Are We Making Another Mishnah on Divorce?
July 20, 2008
by Harry Osborne

The Mishnah is a collection of rabbinical interpretations of the law by numerous Jewish priests. They were first passed on in oral form, then written down and added to by other rabbis over a period of several hundred years. By the time of Jesus' earthly ministry, the process was well under way. In fact, when one reads the Mishnah, it gives further detail to some of the errors with which Jesus dealt during His earthly life. The conflict between those rabbinical traditions and the actual precepts of God's law is the focus of Matthew 15:1-20 and Mark 7:1-23. Jesus rejected both the additions (i.e. washing of hands) and subtractions (i.e. nullification of responsibility to aid parents by claim of "Corban") to divine law. Though such traditions held the place of civil law in Jewish lands of that day, Jesus denounced the authority which produced such edicts, accusing the writers and enforcers of "making void the word of God by your traditions" (Mk. 7:13).

In the entire record of the Gospels, we never find Jesus approving of or commanding submission to the rabbinical interpretations extant in that time. In fact, when one reads the book of Gittin in the Mishnah, dealing with "bills of divorce," it is obvious that the Pharisees in Matthew 19 were trying to get Jesus to choose between the schools of rabbinical thought on the subject. Yet, Jesus ignored their traditions and focused attention on the statements of divine law. Though the rabbis were consumed with defining the proper procedure for putting away, Jesus focused on the sole CAUSE acceptable for sundering one marriage and entering another -- the CAUSE of fornication. Compare the following excerpts from the book of Gittin with the simple law God gave regarding bills of divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). Notice the rabbinical emphasis on procedure that becomes ridiculous in specifying points God left to judgment:

If a man brought a bill of divorce from beyond the sea he must say, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence." If a man brought a bill of divorce [from one place to another] within the Land of Israel he need not say, "It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence" (1:1, 3).

If a man brought a bill of divorce from beyond the sea and said, "It was written in my presence but it was not signed in my presence," or "It was signed in my presence but it was not written in my presence," or "The whole of it was written in my presence and a half was signed in my presence," or "A half was written in my presence and the whole was signed in my presence," it is not valid. If one said, "It was written in my presence," and another said, "It was signed in my presence," it is not valid. If two said, "It was written in our presence," and another said, "It was signed in my presence," it is not valid (2:1).

If it was written by day and signed by day, [or written] by night and signed by night, [or written] by night and signed by day, it is valid. [If it was written] by day and signed by night it is invalid (2:2).

It may not be written on what is fixed to the ground; but if a man had written on what is fixed to the ground and he then severed it and signed it and gave it to her, it is valid. R. Judah pronounces it invalid unless it is both written and signed after it has been severed (2:4).

If a man said, "Give this bill of divorce to my wife in such a place," and they gave it to her in another place, it is not valid. [But if he said,) "Lo, she is in such a place," and they gave it to her in another place, it is valid. If the woman said, "accept my bill of divorce on my behalf at such a place," and they accepted it on her behalf at another place, it is not valid. R. Eliezer pronounces it valid (6:3).

It once happened that a man in sound health said, "Write out a bill of divorce for my wife," and he went up to the top of the roof and fell down and died. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: The Sages said, "If he fell down of himself the bill of divorce is valid; but if the wind blew him down, it is not valid" (6:6).

If he said to her, "Collect this bond of indebtedness," or if she found it behind him and read it and, lo, it was her bill of divorce, it is not valid unless he shall say to her, "Here is thy bill of divorce." If he put it into her hand while she was asleep and she awoke and read it, and, lo, it was her bill of divorce, it is not valid unless he shall say to her, "Here is thy bill of divorce." If she was standing in the public domain and he threw it to her and it fell nearer to her, she is divorced, but if nearer to him she is not divorced; if half-way, she counts both as divorced and as not divorced (8:2).

If she was standing on top of the roof and he threw up to her [her bill of divorce] and it reached the level of the roof, she is divorced. If he was above and she below and he threw it down to her, once it had left the region of the roof, even if its writing was blotted out, or if it was burnt, she is divorced (8:3).

What is accounted a defectively witnessed bill of divorce? One that has more folds than witnesses (8:10).

If part of the [text of the] bill of divorce remained over and was written in the second column, and the names of the witnesses were subscribed beneath it, it is valid. If the witnesses signed at the top of the column, at the side, or on the back of an unfolded bill of divorce, it is invalid. If the top of one was joined to the top of the other, with the witnesses between, both are invalid. If the bottom of one was joined to the bottom of the other, with the witnesses between, that one together with which the names of the witnesses are read is [alone] valid. If the top of one was joined to the bottom of the other, with the witnesses between, that at the bottom of which the names of the witnesses are read is [alone] valid (9:7).

And what did Jesus say to resolve such issues? Not one word! In their effort to stipulate the answer to every situation that might occur and bind their decision on all others, the rabbis went beyond the simple law given by God and were guilty of changing it, despite their good intentions (Deut. 4:2). What should they have done when situations arose that called for a judgment to be made? They should have applied the principles of God's law with wisdom and left others to make their own judgments when difficult situations arose in their presence. No one had the right to bind specific applications not given in the principles of God's law.

Warning of a Modern Mishnah on Divorce
Brethren, in this age of human changes to God's law on divorce and remarriage, we must follow the path Jesus showed and ignore the human ideas and edicts, instead refocusing on God's law as stated by Christ without addition or subtraction. Let me be more specific. We have needless turmoil that has been raised among God's people because of two opposing schools of thought among our brethren who have pushed their human insertions on the civil action of divorce to a point nearing division among God's people.

On the one hand, some would require that the innocent party, estranged from a spouse because of fornication already committed, is forbidden to marry another with God's approval if the guilty fornicator initiates and secures the civil divorce in a court of law. These brethren would make human law and the procedures of civil courts the final authority in determining whether an innocent party may lawfully remarry even though the sundering of the marriage is for the CAUSE of the fornication already committed. But the law given by Jesus focuses on the CAUSE for the relationship being sundered, not the procedure of who filed or secured the divorce case in human courts. Remember, we cannot find one word in Scripture about a procedure involving courts or civil institutions, judges, filings, legal records, judgments or any of the civil procedures mandated by brethren now equating the civil procedure of divorce with the biblical term "put away." All of those elements are required by the procedure some brethren seek to bind, yet the Scripture speaks of none of them. Either we leave it where Jesus left it, or we begin a path of adding to God's law.

On the other hand, we have other brethren who seem to be adding another procedure equally unknown to Scripture. They say one spouse may object to the severing of a relationship, wherein no fornication has been committed, and take other steps in a procedure not stated in Scripture, and yet maintain a right of remarriage years later after a "second putting away." We look in vain to find our Lord teaching that one may object and follow certain steps to invalidate one putting away and leave open the possibility for a "second putting away" years later after an act of fornication having nothing to do with the original breakup. While we must admit that the time-frame for biblical putting away is not specified, we must also accept that a marriage may be sundered against one party's will leaving that one guilty of adultery in any subsequent remarriage (Matt. 5:32). When one advocates a procedure for a second putting away, years after the united "one flesh" has become two lives divided, and guarantees a right of remarriage in such a hypothetical case, he is advocating something added to God's law. Jesus taught a right of remarriage only to the innocent party in a case where a marriage is sundered for the CAUSE of fornication (Matt. 19:3-9).

The Mishnah is full of changes to divine law where men felt compelled to specify details and bind them on all, rather than abiding with the words of God. Such actions led to error then. Parallel efforts in our time will produce the same unlawful fruit.

Let us leave it where Jesus left it -- the procedure is not specified, but the CAUSE is specified. Where no CAUSE of fornication exists for sundering a marriage, neither has the right to remarry. Where the scriptural CAUSE of fornication does exist for sundering a marriage, the innocent spouse with a scriptural CAUSE for departing from the marriage has the right to remarry. Let brethren be guided by these divine principles rather than binding human procedures that are either more or less restrictive than God's law. The abiding principles of God's law are not altered by ever-changing human laws and hypothetical situations. Brethren, let us not go down a path of division over unspecified procedures added to God's word. Let us unite on principles plainly affirmed by Scripture and forbear with one another, allowing individual judgments regarding applications left generic in Scripture. If we fail to take that course, we will needlessly fracture as mandate after mandate is added by those making their conscience the rule for all.

< Back to Article List