There are alternate explanations that are not only plausible but also explain in a way that Yeshua is not adding to the law.
https://bible.org/seriespage/7-teaching-jesus-divorce-matthew-193-12-mark-102-12
An interesting read. Here's a quote.
(with my 2 cents)
'"And he answered and said, “Have you not read, that he who created them from the beginning of creation made them male and female, and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore G-d has joined together, let no man separate.”
They had been concerned with “when the man may walk away from his wife.”
( like the concerns on this thread about if a woman is allowed to divorce and if she is allowed to remarry) Jesus points out that the design of marriage is not to see it end. The man and his wife were designed to complement each other. When that complement became a covenanted couple, a union was formed, and the choice to do so involved an intention never to go back to their former singleness—it was an intention to permanency. Having acted on that choice, they do not have the right simply to “walk away” but should see themselves as a continuing social unit. And it must be remembered that G-d himself is the guarantor of the covenant. No human being should think that he or she has the moral right, unilaterally to dissolve the covenant.
[or is morally right to cast judgement if someone is allowed to dissolve a covenant (divorce), enter a new covenant (remarry), or nullify G-ds words with their interpretation] The covenant cannot be dissolved without challenging the One who insures the covenant: G-d himself.
(Spiritual Adultery)
At this point we should pause in our flowing dialogue and note how inappropriate it would have been for Jesus to have interrupted His argument by making new or incidental points about the doctrine of marriage. This would not have been the time to adopt the Temple Scroll approach to polygyny,
(I like how he points out this is not a rebuke of Polygyny) for example. By employing the
Septuagint’
s “the two,” He simply means to identify clearly that the two who once could turn and walk away from each other (i.e., before the marriage commitment) have by their choice eliminated the option of doing so.
Many modern teachers of the Bible find it easy here to interpret Jesus as implying that, since “G-d has joined” the partners, Jesus is saying that marriage was originally made a permanent institution. The verse teaches nothing of the kind.
Jesus does not say, “Since what G-d joins together is permanent, don’t get a divorce.” To have said that would have been to say exactly what the Pharisees wanted Him to say. (saying that a divorced woman cant remarry would also be teaching against Torah, since it clearly says if she can in a few instances, and would have played into the Pharisees hands) It would have shown Him to be teaching contrary to the Old Testament by adding to it (or would that have been a taking away?)(Duetoronmy 4:2, if he sinned he wasn't the Messiah).
342 Jesus affirmed as strongly as possible (without abrogating any teaching of the Law) the obligation of marriage partners to stay married. He said that it is immoral to sever the marriage bond, but not that it is impossible to do so. He does not say, “Since G-d insures marriage, you should never get a divorce.”
(He never said women cannot divorce, women are forbiden from remarrying)343 Jesus does not use the normal and technical term for divorce here, but instead uses the word
chorizo,which is well translated “sunder.” In all the uses of this word in the New Testament it never is used as an exact synonym for divorce.
Jesus does not deny the right to divorce a spouse, He merely says it is wrong to sunder a marriage covenant.
What is not clear in this statement is exactly when such a sundering takes place. It could be at the point of divorce, or it could be at the point of
porneia or even “uncleanness.” Jesus had affirmed the basics of /marriage divorce, without giving the Pharisees anything to “shoot at.”
But the Pharisees (like some of our modern exegetes) jumped to the hasty conclusion that by this saying Jesus implied that a man may not divorce his wife at all. (or that women cannot divorce or remarry) And they are partially right, for from the
context it is clear that some divorces might be categorized as sundering events!
'
Question: What's the difference between the Pharisees focusing on whether a man has the right to divorce for any reason and the focus of the Proponents of woman cannot divorce and remarry doctrine? Both are ignoring the Spirit of the teaching.
Plain reading says divorce is only acceptable in cases of porneia such as homosexuality, beastiality, incest, idolatry, and harlotry. Not moicheia (adultery), so plain meaning says your stuck with a cheating wife. Plain meaning also says that marriage after divorce is adultery for all involved, period. It never says that if your wife or husband commits porneia that your allowed to remarry.
Before someone says that's the extreme veiw, no it's not. It's the plain reading. The less extreme veiws require interpretation.
