[quote="dominikus28, post:7, topic:217096"]
So when Moses allowed divorce, wasn't he going against God's will, that a man should leave his family and become one flesh with his wife?
The OT law on divorce is not Moses’ law. Moses is not the lawmaker. God is. Speaking about the laws which he was about to give – the law on divorce being one of them – Moses tells the people: “Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep HIS charge, and HIS statutes, and HIS judgments, and HIS commandments, always” (Deut. 11:1). Moses merely relayed to the people all the laws that God set in motion.
Notice that when Moses, in Deut. 11:32, said, “And ye shall observe to do all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day [and that include the law on divorce]” it was not his statutes and judgments which the people was to observe, for Moses (in verses 26-27), had just told the people: “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day.”
Sorry, but I still don't understand why Moses did this if it was not supposed to be so. Did Moses do that because he thought he was doing the right thing, and God didn't correct him until Jesus came?
The law Moses gave did not allow for divorce of a bound marriage. Advocating divorce [and remarriage] in the OT would mean that God was teaching one thing then and another in the NT. But God says He does not change (Mal. 3:8, Heb. 13:8). All His laws are immutable, unchanging and inviolate (Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17).
What Jesus “corrected” when He came was the application of the law – and all of God’s spiritual laws. Jesus restored these laws as they were from the beginning. What God commanded Moses was to give the laws to ancient Israel only in the letter – they were to obey them only in the literal letter, not in their spiritual principle and intent. When Jesus came, He commanded for Christians to not just keep the law in the strictness of the letter, but also according to its spirit and intent.
The “divorce” which Moses allowed was the putting away of what God had not yet bound. The statute is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. It says: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that he find no favor in his eyes, because he found some uncleanness (Hebrew, ervah dabar, ‘a matter of nakedness’] in her…”
Notice the time setting is when the man “married” the woman, and “it come to pass.” What this tells us is that this is right after the kiddushin wedding ceremony – most probably at the wedding night – when this “matter of nakedness” was discovered and the wife rejected. But has God bound the union at this point in time? Remember, God alone binds a marriage. His law says that a man and a woman is legally bound when they 1) leave father and mother (this has obviously happened here) and 2) cleave together – that is, joined together in a binding relationship between each other and God (they took their vows at the kiddushin ceremony so they have “cleaved together”), and 3) become one flesh.
Now, that last element of the marriage law is fulfilled only when a couple sexually consummates their marriage. If the rejection and eventual writing of divorcement happened before the couple came together in sexual union, then the divorce that was allowed was for a marriage not yet bound by God. And this indeed is the case here. Since the couple was yet to “become one flesh,” the marriage has yet to be bound. The “divorce,” then, in this particular provision of God’s law is not for a marriage bound by God.
Here is proof why this law could not be speaking of a bound marriage. Notice that verse 4 states that the husband could never take back the wife he rejected. She was free to be another man’s wife, but was forbidden to return to her former husband if her second husband died. But, God’s law forbids a bound mate from remarrying until death of the partner. Moreover, there is no restriction under God’s law against a husband taking back a bound wife (I Cor. 7:11, Rom. 7:1-3, Mal. 2:14-16). Deuteronomy 24 therefore could not be describing a bound marriage.
Also, if we are to take God’s example of His own marriage to ancient Israel, God, who was bound to Israel at Mt. Sinai but had to write a “bill of divorce” because of her adulterous ways, did not forbid Israel to return to Him. In fact, He pleaded for her to return because He was His wife. He said, “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married to you” (Jer. 3:14). Here we see that God indeed had a bound marriage to Israel but was willing to take her back upon repentance.
The evil Israel did was no small matter because God, in verse 1, had just said: “They say, If a man put away a wife, and she go from him, and be another man’s, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers.” Yet, in spite of this, God continued, “yet return again to me, saith the Lord.” God was willing to forgive upon repentance and take back His wife Israel. That would not be pollution, but repentance, and forgiveness in taking back the true wife – the “wife of thy youth… and the wife of thy covenant” (Mal. 2:14). If Deuteronomy 24 is about a bound marriage, it would go against this example of a bound marriage involving God Himself.