literally. Y‘shua is, however, teaching that we have a responsibility to deal with our "evil inclination" (Hebrew
= yetzer ha'ra).
Here, Y‘shua is supporting two existing teachings of the Pharisees:
Babylonian Talmud, Kallah, Ch. 1: ―One who gazes lustfully upon the small finger of a married woman, it is
as if he has committed adultery with her‖.
Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 13b: ―Better that one's belly burst than one should go down to the pit of
destruction‖.
Believers do not take the words of verses 29 and 30 seriously enough. Is there never an occasion where a
sincere man of faith might undergo surgery to become a eunuch for the sake of the Gospel? When, then, did
Y‘shua tell His disciples, ―... there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother‘s womb, and there
are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs
for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven...‖ (Matt 19:12). It may not be often that a Believer would need to
consider surgery, but I would not dare to say that such a time could never come.
Getting to the heart of the matter, I believe what Y‘shua is saying here is that unless we view the sin of
adultery (including immoral thoughts) as so offensive to YHWH that we would be willing to undergo sexual
surgery to solve the problem (if it would), we do not see this sin from Y‘shua‘s perspective. Much of the
immorality within the Believing community can be directly related to a casual attitude toward sexual sin.
5:31-32 Whosoever shall put away his wife...
―(31) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (32) But
I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery‖. (Matt 5:31-32)
Here is a rare case where Y‘shua sides with the school of Shammai rather than Hillel (see Glossary section
for more information). Shammai taught exactly as Y‘shua did regarding this matter, interpreting
"uncleanness" in the Torah commandment solely as sexual immorality. The school of Hillel offered a broader
interpretation, allowing for a man to divorce his wife for many things that "did not find favour in his sight‖.
Y‘shua holds "to the letter of the law" in this case.
―We know that a current controversy about divorce was being conducted between the rival rabbinic schools
of Hillel and Shammai. Rabbi Shammai took a rigorist line, and taught from Deuteronomy 24:1 that the sole
ground for divorce was some grave matrimonial offence, something evidently ̳unseemly‘, or ̳indecent‘. Rabbi
Hillel, on the other hand, held a very lax view. If we can trust the Jewish historian Josephus, this was the
common attitude, for he applied the Mosiac provision to a man who ̳desires to be divorced from his wife for
any cause whatsoever‘. Similarly Hillel, arguing that the ground for divorce was something ̳unseemly‘,
interpreted this term in the widest possible way to include a wife‘s most trivial offences. If she proved to be
an incompetent cook and burnt her husband‘s food, or if he lost interest in her because of her plain looks and
because he became enamoured of some other more beautiful woman, these things were ̳unseemly‘ and
justified him in divorcing her‖. (Chrysostom (p. 93). as quoted by John R. W. Stott, Christian Counter Culture
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), p. 71.)
Closely related to the prohibition of adultery is the biblical position on divorce. The Scribes and Pharisees
assumed that divorce was a biblical option. They only quibbled over the grounds for divorce. Some felt a
man could divorce his wife for virtually any reason; others only for marital impurity. Their interest was entirely
procedural. But Y‘shua refused to speak on this issue. Instead, He went back to the divine intention for
marriage. Granted, YHWH had permitted divorce (not commanded it, as the Scribes maintained, Matt 19:7-
8), but He did so only due to the hardness of men‘s hearts (Matt 19:8). The divine purpose, as described in
Genesis, was that one man and one woman should be permanently united until separated by death. In the
light of this purpose, Y‘shua made a statement which was designed to discourage any divorce: ―But I say to
you that every one who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery‖ (Matt 5:32).
One must recognise by the brevity of Y‘shua‘s teaching on the subject of divorce here, that this is not the full
revelation on divorce. Because the Scribes had focused on the exception (some ̳indecency‘, Deut 24:1,
which varied in Jewish interpretation from adultery to burning the breakfast eggs) and made it the rule,
Y‘shua here refused to expound on the exception—only to mention it. He stressed the principle of YHWH‘s
attitude toward all (unbiblical) divorce. Unbiblical divorce leads to the sin of adultery on the part of the initiator
of it (usually the husband in Y‘shua‘s day, Matt 19:9); it puts the ̳innocent‘ (or at least passive party) in a
position where she will seek marriage to another, thereby committing adultery (Matt 5:32).