Please open your Bibles with me to Matthew chapter 19.
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,
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.
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,
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
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
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.
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,
and they didn't like marriage.
They liked celibacy.
And so, they, you can't trust
them to preach effectively on
these issues.
That's not the case.
Hermes was, Hermes was
married.
Clement speaks very positively
and highly of marriage.
And yet, they held a view that
is so contradictory to anything
else that they have ever seen
in Jewish society and in
Greco-Roman society.
Why did they hold such crazy
views?
They came up with it all of
their own accord.
For the first 1600 years of
Western Christianity, I don't
think so.
I think they held that
counter-cultural view because
Jesus taught it.
But why is it sexual immorality
that provides the only grounds
for divorce in this case?
1 Corinthians 6, 15 to 18
shed some light on that.
Do you know, do you not know
that your bodies are members
of Christ?
Shall I then take the members
of Christ and make them members
of a prostitute?
Never.
Or do you not know that he
who is joined to a prostitute
becomes one body with her?
For as it is written, the two
will become one flesh.
But he who is joined to the
Lord becomes one spirit with
him.
Flee from sexual immorality.
Every other sin a person
commits is outside the body,
but the sexually immoral
person sins against his own
body.
Paul here makes the distinction
between sexual immorality and
every other sin.
He says only sexual immorality
is a sin against your own body.
And that's a curious thing
because there are other things
that negatively affect our
bodies like gluttony and
drunkenness and self-injury
and cutting and drug abuse.
These are also against our own
body, are they not?
And yet, in Paul's sense, no,
they are not against the body
in the same way that sexual
immorality is because every
other sin a person commits is
outside the body.
sexual immorality does violence
to your spiritual union,
your union with Christ himself.
You've been united to Christ
through faith and now you are
going to unite him by becoming
one flesh with a prostitute.
With a prostitute, it's an
unthinkable thing, Paul is saying.
Because of the one flesh union
between husband and wife,
sexual immorality does violence
to that commitment and covenant
in a way that no other sin does,
which is why it is the only
grounds for divorce that Jesus
specifies.
However, I still don't think
that this means that if you
divorce because of your spouse's
sexual immorality that you may
divorce them and remarry.
Even though it serves somewhat
as a grounds for divorce,
Jesus never commands divorce,
even when you are hurt by
sexual immorality of your spouse.
And I can think of two
pragmatic reasons,
practical reasons why you
don't want to do that.
Because one, if you remarry,
it forecloses the possibility
of reconciliation, which we
were told in 1 Corinthians 7
is a goal when you are
divorced from your spouse.
Once you remarry, you can't go
back to your first spouse.
Secondly, in a strange way,
saying that you can
remarry someone after divorce
only if there is sexual
immorality involved almost
incentivizes sexual immorality.
Because if you think about it,
there's people who hold the view
that you may divorce and
remarry in the case of
sexual immorality often argue
that only the innocent party
may remarry.
But it's hard to make that case
because if, in their view,
it's the sex itself,
the sexual immorality itself
that dissolves the marriage
covenant,
then both the guilty and
the innocent party are freed
from that marriage bond.
Are they not?
If the sexual immorality is
what dissolves the marriage
bond, so then you can't
rightly hold that only the
innocent party may remarry.
Both the innocent party and
the guilty party should be
free to remarry,
because their first covenant
is dissolved.
And yet, that's not what
God's word says.
And if that's the case,
then an innocent party,
someone, a woman who was
divorced for no good reason
at all, may not remarry,
but a woman who was
divorced because of adultery
may remarry.
In Luke 16, 18, let's look
at it.
It said, everyone who
divorces his wife and
marries another commits
adultery.
And he who marries a woman
divorced from her husband
commits adultery.
The first half of the verse
already has in view a man
who divorces his wife and
marries someone else.
The second half has in view
the man who marries the woman
who was divorced from that
first man.
And if the first clause has in
view a man who has already
divorced and married another
and has therefore committed
adultery against his original
wife, then doesn't that wife
now have valid biblical grounds
to remarry?
Shouldn't she then be permitted
legally to remarry?
But Jesus simply says, he who
marries a woman divorced from
her husband commits adultery.
He does not say, he who marries a
woman divorced from her husband
before he remarries commits adultery.
So how do you apply this?
There's so many ways this cuts into
our culture.
If you're living with someone,
you're cohabiting with someone
and you're not married,
make it official.
Marry the person.
Make the covenant that's meant to
safeguard the precious gift of that
sexual intimacy.
If you are single, you're not
married, but you're fornicating,
you're having premarital sex.
Confess that sin to others.
Get as much help as you can.
Because that sacred gift should
not, you should not defraud your
partner of that precious gift.
You should not take it from them
before you have made the covenant
and the promise to safeguard them
and to steward it.
And if you're a married man,
follow what 1 Timothy 3 says.
In order to be an elder in a church,
you have to be a one-woman man.
1 Timothy 5 says that if you are going
to be a widow, an elderly widow,
who deserves to be supported financially
fully by the church,
then that widow must meet certain
qualifications.
And one of them is that she must have
been, during her time of marriage,
a one-man woman.
That's the ideal, the Christian ideal,
to be a one-woman man
or a one-man woman.
If you're married,
have eyes for one woman only.
Have hearts for one woman only.
Have bodies for one woman only.
That's the teaching of God's word.
And when Jesus says this,
my goodness, guys, I'm so sorry.
I should have been done 15 minutes ago.
I'll try to wrap it up.
He says in Matthew 19,
looking at verse 10,
if you think that's an impossibly
high standard,
I think you're also understanding
that correctly.
Because look at what the disciples
say in verse 10.
If such is the case of a man
with his wife,
it is better not to marry.
They're throwing up their hands
in the air and saying,
it's better not to marry.
What is this?
It's like,
you should have just picked one,
Shammai or Hillel.
Like, what is this?
He said to them,
not everyone can receive this saying,
but only those to whom it is given.
So, there's controversy around this too.
What is this saying that Jesus is talking about?
Is he talking about what the disciples just said,
it is better not to marry?
Or is he talking about what he said earlier on
about divorce and remarriage?
Now, I think he's referring to what he said,
what Jesus said earlier on.
Why do I think that?
Because, as I mentioned to you earlier,
the word saying is a key word
in the Gospel of Matthew.
It refers again and again
to Jesus' sayings.
Matthew is organized around the sayings of Jesus.
And earlier in verse 1,
he said,
now when Jesus had finished these sayings.
And not only that,
in verse 9,
he officially and formally declared his saying.
Saying,
and I say to you,
which is a verbal form of the word saying,
whoever divorces his wife
except for sexual immorality
and marries another commits adultery.
And throughout the Gospel of Matthew,
Jesus doesn't give this kind of weight
to the things that the disciples say
in their bumbling failure to understand.
Oh, it's better not to marry.
And Jesus is not saying,
oh, that saying,
you know,
no one can receive that
unless God helps them.
That's not what he's saying.
He's talking about what he said
in the preceding verses.
If you really follow what Jesus is saying,
and that's really the standard,
the high standard for marriage,
and if your wife cheats on you,
and then you divorce her,
and you cannot get married,
you could never have sex again.
What, Jesus?
Better not to marry.
And Jesus understands exactly what they're saying
because he then starts talking about eunuchs.
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth,
they can't help it.
They were born that way,
genetic defect.
And there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men,
people who are castrated to serve on royal courts or whatnot
so that they don't impregnate the royal wives or whatever.
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.
Does that remind you of something?
Let the one who is able to receive this,
receive it.
He was saying stuff like that in chapter 13
when he was talking about the parables of the kingdom.
And here he mentions kingdom of heaven again
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 13, verse 9,
and he who has ears let him hear.
Matthew 13, 11,
and he answered them,
to you it has been given
to know the secrets of the kingdom,
but to them it has not been given.
Chapter 13, verse 20,
as for what was sown on rocky ground,
this is the one who hears the word immediately
and receives it with joy.
Who are the people who can receive this saying?
They're the ones to whom God reveals it.
They're the chosen people of God.
And these bumbling disciples don't get it fully now
like they didn't get the previous parables
that Jesus taught, but they will
because they are one of his people.
Even when you don't get to use
the natural function of your body
in sexual intercourse
because you were unfairly divorced
by the infidelity of your own spouse,
God says you do it to honor God.
You do it out of fear of the Lord.
You do it to honor the sanctity of marriage.
And it's like, almost like castrating yourself
as a eunuch for the kingdom,
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
And that gives hope to unmarried singles as well.
You can't rightly practice that desire
for intimacy and sexual intercourse
until you get married.
You're like a eunuch in that sense.
You burn with passion.
You long for it.
You're lonely.
You want that companionship and physical intimacy.
And yet, to hold out and to wait and say,
I will safeguard and protect the covenant of marriage.
I will save myself for marriage.
I will be a eunuch
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
To people like that,
it's this promise that God had given
in Isaiah 56 is true.
And let not the eunuch say,
behold, I am a dry tree.
For thus says the Lord to the eunuchs
who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose the things that please me
and hold fast my covenant.
I will give in my house and within my walls
a monument and a name
better than sons and daughters.
I will give them an everlasting name
that shall not be cut off.
Isn't this what we saw in our call to worship
from Isaiah chapter 54
and our assurance of pardon in Ephesians 5?
God says,
your maker is your husband to his people.
That's God's plan from the beginning.
And this is why,
even though in the Old Testament
the standard was based on Genesis,
it is not good for a man to be alone.
In the New Testament times,
singleness is elevated
and they say that it is better
if you can remain single
to remain single
so that you are not anxious
about pleasing other people.
Rather, you could have a singular,
undivided devotion to God.
That's what Paul says
in 1 Corinthians 7.
Why did the standards change?
Because Jesus has come
right down in the middle
and he has fulfilled
what marriage was intended to point to
from the very beginning.
And marriage is meant to be
a picture of the Christ
and the church.
Haven't we sinned?
And this is the greatest
and most important reason
why God holds marriage
in such high esteem.
Haven't we all sinned against him?
Haven't we all whored after idols?
That's what God says.
We have whored after idols.
Isn't that why he tells Hosea,
his prophet,
to take for himself
a wife of whoredom?
And what do you expect
a wife of whoredom to do?
He loved her.
He had children with her.
And then she prostitutes herself
with other men.
She sells herself
into slavery to pimps.
And then God tells Hosea
in chapter 3,
Go!
Go again!
Love a woman
who is loved by another man
and is an adulteress,
even as the Lord loves
the children of Israel,
though they turn to other gods.
Can you imagine
the betrayal and the pain?
The person that you loved
more than anyone else,
the person you gave everything to,
you exposed everything to,
that you gave your very self to,
to go to another man.
That's what we've done to God.
And did God
summerly dismiss us?
No.
He came to reclaim
his bride.
Hosea buys back his wife,
redeems her according to
the command of the Lord.
That's what God has done
in sending his own son
to come and redeem
the bride for himself,
to reclaim his bride
chosen from before
the foundation of the world,
to say,
you are mine,
and just cleanse her
and sanctify her
with his own blood
by dying on the cross
for our sins.
That means
no Christian can say
I am unwanted.
No Christian can say
I am not loved.
No Christian can say
no one understands.
I'm lonely.
There's no one besides me.
I'm a eunuch.
I'm a dry tree.
No, you're not.
You are loved
more than you will ever know.
You have been pursued.
Our Lord Jesus Christ,
he left his father's house
to hold fast,
to cleave,
to stick to,
to be welded to his wife.
And that is you,
the bride of Christ.
And if that's the picture
God wants to show
the watching world,
yeah,
I'll gladly hold up
that impossibly high
standard of marriage.
If people can see
my suffering,
my hard life,
and they can see,
oh,
I see how much
Jesus loves his bride.
That's the point.
God,
please help us
to obey this command.
Help us to honor
marriage
so that in so doing
we can hold up
the gospel of Jesus Christ
for all the world to see.
For they are so confused
and lost,
Lord,
reveal to them
the love of Christ.
In Jesus' name,
we pray.
Amen.