This particular paired set highlights the difficulty in assuming that the movement from Law to Gospel is only from external to internal. The first two could easily be read in that context, but here we have both sides of the pair dependent upon action. In spite of the reliance upon action, however, the underlying structure moves us toward understanding motivations and the “heart” of man.
The first two paired sets had direct references to the Decalogue and the written text. This one does not. Nevertheless, it does encapsulate written law:
Deuteronomy 24:1-2
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
This paired set also differs from the first two in that there is no shared penalty. In this case we do not have an intent that is equated to the action, but rather two different actions. Nevertheless, it is the differences between the actions that is significant.
In the case of the written Law, a man could divorce his wife by giving her a bill of divorcement. Part of the understanding of this paired set must rely upon the contexts in which marriage and divorce occurred in ancient Israel. We see the remnants of the original conception of marriage in the more technical meaning of the Greek word that is here translated as the “bill of divorce.” That word has a more precise meaning of “relinquishing property.” (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 198). In the ancient world marriages were very much modeled after conceptions of property exchange. Indeed, the entire concept of a dowry was part of the economic bargain that united two different families through the marriage they shared. In terms of property, there was ownership, and there was separation from ownership. While a woman was married, or “owned” by the man, of course he also “owned” the rights to sexual access. With the bill of divorcement, he would no longer “own” his wife, and therefore he also gave up rights over her. This allowed another man to marry her with full rights. Although it appears harsh to the modern world to discuss women as property, such is a very recent sentiment, and certainly does not represent the ancient mind behind the legalities of Israelite marriage and divorce. Those laws clearly favored the partriarchal structure of Israelite society:
“The procedure for grating a divorce was almost as straightforward as the premise suggests. Rabbinic sources give closer details that included the necessity of two witnesses to the writing of the bill, the content of the bill, the manner of delivering it, and the possibility of withdrawing it. The rabbinic teaching concurs with the Old Testament materials that the right to divorce belonged exclusively to the man, although a woman could under certain conditions require her husband to divorce her. (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 198).
What Jesus proposes is radically different. He is attacking this very conception of woman as property. What Jesus suggests is that the commitment that is made between a man and a woman is more significant that signing a deed to land. There is more to a marriage than the convenience of a contract. It is because there is much more importance to the relationship that it should not be easily dissolved as would ownership in anything else. The “penalty” that Jesus attaches to the easy bill of divorcement is that the “rights” of sexual access/ownership will still maintain.
The understanding of the intent of this passage depends upon understanding the conditions under which the “divorce” would cause the woman to commit “adultery.”
“In Jewish law the woman was never the object of adultery, only the husband. A man might have more than one wife, concubines, and even relations with a prostitute without his or her partner’s being guilty of adultery. But a wife who has sexual relations with any other man, married or single, committed adultery against her husband.” (Robert Guelich. A Foundation for Understanding the Sermon on the Mount. Word Publishing, Dallas. 1982, p. 200).
The reason for this seeming double standard is the underlying understanding of marriage as a property exchange. Since the man is the owner, only the man could be wronged by the incorrect “use” of his property. Thus the entire problem of marriage and adultery must be seen in the context of property, ownership, and responsibility. In this context we may better understand what Jesus tells his audience. In his gospel, the property model of marriage is discarded. For Jesus, marriage is much more important, and much more binding. For Jesus, the responsibility for a man’s wife continued even after the formal bill of divorcement. The true marriage cannot be dissolved, and even most marriages should not be entered into nor exited as through they were simple property transactions.
Modern context: Just as the prohibition against anger had qualifications, it is certain that the prohibition against divorce would have some qualification, even though the emphasis is on the permanence of the relationship. This is the emphasis of the modern church’s teaching on divorce:
“Latter-day Saints believe that God intended marriage to be an eternal union when he commanded that a man and woman “shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). However, under Jewish interpretation of the Law of Moses, a man had the right to divorce his wife if she found disfavor in his eyes or for “uncleanness” (adultery or other reasons). The man was required to give his wife a written bill of divorcement, which freed her to remarry (Deut. 24:1-2), although in some cases he was not allowed to “put away” his wife (Deut. 22:29).
Jesus Christ condemned divorce under most circumstances, saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). He explained that Moses had permitted divorce only “because of the hardness of your hearts” and because the people could not live the higher law of eternal marriage, “but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). To this he added, speaking in the Sermon on the Mount to those who would strive to be the light of the world and the children of God, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18; Matt. 5:31-32; 3 Ne. 12:31-32).” (“Divorce.” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:391.)
Book of Mormon Context: The Book of Mormon leaves us completely bereft of information on marriage practices among the Nephites. Since the bill of divorce was part of the Law, we must presume that this also described the situation in Nephite lands. Regardless of the technicalities, however, the information on the essentiality of the marriage relationship would have been very important information for the New World.
Textual: The only changes in these verses follow the alteration of the said/written change that we have previously seen. In verse 32 we have “verily, verily, I say unto you” which is obviously a New Testament phrase, but which obscures the more significant parallelism of the “but I say unto you” from the Matthean redaction.