Transcript

Divorce: Complications Across the Board

Matthew 5:31-32
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Pastor Randy Smith

---

After bypassing this text, we are finally returning to the divorce passage found in Matthew chapter 5. In my opinion, there is no other text in the Sermon on the Mount that is more difficult to interpret or more controversial to preach.

The famous British preacher, John Stott, shares my sentiments: "I confess to a basic reluctance to attempt an exposition of these verses. This is partly because divorce is a controversial and complex subject, but even more because it is a subject which touches people's emotions at a deep level. There is almost no unhappiness so poignant as the unhappiness of an unhappy marriage, and almost no tragedy so great as the degeneration of what God meant for love and fulfillment into a non-relationship of bitterness, discord and despair."

He continues, "Although I believe that God's way in most cases is not divorce, I hope I shall write with sensitivity, for I know the pain for which many suffer, and I have no wish to add to their distress. Yet it is because I am convinced that the teaching of Jesus on this and every subject is good - intrinsically good, good for individuals, good for society - that I take my courage in both hands and write on" (The Sermon on the Mount, p. 92).

I too approach this text with caution and humility. So before we proceed with our exposition, I begin with seven caveats.

Number one: This message is the result of months of study and contemplation all packed into one sermon. It is more technical than normal. You will feel as if you are drinking out a fire hose! I concede that more time and thought on this sermon will be necessary if you wish to gain its full impact.

Number two: No matter where I stand on this passage, I am prepared for my conclusions to be met with disagreement. The passage is so complex and the emotions are so heated that even after a careful study of the text, there are people who fall into different camps.

Some believe there is never any biblical justification for divorce or remarriage. Some believe there is limited biblical justification for divorce but none for remarriage. Some believe there is limited biblical justification for divorce and limited biblical justification for remarriage. And some believe that divorce and remarriage may occur for any reason whatsoever (this position is most unorthodox). In a desire to show you my "playing cards" upfront, I find myself in camp number three. I believe the Bible provides limited grounds for divorce and limited grounds for remarriage.

Number three: With my position stated, I want you to be aware that my general conclusions are in line with almost all in the mainline evangelical community. I have consulted the best Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew. Every conservative scholar, men to the likes of John Brodus, John Stott, William Hendrickson, Michael Green, D.A. Carson, R.C.H Lenski, A.W. Pink, Leon Morris, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, R.T. France and John MacArthur affirm my position. Furthermore the Westminster Catechism (chapter 24, section 5) and the top two books written solely on the topic of divorce by John Murray and Jay Adams are also in agreement.

Number four: My position on divorce has not changed over the years. Generally speaking, what I believed as a new Christian is still what I believe today. It is in line with my former church and the position of this church when I candidated to be your pastor.

Number five: There is no way that all of your questions regarding divorce and remarriage will be answered in this sermon. Each situation is unique, and each situation must be carefully handled case-by-case. This will not be an exhaustive presentation on the subject. My interest this morning is only to unfold the material found in Matthew 5, verses 31-32. In other words, you may walk away with more questions than answers.

Number six: The overall focus of this Matthew 5 passage is not on divorce, but marriage. In Malachi 2 we read, "'For I hate divorce,' says the LORD, the God of Israel." Divorce is not the Lord's will. Divorce shatters the primary intention for marriage which is to display the unbreakable union between Jesus Christ and His church (Eph. 5:32). Divorce brings immeasurable consequences to all within the family. It is an "unclean pain" (as John Piper calls it) that oftentimes continues. With this in mind, God wants marriages to last until "death do us part." First Corinthians 7, "But to the married I give instructions…that the wife should not leave her husband…and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (1 Cor. 7:10-11).

Number seven: Regardless of the sin, our Lord forgives. Those divorced and repentant are invited to come to their compassionate God for healing and restoration. We must be kindhearted and accepting of divorcees, but still teach on the subject as painful as that may be to some, in order to understand the intended permanence of our marriage vows and prevent additional divorces from occurring in the future.

So with an understanding of those caveats, I humbly begin our instruction of Matthew 5.

1. THE SAYING OF OLD

The first point: "The Saying of Old."

By way of reminder, I believe Jesus is accomplishing two intentions in this section of the Sermon on the Mount. One, He is correcting the misguided interpretations of the Pharisees, the religious leaders of His day. And second, He is demonstrating Himself to be the new lawgiver, the second Moses, to take God's revelation to its highest and fullest understanding. I believe Jesus is doing both of these as He states a present belief in verse 31 and then follows it with His verdict in verse 32. Here is the present belief as stated by Jesus in verse 31: "It was said, 'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce'"

First the misguided interpretations. There is no doubt that there was a lot of poor teaching and confusion in this area when Jesus came on the scene. Basically there were two rabbinical schools of understanding. Those in the camp of Shammai took a very rigorous line pertaining to divorce. They taught that divorce was always unacceptable except in the cases of unchastity. On the contrary, the other camp of Hillel was very lenient. They taught that divorce was permissible for any case whatsoever. Your wife burns the toast, you do a little paper work and the marriage is over. This latter position won the day. The people were confused.

A great example is found in Matthew 19 when Jesus was asked to weigh in on this specific controversy. "Is it lawful," asked the Pharisees, "For a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" (Mt. 19:3). Our Lord responded by taking them back to God's original design at creation. He responded that marriage is to be permanent. "'Have you not read," said Jesus, "That He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined 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 no man separate.' They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?' [we'll come back to this in a moment] He said to them, 'Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, [His divine declaration] whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery'" (Mt. 19:4-9).

This brings us to our Lord's second intention in the Sermon on the Mount. I cannot deny that the Old Testament through Moses seems to give extended permission for divorce. But as Jesus affirms, those times were for a season, and those times are no longer permitted.

In Matthew 5:31, Jesus quotes this particular passage from Moses found in Deuteronomy 24. Let's take a moment and examine that passage and see how the Pharisees abused its teaching and how Jesus changes the permission for divorce.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4, "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD."

Three observations:

One, this passage is not commanding or encouraging divorce. Moses is only permitting divorce in some cases with reluctance due to the hardness of the people's hearts. Not exactly a thing for us to get excited about. This was a divine concession given before Christ to a human weakness.

Two, divorce was permitted back then if the husband "found some indecency in [his wife]." Discovering the "some indecency" is the million-dollar question. Many have sought to harmonize this with the New Testament and claim the indecency was adultery. That cannot be the case. Adultery back then did not result in divorce. Adultery back then resulted in capital punishment! (Lev. 20:10; Dt. 22:22-24). The Hebrew word for "indecency" (ervah) is an extremely rare word in the Old Testament. The only place I found it used was Deuteronomy in reference for human excrement (Dt. 23:14). I believe this indecency was something that brought great shame upon the husband and not the trivial offenses that were used by many during the days of Jesus.

Three, the thrust of this passage is not divorce, but remarriage. The goal of this passage was not to get easy divorces, but to teach men that if they divorce and remarry, returning to the first wife was forbidden. The purpose was for guys to think long and hard before they make a foolish mistake that they may one day regret. And the purpose was also for ladies to be protected from exploitation and slander. The Pharisees used the passage to provide for divorce. God's thrust in this passage was to prevent divorce!

2. THE SAYING OF CHRIST

Let's move to the second point. From the saying of old to the saying of Christ. In contrast to earlier revelation, in contrast to the false teaching of the day, Jesus emphatically states the divine verdict on the situation. Having established the dilemma, our Lord says in verse 32, "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Let's break down this very controversial and complicated verse.

First of all, divorce is wrong. In today's day and age people are divorcing for every reason under the sun. According to our Lord's teaching, these modern excuses of incompatibility and irreconcilable differences and emotional strain are not acceptable reasons for divorce. When we are married, we take vows before the Lord. We are made "one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). We are not to separate what He has joined together (Mt. 19:6). And as I said, marriage is an illustration between Christ's union with His spouse, us - the church (Eph. 5:32). Could we ever imagine Christ leaving His church or His church leaving Christ? Therefore we should never dream of leaving our spouse either!

Before I get beyond the scope of this message, I will just stay within the context of Matthew 5. Remember, in the Sermon on the Mount are the expectations for the citizens within Christ's kingdom. If He is truly our Lord and King, these are the things we will do in glad submission to His authority.

Also, this teaching on divorce comes directly on the heels of the Beatitudes (Mt. 5:1-12). Christ's citizens are to be identified as poor in spirit and contrite over their sin and gentle and hungering for righteousness and merciful and pure in heart. How can I possess these traits and then throw my wife out on the streets? How can a wife truly seek to be a peacemaker and want the easy way out in calling for a split?

Second observation: The Lord does appear in this verse (also in Mt. 19:9) to give permission for divorce in one particular case and that is what He refers to here as "unchastity" (NIV - "marital unfaithfulness"). People have identified this as the "exception clause." I do believe as does our church, that divorce may be sought, though it is not encouraged, in the cases of adultery.

First the opposition to that stance from those who believe there are no exceptions and then the justification. Unfortunately, due to time, I will only be brief.

Since this "exception clause" is only found in Matthew's Gospel, some believe there is a textual error. But a careful study reveals these words are authentic and indisputable since they are not omitted in an ancient manuscripts.

So why is this exception clause in Matthew and not in Luke or Mark? Nobody knows for sure. Possibly it was something taken for granted. You violate the "one-flesh" principle for marriage and the union is severed. Possibly it is because Matthew was the Gospel written to the Jews, and the Jews as we have seen needed further explanation on this issue. They were seeking divorce for any reason. As a matter of fact, their religious writings at this time (when capital punishment was abolished for adultery) taught that a man was not permitted but required to divorce his wife (see Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 121, fn. 122.). So in addressing the Jews, Jesus was not loosening the standards for marriage. He was actually tightening them! That is why the disciples were shocked when He spoke these words to them in Matthew 19. They said, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry" (Mt. 19:10). Bottom line: Jesus was not contradicting the rest of Scripture here in Matthew. He was only amplifying it.

Another objection: The Greek word used by Jesus here for "unchastity" is porneia and not moicheia. It is argued that if Jesus were speaking of adultery, He would have used the common word for adultery which is moicheia. Why would Jesus use the word porneia (where we get our English word "pornography") which speaks of sexual sin in a more general way?

This is one of the dangers of word studies when we intend to place wooden restrains on the language not intended by the original author. This word (porneia) is used in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) to refer to the spiritual adultery of Israel. I also believe Jesus chose this word (porneia) because He wanted to cover any illicit form of sexual intercourse (homosexuality, bestiality, incest, adultery) that would violate a marriage covenant. Furthermore, our interpretation must always be interpreted primarily within the context. And what are the previous verses teaching? Verse 27, "You shall not commit adultery." Verse 28, "[He] has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Also, the focus in verses 31 and 32 is marriage and divorce. The most natural meaning in this context is adultery.

Third objection: Jesus was not speaking about marriage in Matthew but rather the Jewish betrothal period. This was the time when a couple was engaged (like Mary and Joseph) and back then that engagement held almost the same force as marriage.

Again, I struggle with this interpretation. The context is marriage! The background of Deuteronomy 24 deals not with a broken betrothal, but a broken marriage. When the exception clause is mentioned in Matthew 19, the debate with the Pharisees was not over betrothal but marriage. And Jesus' answer in Matthew 19 took them not to the betrothal period but to the marriage period when He quoted Genesis 2 (Mt. 19:4-5).

So I believe we need to take our Lord's words at face value. Adultery severs the marriage bond, and the offended party is not encouraged to divorce, but is permitted to divorce if led in that direction. Regardless, forgiveness is always necessary and restoration of the marriage is always preferable. I agree with Jay Adams, "All divorces, in one way or another are caused by sin; but not all divorces are sinful" (Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, p. 30).

One more comment before we move on. I lean to believe that divorce for adultery replaced death for adultery. Did adultery server the marriage bond in the Old Testament? Absolutely! The guilty party was killed and death always severs the marital bond (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39). Maybe this exception clause is a token of God's mercy? Maybe that is why Jesus did not permit the adulteress in John 8 to be stoned to death? (Jn. 8:7). Maybe that is why God divorced Israel rather than putting the nation to death? (Jer. 3:8). Maybe that is why Joseph was prepared to divorce Mary secretly rather than stone her for her presumed sin? (Mt. 1:19). I believe nobody in our Lord's original audience would have questioned marital unfaithfulness as an inappropriate ground for divorce.

Finally, let's deal with the remainder of verse 32 that pertains to remarriage. "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Now is when it really gets tricky! I believe a biblical divorce permits remarriage. But what happens when one had an unbiblical divorce?

Here is the traditional evangelical church position: If a divorce happens whereby the spouse was cheated against, that person may be remarried to someone in the Lord. Oftentimes it is added that this only applies to a believer when such a person knowingly sins against their Lord. Many pastors will remarry individuals if they know their divorce, though unbiblical, happened before the individual came to Christ and thus did not have a regenerated heart.

The opposition from both sides would invoke these arguments:

What do you mean, "What we do before becoming Christians doesn't matter?" Since salvation changes our heart, we should now, more than ever, want to do the right thing! When the tax collector Zaccheus was converted, he didn't write-off his pre-Christian exploitations; he wanted to pay it all back, four-fold! Also Matthew 5:32 seems to indicate, that though divorced, we are still married "in the eyes of God" to our original spouse. Some go so far to say that the only way to break this sin of "ongoing adultery" and demonstrate true repentance is to either "divorce" and return to our first spouse or pursue a celibate life with the second spouse.

On the other side:

You mean to tell me that God doesn't give people a second chance? Paul can murder Christians and become arguably the greatest apostle, but a girl is never permitted to remarry because of her mistake in Vegas at the age of 19? They argue that divorce, though sinful, does indeed end a marriage. If God calls divorced people "divorced" (agamos), why do we use extrabiblical and unbiblical terminology to claim they are still married "in the eyes of God?" Also, Matthew 5:32 states that a man who unbiblically divorces his wife "makes her commit adultery." Why is she guilty? Why is she immediately classified as an adulteress? Maybe Jesus had something else in mind that many interpreters overlook regarding the woman's reputation?

Hey, we are out of time!

I know I have given you a lot to think about, but let me be clear. Divorce is not according to the plan of God. It is ugly. This church will do all we can (including church discipline) to prevent divorce and promote healthy marriages. We will pursue the reconciliation of couples during marital disharmony, and we will encourage biblical repentance in the cases of unbiblical divorce. Marriage is to last until "death do us part." Unmarried people - think long and hard before you jump into a union one day you may regret! Marriage is for life!

We must primarily remember today that God is about us having happy and healthy marriages that successfully illustrate His glorious and covenanted union with His bride, the church. Marriage should not be discussed with words like divorce, but rather words like love and joy. May God bless our marriages in that direction.