Why did Moses permit divorce according to Mark 10:4? God’s Original Design for Marriage Immediately after citing Moses, Jesus directs His hearers to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 (Mark 10:6–9). Marriage is covenantal, exclusive, lifelong, and God-joined. Any later concession therefore addresses human failure, not divine intent. The ‘Hardness of Your Hearts’ Principle Mark 10:5 : “It was because of your hardness of heart that he wrote you this commandment.” The Greek sklērokardia (“stubborn insensitivity”) describes persistent rebellion (cf. Exodus 32:9; Psalm 95:8). Moses’ concession functioned as damage-control in a fallen society to limit abuse and to protect women from capricious abandonment, not to endorse divorce as morally neutral. Ancient Near Eastern Legal Context 1. Hittite Laws §§46–47 and Code of Hammurabi §§137–142 permit unilateral divorce with minimal safeguards. 2. Egyptian Elephantine papyri (5th c. BC) document Jewish divorce deeds remarkably similar to Deuteronomy 24, underscoring historical accuracy. 3. By contrast, Mosaic law requires a written instrument, witnesses (cf. Isaiah 50:1), and prohibits any remarriage to the first husband after an intervening marriage (Deuteronomy 24:4), curbing hasty dissolutions. Rabbinic Trajectory Leading to Jesus’ Day Shammai school: Only “some indecency” (ʿervat dāvār) = sexual immorality. Hillel school: Expanded “indecency” to virtually any displeasure (Mishnah Gittin 9.10). First-century divorce rates soared (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 4.253), leaving women economically vulnerable. Jesus’ reply restores the creational ideal and counters lax Hillelite practice. Protective Function of the Certificate a. Legal proof of freedom to remarry, averting accusations of adultery (cf. Jeremiah 3:8). b. Financial security: Ketubbah-like settlements implied by Exodus 21:10–11 safeguard food, clothing, and marital rights. c. Social protection against cyclical exploitation (Deuteronomy 24:4 halts serial divorces). Theological Purposes for the Concession 1. Containment of sin: similar to polygamy (regulated, not endorsed). 2. Typological anticipation: Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness depicted as “divorce” (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8), heightening the redemptive drama that culminates in Christ, the faithful Bridegroom (Ephesians 5:25–32). 3. Preservation of messianic lineage: preventing bloodshed from honor-killings common in pagan cultures. Jesus’ Redefinition under the New Covenant Matthew 19:9 (parallel) allows divorce only for porneia (sexual immorality), reaffirming Genesis. Under His lordship, the church embodies the original ideal empowered by the Spirit (Romans 7:6). Archaeological Corroboration 1. Ketubah from Murabbaʿat (135 AD) echoes Deuteronomy 24 language. 2. Lachish ostraca (7th c. BC) reference marital disputes adjudicated by elders, matching Deuteronomy 22:13–19 procedures, affirming legal continuity in Judah. Pastoral Implications While divorce was tolerated to restrain greater harm, believers are called to reconciliation reflecting Christ’s self-sacrificial love. Hardness of heart is remedied only by regeneration (Ezekiel 36:26; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Summary Answer Moses permitted divorce not because God approved of dissolving marriage, but because of Israel’s persistent hardness of heart. The concession instituted legal protections and moral boundaries within a fallen culture, foreshadowing the need for a New-Covenant transformation. Jesus, pointing back to creation, reasserts the permanence of marriage and calls His followers to live by the original divine pattern, empowered by grace rather than restrained merely by regulation. |
    |