The latest fad centers on an argument made from Deut. 24. Many are teaching that we need to think more like the Jews were thinking when Jesus spoke to them on this subject. Therefore, in Mt.19:9 it is taught that Jesus was expressing His answer to the Pharisees’ question regarding lawful grounds for divorce per Deut. 24. This being so, Deut. 24 would be teaching the same thing as Jesus is teaching in Mt. 19:9. With this as a foundation, various conclusions are drawn:

(1) All the rules of Deut. 24 are still in effect today including the restriction of returning to a previous mate.

(2) The uncleanness of Deut. 24:1 refers to sexual immorality only.

(3) Having been given a certificate of divorce for fornication, the one put away can marry another without committing adultery.

(4) If a person divorces his mate for "just any reason" and marries another, adultery has been committed (a one-time nonsexual act of covenant breaking), but since the covenant/bond has been broken, everyone is free to marry or stay married. (Many other arguments are given to justify this last point that are not within the scope of this article.)

There is a variation to the above view but with a similar conclusion. Some are teaching that the uncleanness of Deut. 24 is not fornication and therefore they will admit that the man sinned when he divorced his wife and that his wife sinned by marrying another man. But since she was forbidden to go back to her first husband, God was authorizing this second marriage. With this as a foundation, conclusion #4 above is again affirmed. Unscriptural remarriages are therefore not to be severed even though begun on the basis of sin.

Probably the worst mistake being made in this reasoning is using Moses in Deut. 24 to explain Jesus in Mt. 19 instead of using Jesus to explain Moses. There are many Old Testament passages that the Jews badly misinterpreted and are admittedly very difficult until explained in the New Testament. There is no doubt that Jesus and the Jews were discussing what was "lawful" and thus what was taught in the Old Testament. But let us not conclude that they were only discussing Deut. 24. Gen. 2:24 is part of the "law" as well and this is the part that Jesus made His appeal to. Consider:

1. Not only did the Jews recognize that Jesus’ teaching was different from what Moses said in Deut. 24, Jesus expressly said that Deut. 24 was not what was taught from the beginning. Jesus said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." Therefore, what Jesus taught in Mt. 19 is not the same as Deut. 24. To further establish this point consider that if Deut. 24 is simply granting divorce for fornication, then why did Jesus say that Moses gave the precept for the hardness of their hearts? Jesus is not accusing a man of being hardhearted because he divorces an adulterous wife! If that is true, then Jesus statement in Mt. 19:9 is also written for the hardness of our hearts.

2. When Jesus says, "From the beginning it was not so," what was not so? Jesus states it clearly in Mt. 19:8. It was not so that men were "permitted to divorce their wives" for just any reason. Therefore whatever it is that Moses was teaching, it was not to be considered as the law of God that had always been in effect. Notice that Jesus does not say "in" the beginning it was not so, but "from" the beginning it was not so. Some argue that after the sin in the garden, God changed His moral law on the matter of divorce. That is not what Jesus said. God never authorized a man to divorce his wife "for just any reason" as Mal.2:13-16 confirms.

3. Why would we use anything in Deut. 24 to explain Jesus in Mt. 19:9 when Jesus expressly said that Moses permitted something because of the hardness of your hearts? To describe this word "hardness" Thayer uses terms such as "hard, harsh, rough, stiff, stern, offensive, intolerable." Will we not admit that a person so described by Jesus is acting sinfully? These Jewish men were mistreating their wives and Moses wrote a precept that put some restraint on the situation and we want to take that precept and apply it today! So we are to believe that even though Deut. 24 was not the same as the law from the beginning, not the same as what Jesus taught, and written simply because of sinful hardhearted Jews, it applies to our situation in the New Testament perfectly! That is faulty reasoning.

Carefully read Deut. 24:1-4 from the NKJV, NASB, or NRSV (these represent the Hebrew well). You will see that there is absolutely nothing in these verses that authorizes anything. The man is not authorized to divorce his wife for some uncleanness. The woman is not authorized to marry another man. The other man is not authorized to divorce his new wife. This passage is no different than passages such as Ex. 21:20-27 where a man must let his servant go free if he knocks out his eye or his tooth. Or if a man beats his servant but the servant "remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished." Well, I guess the Lord "authorized" beating of servants! What about Deut. 22:28-29 where a man lays with a virgin who is not betrothed. He is to marry her, pay the father 50 shekels of silver and never divorce her. Well if he agrees to all of those consequences prior to the act, does that mean God authorized fornication? This passage did not forbid laying with the woman, God just said, "If a man..." Contingency statements like these and Deut. 24 are not authorization to commit the act.

It is also noteworthy that Deut. 24 not only does not give authority for frivolous divorce and remarriage, the words used imply the opposite. The word for the latter "husband" (ish, a man as opposed to a woman, a husband as opposed to a wife) is different than the former "husband" (baal, a husband as lord, master, owner). If the latter marriage was as authorized as the first, then why the difference in terms? Further, verse 4 states she cannot return to her former husband after she has been "defiled." She is not defiled as a result of the second divorce because her defilement remains even if her second husband dies. Leviticus 18:20-25 speaks of a similar defiling in regard to adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. In light of such defilement, one cannot speak of this second union as holy. God suffered or tolerated these divorces, but certainly did not authorize them as Mal. 2:14-16 proves.