They say to him, Why then did Moses command to give a letter of divorce and to send [her] away?
The Lord has just said that no one may break the marriage God joined. The Pharisees answer with a text of their own. If marriage is that binding, why did Moses let a man end it with a written certificate? Their question sounds like careful Bible study. It is a trap. The Lord's answer shows what the law of Moses really said, and what it never claimed to be.
They reach for Moses as a weapon against Christ. It backfires.
The Pharisees try to quote Moses against the Lord. But He at once shows them that Moses condemned them, not Him. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to send his wife away. He never commanded it. Here, as on another occasion, Moses does not defend them. He becomes their accuser and judge. "There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope" (John 5:45). It is always a dangerous thing for a sinner to take his stand on the law. The law can only expose and condemn him. It has no power to pardon and forgive.
Their whole objection rests on one word they have slipped in: "command."
In verse 7 they say, "Why then did Moses command?" and so on. He did nothing of the sort. He gave liberty, but never commanded, so the Lord takes them up and says he "allowed you." Moses allowed it to prevent worse sin, because hearts were hard… But God hated this divorcing.
Moses gave commands as well as allowances. The Pharisees quoted only the allowance.
In their reply they sought to turn aside the Lord's question by speaking, not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. In doing so they unknowingly exposed the hardness of their hearts. They neglected the positive commands of Moses, and speak only of special rules set up to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the rules about divorce were to meet their hearts.
The text they lean on is Deuteronomy 24:1. It protected the wife, not the husband.
The Pharisees also thought they could prove the Lord wrong by referring to Deuteronomy 24:1. There Moses, the lawgiver, gave an instruction. If a man had found some uncleanness in his wife, he could give her a bill of divorcement and send her away. The bill of divorce guarded the wife against cruel treatment. Without it, a man could discard her and still leave her unable to marry anyone else.
Writing out such a document also slowed a man down. The Morrish Bible Dictionary calls it "some little check upon a man's hasty temper."
Behind the question lay a live quarrel between two schools of Jewish teachers.
Two great opinions divided the Pharisees about divorce. Some held the views of Hillel and others the views of Shammai. Hillel had taught that a husband may send his wife away for almost any cause… The school of Hillel taught this openly, and lived by it: if a wife cooks her husband's food badly, by over-salting or over-roasting it, her husband is to send her away. The school of Shammai, followed by other Pharisees, allowed divorce only for adultery. This sheds more light on the temptation these Pharisees put before Him.
Some things stood in the law because of what people were, not because of what God wanted.
Moses allowed certain things that were not according to God's original design. Nor should this surprise us, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not make anyone good… Some concessions in the law did not express the divine mind at all. In them God was dealing with a people after the flesh. The law does not view a man as born of God; Christianity does… So our Lord made some allowance for Israel's condition in the flesh. At the same time He defended God's law from the corrupt conclusions of these selfish Pharisees.
Many assume law is strict and grace is easy. Here it runs the other way.
Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the expression of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than the grace of God is! For grace enables one to rise above difficulties in a way that law could never do.
- Misquoted. Moses never commanded divorce. The Pharisees added that word to make a permission look like an order.
- Permitted. The certificate protected the discarded wife and slowed a husband's temper.
- Exposed. The concession existed because hearts were hard. The text they quoted in self-defence became the evidence against them.
- Limited. The law made nothing perfect. Some of its allowances met Israel's condition instead of expressing God's mind.
- Surpassed. Here the law allowed more than grace does. Grace gives power to rise above what law could only tolerate.
He says to them, Moses, in view of your hardheartedness, allowed you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not thus.
The Pharisees thought they had found a loophole: if Moses gave rules for a certificate of divorce, then God must approve of divorce. Jesus corrects them twice over. Moses allowed it; he did not command it. And behind the law stands what God did at the start.
Everything turns on one word the Pharisees swapped. They said Moses "commanded." The Lord said Moses "allowed," and He gave the reason.
The Lord goes back beyond the Law to show that God set up this relationship at the beginning, and that it comes before every other. They asked, "Why did Moses then command a man to give a certificate of divorce and send her away?" In the Law, through Moses, God had permitted divorce in a certain exceptional case (see Deut. 24:1), not commanded it as they said, and it was because of the hardness of their hearts. This word is the key to the whole passage. These men had never felt the deeper feelings of the human soul about God's arrangement for His creature. If they had, they could never have quibbled about divorce.
The Pharisees produced Moses as their defence. In the Lord's hands the same words become the evidence against them.
But they did not understand Moses, and they did not understand themselves. The Lord turns their own argument against them in the simplest way: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." Moses himself was the one supplying the evidence of their own condition — and what evidence it was! The law, which was "weak through the flesh," could not perfect anything because a people ruled by the flesh resisted it. Their objection proved two things at once: their own evil, and how hopeless that evil was under law.
If the law came from God, how could it permit what God never wanted? Because God gave it to a whole nation, believers and unbelievers alike.
Moses allowed certain things that were not according to God's original pattern. This should be no surprise, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not make anyone good… The law contained certain concessions that did not express the mind of God at all. In it God was dealing with a people who lived by the flesh. The law does not treat a man as born of God; Christianity does… The law itself drew no line between those born of God and those who were not. It addressed all Israel, and not believers only, and so it allowed certain things in view of the hardness of their hearts.
So the law was a stage in God's dealings with man. What He set up at creation never expired.
The Lord takes the occasion to insist on this truth, that what God had established from the beginning of creation was always valid in itself. Moses had allowed a man to put away his wife under the law, but this was only the patience of God with the hardness of man's heart. It was not according to God's own heart and will. In creation at the beginning God made what was good — weak, but good. He allowed other things when He set up a temporary order for His people, for fallen man. But when He created them, He had made things another way. God had joined husband and wife, and man had no right to separate them.
People assume that law is strict and grace is easy. Here the opposite is true, and the reason is what each one supplies.
Moses allowed this because of their hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the expression of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than the grace of God is! For grace enables a person to overcome difficulties in a way law could never do.
So the compromise had a time limit. It ended when the King came, and what replaced it was not a lower standard but a new power.
In the law there was a compromise between God's order and the hardness of men's hearts, and so under the law men could divorce their wives. But the Lord's coming into the world set all that aside. He came to establish a kingdom in which the will of God would be done, and He swept away the provision Moses had made for hard hearts. Grace reigns in that kingdom, and it enables all who are in it to fulfil every relationship according to God.
- Hardness — Moses' concession existed because of what the people were. That one word is the key to the whole passage.
- Allowed — Moses permitted divorce in one exceptional case. He never commanded it. The Pharisees misquoted him to defend themselves.
- Weakness — the law made nothing perfect. It drew no line between believer and unbeliever, so it stood lower than God's own mind.
- Beginning — what God set up at creation always holds. The later allowance was His patience with fallen man, not His heart.
- Grace — law allowed more than grace does, because grace gives power that law could never give.