Was Hillel right?
There was conservative legal precedent on this subject. Conservative Jews had expressed their legal opinion on the writing of divorcement found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. We first cited these differences of opinion over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in writing in the mid-seventies (many years before the wide availability of the internet). At the time, we personally knew of none who had cited what we consider to be an original source document with ancient oral traditions recorded in the Mishnah as a source of establishing the opinions about divorce among the ancient Jews. These opinions were put forth by famous rabbis in the time of Jesus before the compilation of the Mishnah at the end of the second century of the common era. These oral opinions were recorded in the Mishnah later than the first century because of the destruction of the second temple. This destruction made the preservation of these oral traditions unlikely. The Pharisees did not want to lose them. Therefore, the traditions were codified in the Mishnah (even though many rabbis believed that the “Oral Traditions” should remain oral and never be codified). But these oral traditions, which can be found in the Mishnah, were not generally known by Gentile Christians or cited by Christian scholars.
Therefore, many years ago we investigated this subject by doing what we considered to be some difficult research. We visited a local rabbi to establish the rabbinical sources for the various opinions among the ancients concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4. At the time, a rabbi in the local synagogue seemed pleased that we “Goyim”, as he liked to refer to Gentiles, were not able to read the Mishnah in the original language. He seemed pleased that his “Second Torah” (but really his first Torah in our estimation) was like a black box that only he and some of his peers knew about (no doubt after years of diligent study). Many Orthodox rabbis also believe it is necessary to know Hebrew to understand both the First Torah (our Old Testament) and the Second Torah (their Oral Tradition). That opinion excludes most Gentile Christians (and many Jews).
We feel that time has vindicated our original efforts with the local rabbi to understand the “Oral Tradition” on divorce. Now there is a plethora of information on the internet about the rabbinical opinions concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4. These Jewish opinions on the internet correspond with our own original research in the synagogue. But some, who are prone to shun extra-biblical sources, are still not familiar with the rabbinical sources surrounding the statements of Jesus about divorce. We understand their orientation and perhaps their loathing of extra-biblical sources. But these original source documents (collections of ancient oral traditions) explain a lot about the historical and philosophical climate in which Jesus lived. Jesus had to deal directly with some of these oral traditions.
Not long back we were reminded of this unfamiliarity with these historical source documents on this subject when a minister of the Gospel inquired of us about our opinion on divorce. We appreciated his effort to get our opinion on the subject. We respected him as a person—still do. But at one point in the conversation, we asked him if he was familiar with what rabbis had said in the Mishnah on the subject of divorce. He admitted that he was not familiar with the material. We were surprised because he expressed an opinion and wrote on the divorce controversy. Of course, he did this from a totally Christian perspective. It seemed strange to us, especially with the material so readily available on the internet, that he did not know about these original Jewish source documents. We told him that we were surprised that he was not aware of this material in the Mishnah. However, we appreciated his honesty and his humility when he said he did not know.
“I don't know” is often the best answer. We do not condemn anyone for not knowing about these extra-biblical sources, but we recommend that people take a look at some of them (especially before they write articles on this subject and lend their support and their influence to a particular perspective). There are literally thousands of “scholarly” opinions on the internet on this subject, and many of them in no way correspond with the original historical setting. Part of our objective in this writing is not to prove that we are smarter, more “scholarly” or right; but to emphasize the historical setting of this subject. Jesus did not teach in a historical vacuum. Jesus addressed real world problems with real or historical solutions. We especially want to challenge the status quo on this subject. (Jesus did.) We believe that too many people smugly take their positions on this subject for granted and, sometimes even worse, only consult their local minister on the subject (or just listen to what “they have heard” in their local congregation from their favorite preacher or party). This is the same mistake made by many of the Jews in the time of Jesus.
For those who may not be familiar with the rabbinical grounds for divorce, we quote from Gittin 9:10 A. The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity, B. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deuteronomy 24:1).” C. And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish, D. “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything.” E. R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she, “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deuteronomy 24:1).” (Neusner, 1987)
The House of Shammai gave an interpretation that is very similar to the interpretation of Jesus (unchastity). We are not saying that it is exactly the same interpretation that Jesus gave (it might be). However, no one can deny that the interpretation of the House of Shammai is very conservative and very close to the interpretation given by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. This proves that Deuteronmy 24:1-4 can be (and was) interpreted conservatively by some rabbis under the Law.
While there was much written by the rabbis in Gittin, there is very little written on the actual grounds for divorce which are given in the very last part of Gittin. It is obvious that the grounds for divorce range from the very conservative (Shammai) to the very liberal (Hillel and Aqiba). Furthermore, this range of interpretation is based on the very same passages in Deuteronomy 24. Obviously, the grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 were much disputed. Therefore, Deuteronomy 24 begs for interpretation. Who better to interpret it than Jesus? Therefore, we see the real world problem. Clarification of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was really needed. This passage was hotly disputed in the time of Jesus. And we see the real world solution. Jesus gave them clarification even in the face of opposition. Therefore, we accept his authoritative opinion (as the Son of God) on this Jewish issue. And it is a Jewish issue.
As noted by Jesus, and by history, the grounds for divorce given by Hillel were the popular grounds for divorce. At one time, the Jews utilized the interpretation of one school versus another based upon their interpretation. Even today the Jews claim to take the opinions of all the rabbis into consideration, but they go by the “majority opinion” which is actually against the teachings of the Law of Moses. Jews must listen to their rabbis even when their rabbi may be wrong. In the case of divorce they go by Hillel. Hillel has the more liberal and popular opinion. Just as long as they followed the legal formula of giving a “writing of divorce” (a “Get”) they thought they were morally justified.
We do not know any Christians who actually have given their Christian wives a Jewish “Get.” But Orthodox Jews are supposed to give a “Get” which is a particular kind of writing given only by a Jewish man to a Jewish woman and approved by the appropriate Jewish authorities in a rabinnical court. The Jewish man must do this voluntarily; and he must do it in the proper court. Today, if he will not do it willingly, he is often subject to corporal punishment or social isolation until he is “willing” to comply. This does not surprise us. Many Orthodox Jews do not accept divorces given by civil courts. If a Jewish man will not willingly give his Jewish wife a “Get” in a rabinnical court, she is deemed an Agunah or a “chained woman.” Any offspring of an Agunah is a Mamzer or a “bastard.” This is just another example where Christians cannot and will not follow Jewish legal practices. But Christians adopt Jewish legal practices when and where they can—at least in Spirit. Incidentally, “Gittin” is the plural form of a “Get” or a “writing of divorce.”
Jesus explains that the Jewish men took the right of divorce too far as well as for granted. Jesus quoted the teaching of rabbis, “Furthermore it has been said Whoever divorces his wife let him give her a certificate of divorce.” (Matthew 5:31) These rabbis were emphasizing that if you want to divorce your wife, write the proper document. Give her a “Get.” We see their emphasis. Grounds were not a problem! Jesus recognized that they were essentially teaching a “no fault” divorce for the man. Was that what Moses said? Absolutely not. That is what they had heard their rabbis say in the synagogue. But Jesus did not agree.
But according to the rabbis, if a woman so much as burnt the bread, she could be sent out of the house. Talk about what some have called the “innocent party.” She gets up too late, gets the oven too hot and burns the bread. She has a bad day. Her marriage is over! She is later stigmatized or made by her cruel husband to commit adultery. How fair is that? How insensitive and cruel is her husband to put her out in the cold over such a trivial thing? But such was their supposed right. We want to stress (contrary to popular and sometimes Christian opinion) that indiscriminate and trivial (no fault) divorce for the man was not the instruction of Moses. The law did not need to be changed. They just needed to change their interpretations.
Why do preachers pit Jesus against Moses? In our estimation, It is okay to pit Jesus against the interpretation of Hillel. (Hillel was just another man with an opinion.) Jesus said he was wrong. When Jesus gave his authority against the teachings of Hillel, he was just setting the record straight under the Law of Moses. However, some preachers have Jesus blaspheming Moses. They have Jesus making new legislation prematurely against Moses on the fly in the Sermon on the Mount. They have Jesus seemingly rectifying Mosaical mistakes. (This is just another “terrible implication.” What? Moses, and, therefore, God could not get it right when they considered the circumstances of the people of Israel?) But, according to Jesus' disclaimer (Matthew 5:17-20), Jesus did not see any real problems with the Law of Moses. On the contrary, the Law of Moses was valid and holy. The problem was with the way some of these rabbis distorted and handled the Law. They needed to renew their respect for God's Word. They needed to develop better interpretation skills. They needed to change their emphasis. They badly needed to jettison some of their oral traditions (like false and frivolous forswearing) which contradicted the commandments of God. (Matthew 23)
Incidentally, we believe that Jesus used absolute language and told them to “swear not at all” in the Sermon on the Mount for the same reasons that you do not give a child a gun. They had proven they were too immature and unworthy to handle this issue. It was too difficult for them. Furthermore, due to all the false teaching on this subject, they were badly confused. They could not make the proper distinctions. They were not able to bear detailed instruction. Therefore, the safest thing that they could do under the circumstances was just stay entirely away from the issue. Do not swear. James, the brother of Jesus at Jerusalem in the Jewish arm of the church, sent a letter to the “twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” and reiterated this admonition. Truthfulness is good advice for everyone. But this was especially appropriate for Jewish Christians. There were still Jewish Christians who could fall into the traditional trap of swearing by the wrong thing. They could easily find themselves forswearing. Since James the Just (brother of Jesus) died in approximately 62 of the common era (before the destruction of the second temple), this is just a historical reality.
We believe that Jesus typically used hyperbole to emphasize dangers which people should avoid. For example, when Jesus was trying to dramatize the sometimes very real and powerful temptation to covet a woman and to commit adultery with her he said: “... if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off...” When Jesus said this, he was not expecting his disciples to show up with missing limbs. His statement was plain enough. His disciples understood that he was just dramatizing the need to avoid temptation at any cost. His teaching in no way contradicted the Law of Moses. In fact, his teaching to avoid temptation was just good advice. Solomon said something similar when he advised young men not to go near to the door of an adulteress. Stay away. Do not make provisions for the flesh. In the Sermon on the Mount, the message of Jesus was not to “change the Law.” The message of Jesus was to “change the man” by giving him a deeper understanding of his existing Law.
We want to mention the goodness of the Old Law. We know Jesus gave us a new and a better covenant after he nailed the Old Covenant to the cross. But let us never disparage the Old Law. That is what we are doing when we claim that rabbis such as Hillel were essentially right in what amounted to no fault positions on divorce. This reflects badly on God. But that is what we are doing when we say Jesus taught against Moses. The Old Law was perfectly suited for what God wanted to accomplish. It was a glorious law. Are we hearing that a law that was good enough to perfect our Savior was not good enough to elevate his disciples above the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees? If we have such a lowly opinion of the Law of Moses, let us say, we have a pitifully low opinion of God's Word. This was certainly not the opinion of Jesus. Paul said: "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” (Romans 7:12-13) In this passage, Paul points out that the law was not the problem. The law was good. The sinful disposition of man was the problem. The law just showed how truly sinful man really was. It just showed how much people needed the perfect sacrifice of Jesus! Therefore, the problem with the law was that nobody (except Jesus) could keep it. It was weak in the flesh. Jesus solved this problem for man by living perfectly without sin. Therefore, the law complemented Jesus. As Paul cried out in despair, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” He said: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 7:24-25) Therefore, let us be very careful about disparaging a law which perfected Jesus and, consequently, perfects us. We need this law just as much as we need the perfection of Jesus.
Invariably, when a preacher wants to emphasize the superiority and the authority of Jesus over the Law of Moses, he quotes: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” (Matthew 7:28-29) Preachers are usually trying to emphasize at least two things by quoting this passage. One, it was “his doctrine” and not the Law of Moses. Two, Jesus had the “authority” to speak against the Law of Moses.
Jesus was not exclusively teaching new doctrine. We have already tried to show that Jesus supported the Law with his disclaimer (Matthew 5:17-20). We endeavored to show in a previous writing that Jesus used expressions such as: "It is written", "What did Moses command you?" and "have you never read" as he appealed to and approved of the written word. We asked why Jesus appealed to the words written in Deuteronomy with the expression “it is written” in his temptation and then taught against the written word (according to some) in his Sermon on the Mount? We indicated that Jesus sometimes objected to “oral traditions” put forth by the rabbis. We said that Jesus indicated his objection to these traditions with the literary device of “You have heard … but I say.” Of course, some preachers emphasize just the “but I say” part of this literary construction; and they stress that Jesus was opposing the Law of Moses. We got into some of the “terrible implications” by stating that Jesus could not speak against the Law of Moses without condemning himself with his “least in the kingdom of heaven” pronouncement against those who would not “do and teach” the Law of Moses. We even touched on his use of “universal language” when we said he was speaking especially to Jews. For example could a (Jewish) man put away his (Jewish) wife for every cause? We stressed that this question applied to what the Jewish man could do to his Jewish wife, and not what the Jewish wife could do to her Jewish husband. A Jewish wife could not give her husband a “Get.” Of course, the impersonal and universal use of the term “you” by Jesus in the “You have heard” expression in the Sermon on the Mount was originally spoken to Jews who had actually “heard” these Jewish interpretations (along with some of the misplaced emphasis by the rabbis) in their synagogues. He could not have been speaking to Gentiles when he said “you” because Gentiles were usually never in Jewish synagogues and had never had the opportunity to hear these things. Besides, Gentiles were not his original disciples. Therefore, a Gentile would miss some of the Jewish details in the Sermon on the Mount even though much of what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount can generally be applied (in principle and not in every Jewish detail) to anyone (Jew or Gentile).
We do not doubt the authority of Jesus. However, we do doubt that Jesus used his authority against the Law of Moses. What is so wonderful about Jesus is that Jesus was willing to humble himself and become subservient (obedient) to the Law of Moses even though he was technically equal with God. Jesus had authority, but he did not use it when it counted the most (like in living a perfect life under the Law). (Romans 7:1, Galatians 4:4)
When we were young, we liked the slogan of a company that manufactured block making machines. That slogan said: “Big enough to serve you and small enough to know you.” This slogan reminds us of Jesus. Jesus was definitely “big enough.” As the Son of God in heaven, and not just another rabbi, he humbled himself even unto the cruel death of the cross. That is why God has also highly exalted him. Jesus was willing to go to the cross for us. He was willing to bow his neck and bloody his brow under the Law. What a savior! What a tragedy for us if Jesus had not been this type of a God. He could have called ten thousand angels (as the song goes). But he did not. In his temptation Jesus assured Satan (Matthew 4ff.) that he was going to be the best servant God ever had by living (and dying) by the written word. We love 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” Thank God he had this capacity and was willing to do it! No, we never question the authority of Jesus.
Sometimes preachers obscure the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4 by citing a variety of divorces in the Old Testament. They cite concubines, servants and women taken in military conquest. We note, these women they cite often did not come into the marriage like a free woman; they did not usually have the same marital status while they were in the marital relationship; and they did not necessarily leave the marriage like a free woman. Citing these kinds of relationships simply obscures the controversy over Deuteronomy 24:1-4. That a man did not fulfill his marital obligations in a marriage has nothing to do with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is about something “found” in the woman and putting her away. It is about a Jewish man giving a Jewish wife a “Get.” It is about the rabbinical abuse of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. It is about a well-known Jewish controversy. Bringing in all these other examples into the mix is basically not what Jesus was addressing in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. These are side issues that simply divert our attention away from the central issue. That is, they are “red herrings.” Therefore, it is wrong to bring them into this question because Jesus was not addressing every issue that men can imagine in the Old Testament (or the New Testament for that matter). In fact, (not like us) he gave very little time to the entire subject. He was just citing many examples where his disciples had heard the wrong thing. Still, as always, what little he had to say was very important.
The emphasis of Jesus was not the same as the rabbis. They were looking at the supposed rights of the man under the Law of Moses. All a man had to do was follow the proper procedure and give his wife a “Get.” On the other hand, Jesus wanted them to think about this issue from the perspective of their wife. He also wanted them to think about this issue from the perspective of their Father in Heaven. He wanted them to get away from just some of the technical issues which rabbis spent most of their time on. When we read “Gittin” in the Mishnah, we are reading technicalities and procedures for giving a “Get.” But Jesus, who was always concerned about the person and their condition, was looking at this issue from what they were actually doing to their wives. Jesus did not speak like the scribes and the Pharisees. Therefore Jesus said: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)
Many take this statement of Jesus to be Christian teaching. Nevertheless, what Jesus said was true when he said it. Suppose it is Christian teaching. Do Christians really want what Jesus said? Not really. Here is an example. There is this poor housewife. All she does all day is take care of the kids, run to the store, pick up after her husband and make herself look pretty. She stays home all day, and one day her husband comes home from work and says: “Honey, I want a divorce.” She asks why. He trumps up some trivial charge and says: “You are too good to me.” And she is. She does everything he says. She is completely innocent. But he puts her away anyhow. Do Christians want her to be classified as an “adulteress” for the rest of her life when she finds another man? Absolutely not. She is basically innocent. But Jesus says the man is causing her to “commit adultery.” Now she has been stigmatized as an adulteress. Her fault? Is that really what Christians want? Not really. But that is what Jesus said. After most Christians really think about her plight for a moment, as Jesus described it in Matthew 5:32, they will most likely reject what Jesus said. Christian women do not want to remain single, or to be classified as an adulteress, for the rest of their life. Was it her fault that she married a mean man?
No doubt, if she is a Christian, she will go to 1 Corinthians 7 to find a loophole. Keep in mind that there was no 1 Corinthians 7 when Jesus said this. If she is a Christian, she may begin to talk about “fornication after the fact” and all kinds of other esoteric subjects. Perhaps she will look into the “mental divorce” aspect. What did she ever do to deserve such a plight? But that is what Jesus said. That is why Jesus in essence said to his disciples: “Look at what you are doing. You have ruined a life. You have destroyed a home. You have turned a fine woman into an adulteress.”
Do we suppose that God will hold the man guiltless for all of this? Well, the rabbis thought so. The man had followed all the technicalities and the proper procedures under the Law. Really? Well, he gave her a “Get” according the the Law of Moses. (Or was it that he gave her a “Get” according to the opinions of the rabbis?)
Was Hillel right? Could divorce be had for almost any reason under the Law of Moses? Let us hear the prophet under the Law. "But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.” …. “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?” ( Malachi 2:14, Malachi 2:15-17) Was Hillel right?
