. II, pg. 864

"On the ______ day of the week _________ in the month __________
in the year ________ from the beginning of the world, according
to the common computation in the province of ___________ I
__________ the son of ____________ by whatever name I may be
known, of the town of ____________ with entire consent of mind,
and without any constraint, have divorced, dismissed and expelled
thee ___________ daughter of ____________ by whatever name thou
art called of the town of __________  who hast been my wife
hitherto; But now I have dismissed thee ______________ daughter
of ______________ by whatever name thou art called, of the town
of ________________ so as to be free at thy own disposal, to
marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without hindrance from anyone,
from this day forever. Thou art therefore free for anyone (who
would marry thee). Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a
writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of
Moses and Israel. _____________, the son of ________, witness
_____________, the son of ________, witness"

Note: The writer of the article in "ISBE" takes the position that
    Joseph was going to send Mary away without the bill of
    divorce. He claims that some legal court proceeding was
    necessary and suggest that the bill of divorce might be given
    for reasons other than fornication. I personally believe that
    there is no scriptural basis for such a conclusion. No
    righteous man like Joseph would do anything like this without
    following Gods direction from the Old Testament. The form was
    legal, with two witnesses, which would clearly establish the
    truth of the document. To take a women who was guilty of
    indecency (fornication) before the court of Israel would
    bring the death penalty not a bill of divorce. To suggest
    that the bill of divorce could be given for lesser reasons
    than fornication contradicts the Old Testament and Jesus'
    inspired interpretation of the Law. Certainly the Jew's did
    give the bill of divorce for lesser reasons but they were not
    acting with authority from the law. The conclusions of the
    writer of the article in the "ISBE", (in my opinion), are not
    logical in light of the scriptures. I believe that the bill
    must of been of a more private nature and yet legal.

(For your consideration)


When we've done our best, with no known success. We must move by
faith to pass His test. For all His plans we do not know, but
what to do is clearly shown.

Nick A. Nelson nan@televar.com