What historical context influenced Moses' allowance for divorce in Matthew 19:7? Passage in Focus Matthew 19:7: “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Mosaic Statute Cited by the Pharisees Deuteronomy 24:1–4 established that if “a man marries a woman, but she becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce,” he may send her away, yet he may never remarry her once she has married another. These verses form the background for the question posed to Jesus. Chronological Setting of the Mosaic Provision • Dating the Exodus at c. 1446 BC (per Usshur-type chronology) places Moses’ legislation in the Late Bronze Age, contemporaneous with the Hittite imperial law codes (c. 1500–1200 BC), the Middle Assyrian Laws (c. 1400–1050 BC), and the still-circulating Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC). • Archaeological witnesses—such as the Tel Arad ostraca naming YHWH and the Sinai inscriptions at Serabit el-Khadim—corroborate Israel’s presence in the region and the historic Mosaic milieu. • The Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeutn, 11QDeut) show that the wording of Deuteronomy 24 in our modern Bibles is virtually identical to texts in circulation before the birth of Christ, underscoring the continuity of the statute Jesus addressed. Ancient Near Eastern Divorce Practices • Hammurabi §§ 128-130 allowed divorce by unilateral male declaration; property penalties varied, but no written certificate protecting the woman was required. • The Middle Assyrian Laws § 37 demanded cutting off the woman’s nose for certain offenses but still gave the man broad divorce rights. • Hittite Law § 197 permitted divorce upon payment of silver to the wife’s family. Israel’s neighbors therefore treated wives largely as chattel, leaving women vulnerable to exploitation or abandonment without legal recourse. Purpose of the Deuteronomic Certificate 1. Documentation—The Hebrew sefer kerithuth (“scroll of cutting off”) provided tangible proof a woman was free to remarry, preventing a husband from later charging her with adultery (a capital crime). 2. Deterrence—The writing requirement slowed the process, giving time for reflection and community involvement (cf. Malachi 2:16). 3. Protection—By banning remarriage to the first husband, Moses discouraged impulsive divorces motivated by spite. 4. Limitation—The statute did not command divorce; it regulated an existing sinful practice “because of the hardness of your hearts” (Matthew 19:8), thereby humanely restraining male dominance endemic to the Late Bronze Age. Hardness of Heart as the Immediate Context Jesus’ phrase “σκληροκαρδία” pinpoints moral obstinacy, not divine approval. The concession parallels other accommodations—polygamy (Genesis 29), levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25)—which mitigated fallen conditions without reflecting the creational ideal (Genesis 2:24). Social and Behavioral Factors in Wilderness Israel • Rapid population growth in a transient nomadic setting (Numbers 1 & 26) produced logistical strains on family oversight. • Patriarchal inheritance laws (Numbers 27; 36) heightened concern over lineage purity. • The newly freed slaves of Egypt had absorbed pagan mores; a transitional legal framework was necessary to steer them toward holiness (Leviticus 18:3). Protection of Women Confirmed by Archaeological Contracts • Fifth-century BC Elephantine papyri (e.g., Cowley 30) show Jewish garrison communities still issuing written divorce documents almost verbatim to Deuteronomy 24. • Unlike surrounding Aramaic contracts, the Jewish forms guaranteed the woman’s dowry return—evidence that Mosaic ethics endured. First-Century Rabbinic Polarization • School of Shammai: “something indecent” = sexual immorality only. • School of Hillel: any displeasure, even burnt food (m. Gittin 9:10). The Pharisees in Matthew 19 exploited this controversy, testing whether Jesus sided with the lenient majority. His answer transcended both camps by restoring the Edenic blueprint. Jesus’ Appeal to Creation Order Matthew 19:4-6 quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24: “Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” The Master authoritatively places marriage prior to the Fall, rendering divorce a post-lapsarian concession rather than a divine ideal. Covenantal Theology Underlying the Statute • Marriage images Yahweh’s covenant with Israel (Isaiah 54; Hosea 2), and later Christ’s bond with the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32). • Thus divorce legislation foreshadows the New Covenant in which the Bridegroom’s self-sacrifice secures an unbreakable union (Revelation 19:7-9). Empirical Outcomes of Divorce Compared to Biblical Standards Modern longitudinal studies (e.g., National Marriage Project, 2022 report) consistently associate intact, lifelong marriage with higher child well-being, echoing Genesis 2:18’s claim that God’s design meets human need. Secular data therefore empirically vindicate the Creator’s intent. Summary Answer Moses allowed, but never endorsed, divorce to curb the fallout of hardened hearts in a patriarchal, violent Bronze-Age world. Surrounded by pagan codes that commodified women, Israel received a regulated, written certificate that: • protected wives from ruin, • slowed impulsive male action, and • preserved social order during wilderness wanderings. Jesus, affirming Mosaic history yet correcting Pharisaic misuse, re-rooted marriage in God’s creational purpose, calling His followers to the higher ethic enabled by the New Covenant. |
    |