Some might ask why it is necessary to study the Old Testament in order to develop a theology of divorce for New Testament Christians. Found in the New Testament are four passages of Scripture, teaching from the Lord Jesus Christ, that generally form the basis of most theologies today. In these passages, a question is asked the Lord concerning Moses and the law and its interpretation. Without a thorough understanding of the law, it would be impossible to comprehend what Jesus taught and therefore impossible to correctly develop a New Testament theology. A study of the Old Testament law is crucial if we are to rightly divide the New Testament.

The Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians distinguishes between the letter of the law and the spirit of it. Before examining the letter of the mosaic law, it is beneficial to determine its spirit, and even more, the divine attitude of God toward divorce. Of all the passages dealing with divorce in the Old Testament, the most revealing concerning the attitude of God is found in Malachi 2:16. There it specifically states that God hates divorce. I believe there are at least 5 reasons why God hates divorce.

The Divine Attitude Toward Divorce

First, divorce evidences a lack of compassion by at least one of the marital parties. As mentioned earlier, one of the most common reasons given for divorce is that the man and the woman don't love each other any more. This will be examined in greater detail later, but at this point it is sufficient to say that God's love is an everlasting love and whenever a man or woman says that they will not continue to love someone they previously loved, they manifest a characteristic unlike God.

Divorce, also displays a lack of forgiveness. Disputes and offences divide, but forgiveness restores. When restoration is neglected, so is forgiveness. Throughout the Bible, from cover to cover, we see the heart of God offering forgiveness, even to the man whose sins are as scarlet. More, also, will be said later concerning forgiveness but a lack of a willingness to forgive is another characteristic contrary to the character of God and therefore something He would hate.

Thirdly, divorce may evidence a lack of ability or carelessness in discerning the will of God. Often times we hear from people who are divorcing that they thought they had found the right person to spend the rest of the life with, but after they got married they found out differently. One must wonder what criteria was used in determining who the right person was. If they truly did find the right person, then they are being disobedient to the will of God in dividing what God hath joined together.

Fourthly, divorce may evidence a lack of self-control. One of the nine fruits of the Spirit is self-control or temperance. In many cases, a divorce occurs after an act or repeated acts of infidelity. There is not a marriage conceived that is immune to temptation because there is not a person alive who is immune to temptation. While no one can prevent temptation for occurring (even Jesus was tempted), every child of God can resist it. The child of God who succumbs to temptation does so because they chose to, and their choosing evidenced a lack of self-control.

Finally, divorce may evidence a lack of commitment. I love the last few words of Paul in 2 Timothy 4 where he writes, "I have finished my course..." One of the characteristics of God is that everything He begins, He finishes. Marriage is finished upon death, so divorce fails to finish what was begun when the words "I do" were spoken.

Sin has been defined, theologically, as anything that does not conform to the character and will of God. We know that God hates sin, so therefore, anything that does not conform to His character, He hates. We have seen that divorce manifests characteristics that are ungodly and therefore we understand why God hates divorce. But there is one more important conclusion we must draw, that is, divorce is seen in the eyes of God as sin. This conclusion must be the basis from which we view the rest of the teaching of the Old and New Testaments. This, though, causes us to face an interesting problem. Jesus stated in Matthew 19:8 that Moses in the law permitted divorce. If divorce is sin, does God permit certain sins? To arrive at the answer to this question, we will require the rest of this unit which will examine how divorce was regulated in the Old Testament.

The Divine Regulation Of Divorce

In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees asked the Lord if divorce was lawful for every cause. A cursory examination of the law reveals that the law did not permit divorce for any reason whatsoever, but regulated very conservatively when divorce was permissible. 2 Passages of Scripture reveal the regulations concerning the permissible circumstances of divorce. In these two passages, we see where divorce is both permitted and prohibited.

Deuteronomy 22:13-29 presents six scenarios where sin corrupts the sanctity of the marriage relationship. In each of these six cases, there is no expressed permission for divorce. In fact, in some cases, divorce is expressly prohibited. The first scenario is found in verses 13-19. Here, a man has betrothed a woman and on the day the marriage is consummated, the groom becomes displeased with his wife for some reason. In order to rid himself of an unwanted bride, he brings false accusations against her concerning her virginity. The parents of the bride provide evidence of her virginity and innocence, and disprove the claims of the groom. At this point, the elders of the town publicly rebuke the groom, impose a fine of a hundred shekels of silver and prohibit him from ever divorcing her.

The second scenario is found in verses 20-21. The story is the same with one exception- the accusations are true. The consequence though, is quite different. Instead of a public rebuke of the woman, a fine and a divorce, the woman is stoned to death. The marriage is ended, but not by divorce.

In both these scenarios, there exists some character problems. The man in both cases shows a lack of compassion for his bride. In the first scenario, he also evidences a lack of discernment of God's will. Apparently he experienced a change of heart for some reason between the time of the betrothal and the time of the consummation, but God had not changed His will. Possibly he was intimidated by the problems of the day and he was unwilling to persevere through the trials to finish his course, thereby exhibiting a lack of commitment. Possibly, in the second scenario he exhibited a lack of forgiveness. For the woman's part, evident is the lack of self-control in the second scenario. In either case, divorce was not an option to them.

The third scenario is found in verse 22. Here we find a man and a married woman caught in the act of adultery. We know not whether the man is married or single, but apparently it makes no difference. The consequence is that both of them are to die. From this verse we can understand why Jesus did not pronounce judgment on the woman in John 8. The law specifically states that both of them were to die. In that the woman in John 8 was caught in the very act, they must also have caught the man. In that they only brought the woman, the Pharisees had already perverted the law and justice could not be administered. Nevertheless, there is no opportunity in Deuteronomy 22:22 for divorce, only death.

The fourth scenario is found in verses 23 and 24. In this case, a woman is betrothed to a man, but the marriage has not yet been consummated. She has intercourse with another man within the confines of a city or populated place. Apparently the relationship was consentual in that the woman never made a cry for help which could have easily been heard by others. The consequence is the same as in verse 22, both the man and the woman are to be stoned to death and there is no provision for divorce.

The fifth scenario is listed in verses 26-27. Once again, we find a betrothed woman, but this time she is in a field or place where she is all alone. The description of the verse indicates that a rape has taken place instead of a consentual act. However, there is an obligation for the woman to resist as much as is humanly possible. The consequence here is that the man should die, but there is no consequence to the woman. What is not addressed in this passage is the disposition of the husband of the betrothed woman. No indication is given, one way or the other, as to whether he is able to divorce the woman.

The final scenario in this passage finds an unmarried and unbetrothed woman having intercourse with a man and the two being discovered. The consequence here is that the two must marry and there is no possibility for divorce any time later.

One thing that must be pointed out from these scenarios is that, implied in the first and last scenario is the possibility of a divorce occurring after the marriage has been consummated. Many people believe that the so called exception clauses in Matthew 19 can only be applied to the betrothal period, but these scenarios necessitate that a divorce is possible after the marriage has been consummated or else the insertion of the prohibition would have been unnecessary.

The second passage of the Old Testament law is found only a couple chapters away in Deuteronomy 24:1. This one verse of Scripture is probably the most difficult verse as far as interpretation and became the center of the debate concerning divorce in Jesus' day. The crucial phrase is found in the middle of the verse where it says that the woman has found no favor in the man's eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her. The key issue is what is meant by the term "some uncleanness".

The Hebrew word that is translated uncleanness is the word ervah. It means nakedness, nudity, or shame that comes from shameful exposure or improper behavior. While there is not much more detail as to what kind of activity the woman could have been involved in, there is one activity that can be ruled out. What is in view in this verse can not include adultery because the penalty for adultery was death not divorce. Apparently the uncleanness here was some sort of sexual enticement or cavorting that stopped short of intercourse with another man.

Apart from these two passages, there is no other instruction given in the law of Moses. There is one permission given in Deuteronomy 24 and two prohibitions listed in Deuteronomy 22. Without question, divorce could not be for every cause. On the contrary, it is evident that the Law of Moses did more to discourage divorce than encourage it.

But apart from the specifics of the regulation of divorce, a very important question must be asked concerning divorce in general. The book of Deuteronomy was written by Moses around the year 1400 B.C. If Usher was right in his dating of creation (4004 B.C.), then 2600 years had passed since God had communicated to Adam and Eve His plan for marriage. In all those years there was never any permission given by God for a divorce under any circumstances. Why, after all those years, did God permit something He had never permitted before? For that matter, why was divorce omitted from the books of Leviticus and Exodus when the law was originally given to Moses? Why did it wait for the so-called "second utterance of the law"? The answers to these question will need to wait until the Gospel's teaching on divorce is examined, but I submit those answers are quite significant to understanding God's will for the believer today.