Singleness, Marriage, and Divorce

Please open your Bibles with me to Matthew chapter 19.

Matthew 19 · chapter mention

If you don't have a Bible, please raise your hand.

We'd love to give you a copy of it you can use.

For those of you who don't know me, my name is Sean.

I'm one of the pastors of Trinity Campus Church along with Ed.

It's my great joy and privilege to preach God's word to you this morning.

We're in Matthew 19.

Verses 1 to 12.

Let me pray for the reading and preaching of God's word.

Heavenly Father,

I come to this pulpit with fear and trembling.

How can it be, Lord, that you

entrust your eternal, infallible word?

Lord,

to people like us.

Lord,

help me to say only what you want me to say.

And give all those who are here

years to hear,

hearts to understand,

humility to receive and obey all that you have for us in your word.

and we ask, God, that you would magnify the love of Christ,

your son,

Lord,

our bridegroom,

our Lord and Savior,

that we may walk away from this worship gathering with the deeper knowledge and experience of the love of Christ.

Lord,

address us now from your word.

In Jesus' name we pray.

Amen.

Please stand, if you're able,

to honor God as we read from his word.

Matthew 19,

1 through 12.

Now,

when Jesus had finished these sayings,

he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

And large crowds followed him,

and he healed them there.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking,

Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?

He answered,

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?

And said,

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife,

and the two shall become one flesh.

So they are no longer two,

but one flesh.

What, therefore,

God has joined together,

let not man separate.

They said to him,

Why, then,

did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?

He said to them,

Because of your hardness of heart,

Moses allowed you to divorce your wives,

but from the beginning it was not so.

And I say to you,

Whoever divorces his wife,

except for sexual immorality,

and marries another,

commits adultery.

The disciples said to him,

If such is the case of a man with his wife,

it is better not to marry.

But he said to them,

Not everyone can receive this saying,

but only those to whom it is given.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth,

and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men,

and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.

This is God's holy and authoritative word.

Please be seated.

According to Wilkinson and Thinkbainer,

a specialized law firm focusing on family law and divorce,

based here in Massachusetts,

41% of all first marriages end in divorce.

41%.

If you think,

Well,

if you don't get it right the first time,

anyone can get it wrong the first time.

If at first you don't succeed,

then try,

try again.

Right?

Second marriage is fair,

no better.

60% of all second marriages end in divorce.

If you think,

Well,

the third time is the charm.

Then think again.

Because 73% of third marriages end in divorce.

The more times you get married,

the higher the chance that you'll get divorced.

In the U.S.,

there's a divorce every 42 seconds.

In the time that it takes for a couple that's getting married to recite their marriage vows,

approximately two minutes,

there will be three divorces.

But these numbers alone don't tell the full story.

Think of all the estranged relationships,

the broken hearts,

the shattered dreams,

the disrupted lives,

and financial hardship,

and fatherless or motherless children

that these numbers represent.

And yet,

despite all the damage that the world,

the flesh,

and the devil have done to this sacred institution of marriage,

that dream of marriage continues.

Every 16 seconds,

a couple in the U.S. gets married.

Every year,

over 2 million people get married in our country.

The late pastor Tim Keller put it well in his book,

The Meaning of Marriage.

To be loved,

but not known,

is comforting,

but superficial.

To be known and not loved,

is our greatest fear.

But to be fully known and truly loved,

is,

well,

a lot like being loved by God.

It is what we need,

more than anything.

And that is precisely what people seek in marriage.

To be fully known,

with all your faults,

and all your foibles,

and all your idiosyncrasies,

and all your blemishes,

and yet to be truly loved.

To be fully seen,

and yet not rejected.

To be naked,

yet unashamed.

But is it possible?

Not only is it possible,

according to Jesus,

it is imperative

that we form marriages like this as Christians.

Not perfectly,

of course,

but nonetheless,

truly,

obedient Christians' marriages

can reflect Christ's covenantal relationship

with his church.

And that's my point this morning.

Whether in singular devotion

or lifelong marriage,

we ought to portray our union with Christ.

First,

I'm going to talk about marriage.

Secondly,

I'll talk about divorce.

And third,

I'll talk about singleness.

Verse 1 reminds us

where we are

in the narrative of Jesus' journey.

This is now,

when Jesus had finished these sayings,

he went away from Galilee

and entered the region of Judea

beyond the Jordan.

The clause,

when Jesus had finished these sayings,

is a key programmatic line

in the Gospel of Matthew.

I've mentioned to you multiple times

in this series

that the book is divided

into five major sayings

or five major discourses by Jesus.

And at the end of each discourse,

you find this

nearly identical concluding statement,

when Jesus had finished these sayings.

And this is now the final time

that Jesus leaves Galilee

and now he is going toward Jerusalem

where he has predicted twice already

and he will predict once more

that he's going to suffer and die

for the sins of his people.

Jesus knows that that's where he's headed.

He is going to Jerusalem right now.

But even as he is headed there,

he is crowded by people

who are looking to be ministered to by him,

people who want healing from him.

And yet, even as he faces death in the face,

even as he is going ineluctably toward the cross,

even with all those things on his mind,

Jesus is not preoccupied with self-pity.

He compassionately gives himself to serve others

and he heals all those who come to him.

But as is often the case,

when you become an object of people's acclaim

and admiration,

you also become an object of people's envy

and rivalry.

So it says in verse three,

The word test is the same word

that is translated sometimes as tempt.

It's the word that was used earlier

in Matthew chapter four

to describe the devil tempting Jesus.

It's the same word that Jesus used

to rebuke the devil

by citing Deuteronomy 6.16,

you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.

And remarkably, throughout the gospel,

the only people who are the subjects

of this verb test

are the devil and the Pharisees.

They're the ones who want to see Jesus fail.

They're the ones who want to see Jesus

fall flat on his face.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees

came to test Jesus earlier

in chapter 16, verse one,

and they'll plot again

to entangle Jesus in his words

and test him in chapter 22, verse 18,

chapter 22, verse 35.

As they're doing here.

And little do they know

that they are in fact

putting the Lord their God

to the test

because Jesus is the Son of God.

They're not seeking to learn from Jesus

by asking this question.

They're trying to test him

by deliberately broaching

a controversial hot button issue

that they think they can use

to pigeonhole Jesus

and discredit him.

It's possible that Jesus' opponents here,

the Pharisees,

have already heard

his earlier teaching on divorce

from chapter five, verse 31 and 32.

There, Jesus put forward

an extremely high standard for marriage.

He quoted Deuteronomy 24, verse one,

saying it was also said,

whoever divorces his wife,

let him give her a certificate of divorce.

That's Deuteronomy 24, one.

And then audaciously,

right after saying that,

Jesus set his own teaching

up against the Old Testament law

as a contrast,

as an antithesis,

saying,

you have heard this

from the Old Testament,

but I say to you

that everyone who divorces his wife

except on the ground

of sexual immorality

makes her commit adultery,

and whoever marries a divorced woman

commits adultery.

This is a staggering claim

of Jesus' divine teaching authority.

How does Jesus think

that he can overturn

nearly two millennia

of legal precedents

and interpretive traditions

surrounding the Old Testament law?

Moreover, the law of Moses

is no mere human law.

It is the law given by God himself.

It's divine law.

Who can give a definitive take

on God's law?

Only God can do that.

And that's exactly

what Jesus is claiming.

He's the Son of God.

It seems likely

that the Pharisees

had caught wind

of Jesus' controversial

teaching there.

He had cited Deuteronomy 24, one,

and then set it aside

to put forward

a more definitive fulfillment

of that

in the standard that he gave.

And so later,

in verse seven,

the Pharisees themselves

will cite Deuteronomy 24, one.

And they're saying,

in essence,

to Jesus,

you had the gall

to contradict Moses,

did you?

Oh, now we've got you cornered.

Now we can finally expose you

as a charlatan

and for the false teacher

that you are.

So these Pharisees

come with that attitude

to test him

by asking,

is it lawful

to divorce one's wife

for any cause?

Many historians note

that in those days,

there was a contentious debate

between two Jewish

rabbinical schools of thought.

Shammai and Hillel

were both contemporaries

of Jesus

and they were reputable rabbis

with sizable followings.

The school of Shammai

was the more conservative school,

the more strict of the two,

and they taught

that a man may not

divorce his wife

unless he has found

unchastity in her.

They disallowed divorce

for every case

except some kind

of sexual unfaithfulness

and unchastity

and in that case,

they allowed Jews

to divorce

and to remarry.

The school of Hillel,

on the other hand,

was the more liberal

and permissive school

of thought.

They taught that a man

may divorce his wife

even if she spoiled

a dish for him.

You put sugar

in my dish

instead of salt?

Here,

here's your certificate

of divorce.

This more permissive view,

as is often the case

in the sinful world,

was the more popular view

among the common people.

The Pharisees likely

have this contemporary debate

in their minds

when they pose this question.

What do you say,

Rabbi Jesus?

Who do you side with,

Shammai or Hillel?

Give us your hot take.

We have heard you have

quite the controversial opinion

on this matter.

They want to lure Jesus

into this debate

so they could trap him

in his words.

But Jesus,

as he always does,

rises above the fray.

He is no interest

in siding with Shammai

or Hillel.

There's only one party

that he is interested

in being aligned with,

and that is God.

Jesus answers in verse 4,

have you not read

that he who created them

from the beginning

made them male and female?

In Joshua 5.13,

when Joshua,

during the conquest of Canaan,

sees the angelic being

with the drawn sword

in his hand,

he asks him,

are you for us

or are you for our adversaries?

But the angel of the Lord

answers,

no,

not either.

No,

but I am the commander

of the Lord's army.

During the Civil War,

someone asked Abraham Lincoln

if he believed

God was on his side,

to which Lincoln answered,

sir,

my concern is not

whether God is on our side.

My greatest concern

is to be on God's side,

for God is always right.

When you find yourself

embroiled in fierce debates

in our culture

between conservatives

and liberals

and Republicans,

Democrats

and black and white

and Catholics

and Protestants,

Baptists and Presbyterians,

cessations and continuationists

and complementarians

and egalitarians,

don't just ask yourself

whether a person's view

or a person

that you're talking to

is aligned with your tribe

or your party or not.

Instead,

always ask yourself,

what does God

have to say about this matter?

How does God's word

bear on this issue?

That's what Jesus does.

Have you not read

God's word?

He goes right back to Scripture,

right back to Genesis 1, 27.

Make it your highest concern

to be in agreement

with God,

not with men,

because God is always right.

God took a rib from Adam's side

and out of it

he fashioned Eve

to be a helpmate for Adam.

Therefore,

for that reason,

it says,

a man shall leave

his father and his mother

and hold fast to his wife

and they shall become one flesh.

The woman literally means

was taken out of man

in Hebrew

and therefore she will be

reunited with man

in marriage

and they become one flesh.

The bone of my bones

and the flesh of my flesh

fused back together,

so to speak.

God created mankind

as male and female,

right,

two complementary sexes

precisely for this reason.

The word hold fast

describes a man

cleaving to

or sticking to his wife

like how flesh sticks to bone.

It comes from a word

that means glue

or some kind of adhesive.

That same Hebrew word,

the root word in that Hebrew

is used in Isaiah 41, 7

to refer to a metal worker

who welds metals together.

In other words,

God describes

the one flesh union

between a husband and wife

in the strongest possible terms.

God himself,

so to speak,

takes the hammer

and anvil

and forges marriages

when it happens

between a man and a woman.

Weld it together.

Then Jesus draws out

the ethical implications

of that union

in verse 6.

So they are no longer two

but one flesh.

What therefore God

has joined together,

let not man separate.

Once the two are joined,

they are one flesh

and divorcing

is like tearing apart

a single body,

limb from limb.

It's mutilation.

And this joining together

in marriage

was not the doing

of a mere man.

It says,

What therefore God

has joined together,

let not man separate.

Separate.

Marriage must be conferred.

It must be bestowed.

Marriage is no mere affection

or passion.

It's not mere passion

or love

that makes a couple married.

It's not cohabitation

that makes a couple married.

It's not even

the legal marriage certificate

that makes the two people married.

Because all governing authorities

are instituted by God

and ultimately subject to God.

It is ultimately God

who makes marriage.

Takes a man and a woman

and makes them married.

This is an unflinching,

unapologetic teaching

on the indissolubility

of marriage

according to the will of God.

What therefore God

has joined together,

let not man separate.

Citing various human authorities

to justify unbiblical divorce

is like a student

who fails to turn in his homework

and then says to his teacher,

well that other student told me

I don't have to turn it in.

Who cares what the other student said?

This is what the teacher said.

The marital bond is permanent.

It is lifelong.

It's because marriage

is a binding covenant.

Look at the strong terms

in which God denounces

the divorce habits

of his people Israel,

the nation of Judah,

in Malachi 2, 13 to 16.

He says that God refuses

to accept their sacrificial offerings.

Why, they ask?

Because the Lord was witness

between you and the wife

of your youth

to whom you have been faithless.

Though she is your companion

and your wife by covenant,

did he not make them one

with the portion of the spirit

in their union?

And what was the one God's,

and what was the one God's seeking?

Godly offspring.

So guard yourselves

in your spirit

and let none of you

be faithless to the wife

of your youth.

For the man who does not

love his wife

but divorces her,

says the Lord,

the God of Israel,

covers his garment

with violence,

says the Lord of hosts.

God himself

has made the husband

and wife one

by giving them

a portion of the spirit

of God in their union.

Isn't that remarkable?

For this reason,

the one who does not

love his wife,

and in the Hebrew,

it's literally

the one who hates his wife

and divorces her,

covers his own garment

with the violence

he has done to her

by divorcing her.

No matter all the pretense

nowadays

about amicable divorces,

don't all divorce

ultimately stem from

hatred of one's spouse?

That's what Deuteronomy 24.3

implies as well.

It says that if the wife's husband

hates her

and writes a certificate

of divorce,

that's what you're saying

when you divorce someone.

I can't stand

to live with you anymore.

I don't love you anymore.

I want to end this.

A man who hates his wife

and divorces her

does a kind of

spiritual violence to her,

tearing apart

that one flesh union

forged by the spirit of God.

And she who forsakes

the covenant of her youth

forgets the covenant

of her God,

it says in Proverbs 2,

Proverbs 2:17

verse 17.

This unbreakability

or indissolubility

of marriage

is a hallmark

of all covenants.

Galatians 3.15 says,

even with a man-made covenant,

no one annuls it

or adds to it

once it has been ratified.

How much more than

for a God-made covenant

of marriage?

Does anything then

dissolve the marital bond?

Romans 7,

1-3 says this,

do you not know,

brothers,

that the law

is binding on a person

only as long as he lives?

For a married woman

is bound by law

to her husband

while he lives,

but if her husband dies,

she is released

from the law of marriage.

Accordingly,

she will be called

an adulteress

if she lives with another man

while her husband is alive,

but if her husband dies,

she is free from that law,

and if she marries another man,

she is not an adulteress.

There is one thing

that frees the married party

from the covenant bond

of marriage,

and that is death.

Notice how the Apostle Paul

does not even mention

divorce in this context.

We in our modern context

tend to assume,

well, of course,

divorce dissolves the marriage,

but that possibility

doesn't even occur

in this context.

Only death dissolves

the marriage bond.

1 Corinthians 7

is also very explicit

in this regard.

The whole chapter

deals with principles

for singleness in marriage

and divorce and remarriage,

and 1 Corinthians 7, 39

says a wife is bound

to her husband

as long as he lives.

Notice the language

of binding again.

That's the technical term

that conveys

the indissolubility

of marriage,

and notice once again

the one thing

that makes the husband

or wife unbound

is the death

of his or her spouse.

The verse continues,

but if her husband dies,

she is free to be married

to whom she wishes

only in the Lord.

Paul says explicitly here

that Christians ought to marry

only in the Lord,

meaning other Christians.

If you marry an unbeliever,

you're not merely

disregarding my pastoral advice

or Ed's pastoral advice.

You are disobeying

the commandment of God.

And notice once again

that the option

of remarriage

only opens up

once your spouse dies.

Widows and widowers

may remarry,

it says.

When it comes

to divorcees,

however,

Paul says this

in 1 Corinthians 7,

10 to 11,

Paul is not naive.

He adds the conditional caveat,

but if she does divorce,

because he knows well

the sinful depravity

of our world

and the hardness

of the human heart,

this is not God's will.

And yet,

Paul acknowledges

that divorces happen,

whether it's for something grave

like sexual infidelity,

abuse,

or something frivolous.

But even if she does

separate from her husband,

even if she divorces him,

Paul adds,

she should remain unmarried

or else be reconciled

to her husband.

In the case of widows

and widowers,

Paul expressly says

they are free to remarry.

But in the case of divorcees,

Paul expressly says

they should remain unmarried

or be reconciled

to their spouse.

Only remarriage option

that remains to divorcees

is not really a remarriage

at all in a sense

because it's being reconciled

to your original spouse.

And the reasoning seems to be

that remarriage to another

shuts the door completely

on the possibility

of reconciliation.

For Christians,

reconciliation,

not divorce and remarriage,

is supposed to be the norm.

Paul also specifically addresses

the situation

when a Christian

already finds him or herself

married to a non-Christian.

What should they do then?

Since we're not supposed

to be marrying unbelievers,

should you then divorce

your unbelieving spouse?

It says in 1 Corinthians 7,

12 to 15,

if any brother has a wife

who is an unbeliever

and she consents

to live with him,

he should not divorce her.

If any woman has a husband

who is an unbeliever

and he consents

to live with her,

she should not divorce him.

But if the unbelieving

partner separates,

let it be so.

In such cases,

the brother or sister

is not enslaved.

Even when a Christian

is married to a non-Christian,

marriage is such a sacred thing.

He says that you should

not divorce them.

However,

if the unbelieving spouse

separates,

and that word consistently

refers to divorce

in this chapter,

because people who were

separated were told

to remain unmarried,

the word separate here

means divorce,

if an unbelieving spouse

divorces you,

then he says,

let it be.

With that said,

if an unbelieving spouse

abandons you,

if he hooks up

with another woman

and moves out

and starts living with her,

instead,

even if they're not

divorcing you legally,

I think that is in practice

what they're doing.

You may not be divorced

de jure,

but you are divorced

de facto.

And I think in such cases,

divorce is allowed.

That's why I think

Paul mentions it

in 1 Corinthians 7.

This is why historically

Reformed Christians

have cited two grounds

for divorce,

biblical grounds

for divorce,

and one is sexual immorality

and the other is desertion

by an unbeliever,

being divorced

by an unbeliever.

It's really odd

to call them grounds

for divorce, however,

because this is really

a situation

where you have no choice.

Paul says,

in such cases,

the brother or sister

is not enslaved.

Some people take this

to mean that the Christian

who has been divorced

by a non-Christian

in this manner

is free to remarry.

However,

it's important to note

that Paul does not use

the technical term

for the dissolution

of marriage here.

He does not say

that they are free

to be married

like he did

for the widows

in verse 39.

He does not say

that they are not bound,

which is a technical term.

He says instead

that they are not enslaved.

And I think that

different word choice

is deliberate.

Paul is not saying

that a Christian

who has been divorced

by a non-Christian spouse

is free to remarry.

He's merely saying

that even though

he just told them

in the strongest terms

that they should not

be divorced,

even from an unbelieving spouse,

if your unbelieving spouse

is the one

that's divorcing you,

then let it be so.

You're not enslaved

to the command

that I've given you

to preserve that marriage.

Don't insist

on being chained

to your unbelieving spouse

who wants to divorce you.

We can expect

a Christian,

a fellow Christian

to repent of his sins

or her sins

and seek forgiveness

and to pursue reconciliation.

But how can you do that

for an unbeliever

who does not subscribe

to your ethical standards

according to the word of God?

So then this verse,

I don't think it has permission

to remarry in view at all.

And the testimony

of all these passages

are consistent.

Only death dissolves

the marriage bond.

Therefore widows may remarry

but divorcees may not.

For added credibility,

Paul adds the parenthetical remark,

not I,

but the Lord

in verses 10 to 11.

Saying that it's not him

who's saying this

but the Lord Jesus himself

who gave the command

not to divorce.

And if you do,

to remain unmarried

or else be reconciled

to your spouse.

That's verses 10 to 11.

This is not because

what Paul writes

is not authoritative.

Paul is an apostle of God.

What he writes

is authoritative

for all believers.

But rather what's going on

is that these Corinthian believers

as we know from the context

of the letters

were questioning

and challenging

Paul's apostolic credentials

as we see

in 1 Corinthians chapter 9.

1 Corinthians 9 · chapter mention

So Paul is saying

you won't take my word for it?

You doubt my apostolic authority?

Well,

this isn't even just me.

I'm just relaying to you

what our Lord Jesus himself said.

And did Jesus really teach that?

Yes.

Look at Mark 10,

11 to 12.

Whoever divorces his wife

and marries another

commits adultery against her.

And if she divorces her husband

and marries another,

she commits adultery.

Luke 16, 18.

Everyone who divorces his wife

and marries another

commits adultery.

And he who marries a woman

divorced from her husband

commits adultery.

Adultery.

And Luke 16, 18

for added effect

comes immediately

after Jesus saying

that it is easier

for heaven and earth

to pass away

than for one dot

of the law

to become void.

And then Jesus

is using the indissolubility

of marriage

as an illustration

of the fact

that not one word

of God's law

can become void.

Think about how stark

and clear

these verses are.

What is adultery?

Adultery is voluntary

sexual relations

between a married person

and someone

who is not his

or her lawful spouse.

In our society,

when a man divorces his wife

and marries another,

we don't call that divorce.

We call that remarriage.

I'm sorry,

I misspoke there.

If you,

if you,

if in our society

when a man divorces his wife

and marries another,

we don't call that adultery.

We call that remarriage.

So why

does Jesus call it adultery?

He got divorced.

That marriage is gone.

He marries another person.

Why is that divorce?

It's only,

it's only adultery

if you're still married

and you have sexual relations

with someone

who is not your spouse.

The,

the only logical conclusion

we can arrive at

from this

is that remarriage

after divorce

is adultery

according to Jesus

because while adultery

breaks the marriage vow,

it does not break

the marriage bond.

the covenant of marriage

can be defiled,

yes,

but it cannot be dissolved.

For this reason,

the man who divorced his wife

is still married

in the eyes of God

and vice versa.

this should strike us,

I think,

strike us as a holy fear

of God,

of his inviolable word.

As Jesus says in John 10, 35,

scripture cannot be broken.

I think,

I think,

in our culture,

we've lost the sense of honor

of being a man

or a woman

of his or her word.

Being like Psalm 14 says,

to be people

who fear God,

fear the Lord,

and therefore,

are willing to,

who swear

to their own hurt,

who keep their word

even when it hurts them.

When God declares

a man and a woman

husband and wife,

he forges an unbreakable bond

that endures for life.

This is why

traditional Christian

wedding vows

have always said,

I take you

to have and to hold

from this day forward

for better,

for worse,

for richer,

for poorer,

in sickness and in health,

to love and to cherish

until death do us part.

Or in alternate renditions,

as long as we both

shall live.

Isn't that what

we all long for?

To be fully known

and truly loved.

To mess up

but to be forgiven again.

To be accepted again.

To have someone

who loves us

and is committed

to us unreservedly.

Come what may,

hardship,

heartache,

sin and brokenness,

I will stick by you

and love you

till the end.

Isn't that what

covenantal love is?

Covenantal love

has at its heart

the idea of

constancy and sacrifice

that makes the other

person the focal point

of your affection

and service and love.

Contrast that

with the contractual love

of our age

which has at its heart

the idea of personal fulfillment

and individual happiness

which says,

as long as you

are meeting my needs,

as long as you

are making me happy,

I'll love you.

And as soon as there's

no personal benefit

to begin,

then the relationship

is terminated.

I wish people

who think like that

would change

their wedding vows

to make it more accurate.

I take you

to be my wife,

to have and to hold

until

you get poor,

sick,

ugly,

or do me any wrong

or simply stop

making me happy.

Where's the love

in that?

Where's the sacrifice?

The commitment?

That's not the kind

of love God

has shown us

in Christ.

Let's return

to our passage

in Matthew 19.

So far in verses

3 to 6,

Jesus has said

in the clearest terms

that marriage

is binding for life

and that God

does not want us

to divorce.

I think we're reading

that correctly

because that's exactly

how the Pharisees

understand Jesus.

But there is

on the surface

a discrepancy

between the indissolubility

of marriage

that Jesus teaches here

and the Old Testament

case law

regarding divorce.

And the Pharisees

harp on that

contradiction

and they say,

aha!

We thought you

might say this.

Gotcha.

Verse 7.

Why then

did Moses command

one to give

a certificate of divorce

and to send her away?

But Jesus

doesn't lose a beat.

He says in verse 8,

because of your

hardness of heart,

Moses allowed you

to divorce your wives,

but from the beginning

it was not so.

Divorce was

a temporary provision

for a broken,

fallen world.

A concession

to the hardness

of the human heart

intended to mitigate

human failure

and evil

not to establish

the divine standard.

The provision

for a certificate

of divorce

served to protect

vulnerable women

from being

taken advantage

of.

When sinful men

divorce their wives

when they should

not have,

they were required

to provide

a certificate

of divorce,

which in a sense

is like a clean

bill of health,

so to speak,

so that she does

not come under

undue suspicion

and she is given

legal rights

so that she can

remarry

because apart

from that

in that day

and age,

she may not

have the means

to provide for

herself and survive.

I've used

this illustration

before,

but if you

deliver a box

of clean syringes

to a neighborhood

wracked by

drug addiction

so that people

don't kill

themselves using

contaminated syringes,

can those drug

addicts then

turn around

and claim to be

law-abiding

citizens?

Oh, we're

law-abiding

citizens.

Look at this.

Look at these

syringes that we're

using.

They're provided

for by the

government.

No, of course

not.

They're still

doing illegal

drugs.

The syringes

are merely

a concession

to the human

evil,

to mitigate

human evil,

not to establish

the ethical

standard.

Notice the

contrast between

the way the

Pharisees allude

to the law

of Moses

in verse 7

and the way

Jesus speaks

of it in

verse 8.

The Pharisees

say,

why then did

Moses command

one to give

a certificate

of divorce

and to send

her away?

But Jesus

responds,

because of

your hardness

of heart,

Moses allowed

you to

divorce your

wives.

But from the

beginning,

it was not

so.

In the

original context

of Deuteronomy

24,

1 to 4,

the divorce

is described,

not prescribed.

The command

of the passage

is not to

divorce,

but that the

one who has

been divorced

and then

subsequently

remarries,

may not,

after that

marriage fails

or is widowed,

cannot return

to the first

original spouse.

That's the

command of

Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 24:4

24,

verse 4.

A second

marriage

defiles the

original marriage

so that God

forbids

reunification

with the

first spouse.

So Jesus

is right.

Mosaic law

made concessions

to the reality

of divorce,

but it never

commanded

divorce.

God's command

from the

beginning

was not

so.

Then with

the formal

kind of

serious

gravity,

with the

formal

asseveration,

Jesus summarizes

his teaching

in Matthew

Matthew 19:9

19,

verse 9.

And I

say to

you,

this is his

authoritative

pronouncement,

whoever

divorces his

wife except

for sexual

immorality

and marries

another commits

adultery.

This verse,

at first glance,

appears to

throw a wrench

into what Jesus

has been saying

all along about

the indissolubility

of marriage.

not only does

he seem to

say that

divorce is

allowed in

the case of

sexual immorality,

he also seems

to say that

remarriage is

allowed if

the divorce

was due to

sexual immorality.

Whoever

divorces his

wife and

marries another

commits adultery,

that's easy

enough to

understand,

but what's

hard to

understand is

the exception

clause,

except for

sexual immorality.

Because that

exception clause

sits between

whoever divorces

his wife and

marries another,

and because

it's the

remarriage that

constitutes

adultery,

many people

and most

interpreters

nowadays,

most evangelical

interpreters

nowadays,

take this to

mean that the

exception clause

must apply to

both the

divorce and

the remarriage.

Remarriage after

divorce is

adultery,

except if the

divorce was

finalized on

the grounds of

sexual immorality.

Then the

divorce is legal

and valid,

and therefore

subsequent marriage

is also legal

and valid.

that's the

majority view

of Protestant

scholars nowadays.

I would also

interpret verse

nine as they

do if this

were the

Bible's only

teaching on

divorce and

remarriage.

But it's

not.

First,

this flies in

the face,

this interpretation

of verse nine

flies in the face

of all the

passages that

we've looked at

so far.

Romans 7,

1-3,

1 Corinthians 7,

Mark 10,

11-12,

Luke 16,

18,

about how only

death dissolves

the marriage

covenant.

Second,

a good hermeneutical

interpreted principle

is that Scripture

interprets Scripture.

Even though the

Bible has many

human authors,

it also has a

single divine

author who is

above them and

in and through

them all.

Therefore,

Scripture is never

going to contradict

itself.

So then a good

practice when you're

interpreting God's

Word is to let

the clear passages

of Scripture

illuminate,

elucidate,

classify the

obscure and

difficult passages

of Scripture.

And this verse

nine,

Matthew 19,

nine,

is the most

difficult verse

when it comes to

ascertaining the

Bible's teaching

on divorce and

remarriage.

And good news

for us is that

there is a far

clearer verse,

not far away

from here,

right here in

the Gospel of

Matthew.

And it's

Matthew 5,

32.

Everyone who

divorces his

wife except on

the ground of

sexual immorality

makes her commit

adultery.

And whoever

marries a

divorced woman

commits adultery.

A man who

divorces his

wife makes her

commit adultery.

How is that so?

In a culture where

most women do

not work,

marriage and

child rearing are

their primary

vocation.

That's their

work.

In such a

culture, a

divorced woman

would usually

have no recourse

for survival

and would promptly

have to seek

remarriage.

For this reason,

if a man

divorces his

wife, he

would be guilty

of making her

commit adultery

since she has

to remarry.

And that

constitutes

adultery.

So then,

what does the

exception clause

mean in this

instance?

Except on the

ground of

sexual immorality.

If the man

divorced his

wife because

of her

sexual immorality,

then he is

not guilty of

making her

commit adultery.

Why is that?

It's obvious.

Because she

already committed

adultery.

You guys

following what

I'm saying?

Because of her

own sexual

immorality,

and that's why

she was divorced,

the husband then

is not guilty of

making her

commit adultery

by divorcing

her.

The exception

clause,

the purpose

of the exception

clause is to

exempt the

husband or the

wife, whoever is

doing the

divorcing, from

the guilt of

making their

spouse commit

adultery when

they had already

committed adultery.

Now, keep that

in mind because

that's very helpful

for making sense

of Matthew

19.

19.

This is my

take.

Matthew 19

is an

abbreviated

form of

Matthew 5.32.

In other

words, there's

an ellipsis

here, which

is an

omission from

a sentence

of words that

would otherwise

complete a

thought or

clarify a

construction.

And we

often employ

ellipsis in

common speech,

and I think

this is an

instance of

ellipsis.

In other

words, Matthew

19.9 is a

shorter, spliced

together version

of Matthew

5.32, and

it assumes

the context

of Matthew

5.32, since

Jesus has

already taught

on this issue

once before in

the same

gospel.

And so if

we were to

fill out the

missing ellipsis,

it would read

like this,

and I say

to you,

whoever

divorces his

wife, except

for sexual

immorality,

makes her

commit adultery,

and if he

marries another,

regardless of

whether he

divorced her for

that reason or

not,

commits adultery.

The exception

clause applies

only to the

divorce in

this construction,

and it's

there then once

again serving

the same

purpose as

Matthew 5.32,

to exempt the

husband or the

wife, whoever's

doing the

divorcing, from

the charge of

making their

spouse commit

adultery in

the event that

they divorced

him or her

because of

their sexual

immorality.

adultery.

So the

second half of

Matthew 19.9

actually

complements the

second half of

Matthew 5.32.

In Matthew 5.32,

it says that

whoever marries a

divorced woman

commits adultery.

Matthew 19.9

says that the

man who marries

another after

divorcing also

commits adultery.

So by putting

this picture

together, it's

saying that the

charge applies

equally to the

man who did

the divorcing and

to the woman who

was divorced.

Because this is a

minority view among

modern Protestant

scholars, initially

when I came to

this conclusion in

my exegesis,

studying this

passage for

several years, I

was very hesitant

and insecure about

my position, and

I started surveying

church history to

see what Christians,

faithful teachers of

God's word throughout

history have said, and

every single church

father, every single

one, has taught the

view that I'm

presenting here.

The earliest church

fathers from the

time of Jesus in

Western Christianity

for the first 1,600

years of Western

Christianity, this was

the majority view.

This was the only

view.

Let me give you some

examples.

This is from 80 A.D.

within the lifetime of

Jesus' own disciples.

From the shepherd of

Hermas, it says,

what then shall the

husband do?

If the wife continues in

this disposition of

adultery, let him

divorce her, and let the

husband remain single.

But if he divorces his

wife and marry another,

he too commits adultery.

Look at Clement of

Alexandria.

This is from A.D.

208.

That scripture counsels

marriage, however, and

never allows any release

from the union, is

expressly contained in the

law.

You shall not divorce a

wife except for reason

of immorality.

And regards as adultery

the marriage of a spouse

while the one from whom a

separation was made is still

alive.

Whoever takes a divorced

woman as wife commits

adultery, it says, for if

anyone divorces his wife, he

debauches her.

That is, he compels her to

commit adultery.

And not only does he that

divorce her become the cause

of this, but he that takes

the woman and gives her the

opportunity of sinning, for if

he did not take her, she

would return to her husband.

But, Augustine says the

same thing in several places

in his writing.

He says, neither can it

rightly be held that a

husband who dismisses his

wife because of fornication

and marries another does not

commit adultery.

For there is also adultery on

the part of those who, after

the repudiation of their

former wives because of

fornication, marry others.

Again and again and again.

And I find it very hard to

dismiss the consistent

testimony of the

church fathers.

Because they, it's, we can't

dismiss them saying like, oh,

these church fathers, they

didn't understand God's word

because they were so

ascetic.

They had these views against,