Matthew 19:1 - 12
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Questions:
ReplyDelete- Why did Moses permit divorce?
- There is no other justification for divorce?
- Who should remain single?
http://ecclesia.org/truth/divorce.html says:
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the practice of divorces was at this early period very prevalent amongst the Israelites, who had in all probability become familiar with it in Egypt. The usage, being too deep-rooted to be soon or easily abolished, was tolerated by Moses (Matthew 19:8). But it was accompanied under the law with two conditions, which were calculated greatly to prevent the evils incident to the permitted system; namely: (1) The act of divorcement was to be certified on a written document, the preparation of which, with legal formality, would afford time for reflection and repentance; and (2) In the event of the divorced wife being married to another husband, she could not, on the termination of that second marriage, be restored to her first husband, however desirous he might be to receive her.
Why did Moses permit divorce? Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands. Moses tolerated a relaxation of the strictness of the marriage bond--not as approving of it, but to prevent still greater evils.
Moses did not direct it, or suffer it, in any such sense as to imply that God approved of it, or that it was right. It was a temporary regulation, suffered for a time on account of the wickedness of men, and in order to prevent the greater evils which that wickedness would otherwise have occasioned.
In cultures around Israel at this time, women sometimes were considered little more than property to be bartered or traded or retained according to the pleasure of men. In Israel, however, a man was not free to send away his wife and bring her back at his whim. The "bill of divorcement" gave her protection from such abuses.
It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command. This putting away "for every cause" (Matthew 19:3 - derived from Deuteronomy 24:1) of one's wife was a violation of the will of God. The practices may still be a violation of what has been the will of God from the beginning, and obedience to Him may require them to be done away.
Jesus said only in the case of "fornication" is divorce allowed. Most people assume Jesus meant "adultery," but this is not so. To understand this statement, we need to see exactly what the Old Covenant legislation was regarding illicit intercourse.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/divorce.html continued:
ReplyDeleteWere only the Jews, whom Matthew addressed, permitted this liberty? The answer lies in the peculiar way in which the Jews contracted marriage.
When our Lord is recorded in Matthew 5:32; 19:9 as saying, "porneia" which is the Greek word for 'fornication', He is referring to fornication within the Jewish betrothal period.
Fornication: This word is used in Scripture not only for the sin of impurity between unmarried persons, but for idolatry, and for all kinds of infidelity to God.
Adultery: Is a criminal connection between persons who are engaged, one or both, to keep themselves wholly to others; and thus it exceeds the guilt of fornication, which is the same intercourse between unmarried persons. Illicit intercourse between a married man and a woman who was not married, nor betrothed, constituted not adultery, but fornication.
In the environment in which Jesus worked and in which the Gospels were written, a very careful distinction was drawn between what was fornication and what was adultery. In short, if any man (married or unmarried) has sex with an unmarried woman, it is fornication; and if any man (married or unmarried) has sex with a married woman, it was adultery.
Furthermore, to interpret Jesus, in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9, as giving grounds for divorce in the case of "adultery" contradicts Christ's teaching in Mark 10:1-12 & Luke 16:18, where divorce is never an option. It would also contradict the teaching of Paul who claims to be giving Christ's own command for "no divorce", and does not mention any exceptions, especially for "adultery" (1 Corinthians 7:10-11; 39)!
The reason Mark and Luke do not mention the exceptive clause is they were addressing a predominately gentile audience while Matthew was addressing a Jewish one. Certainly, the only time a "wife" could possibly commit "fornication" (as Matthew 5:32 and 19:8 state) would be during the betrothal period! Why? Because before the betrothal period, she would not be a "wife" yet, but she would be a single woman. And after the betrothal period, she would be married, and therefore, she would be committing adultery if she cheated on her husband, and it would not be called fornication.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/4.html says about divorce:
ReplyDeleteNo one knows how divorce began. The Biblical record shows that, unlike marriage, divorce was not instituted by God. There is no indication in the Bible suggesting that God introduced and institutionalized divorce after the Fall as part of His order for human society. Divorce is "man-made," not divinely ordained. It represents human rejection of God’s original plan for the indissolubility of the marriage bond.
In His comments on divorce, Jesus explained that divorce represents a change in God’s order because "from the beginning it was not so" (Matt 19:8). He further observed that it was because of the "hardness" of human heart that Moses "allowed" divorce (Matt 19:8). To allow a practice is not the same as instituting it. When divorce first appears in the Bible, the practice was already in existence. What God did through Moses was to regulate divorce in order to prevent its abuse. This does not mean that God winked at divorce. Rather, it means that God acknowledged its existence and regulated it to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse.
The fact that God did not lay down a specific law in the Pentateuch prohibiting divorce reveals His realistic approach to human failure. It shows God’s willingness to work redemptively on behalf of those who fail to live up to His ideal for them.
In the pre-Mosaic period, divorce was common among the heathen nations. A man could divorce his spouse for any reason simply by telling her before witnesses, "You are no longer my wife." The divorced wife would have no recourse but to leave her home with only the few belongings she could carry on her back. This explains why women wore all their rings, jewelry, and coins on their bodies, since these provided a financial resource in the case of divorce.
The practice of easy divorce became common among the Hebrews, encouraged by the absence of regulations restricting it. "Men were divorcing their wives for a ‘weekend fling’ and then taking them back again when the dirty laundry had piled up and the house needed cleaning."3 It was this situation that occasioned the legislation found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The chief concern of the law is to discourage hasty divorce by preventing remarriage after divorce. The law contains three elements: (1) the grounds for divorce (Deut 24:1a), (2) the process of divorce (Deut 24:1b), and (3) the result of divorce (Deut 24:2-4).
The Grounds for Divorce. "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce . . ." (Deut 24:1a). Note that the law does not prescribe or encourage divorce. It simply assumes the course of action a husband would take if he found "some indecency in her."
The precise meaning of the phrase "some indecency" (literally, "the nakedness of a thing") is uncertain. Rabbinical interpretation of this phrase was sharply divided.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/4.html continued:
ReplyDeleteThe Process of Divorce. The procedure required of a man intending to divorce his wife was for him to write out a bill of divorce and give it to her: Thus I do set free, release thee, and put thee aside, in order that thou may have permission and the authority over thyself and to go and marry any man that thou may desire. No person may hinder thee from this day onward, and thou art permitted to every man. This shall be for thee from me a bill of dismissal, a letter of release, and a document of freedom, in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel.
The bill of divorce served several purposes. It deterred a hasty action on the part of the husband by restraining frivolous and rash dismissal. It testified to the woman’s freedom from marital obligations from the husband who sent her away. It protected the woman’s reputation, particularly if she married another man.
The process of divorce that Moses required was not a license to repudiate the wife at will, but rather "a stringent requisition that whoever did so should secure his wife from injury by certifying that she was not chargeable with unchaste conduct, but divorced upon some minor pretext.
It is important to note that Moses did not require a man to divorce his wife if he found "some indecency" in her. He simply permitted it due to the hardness of the Israelites’ hearts (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5) who had rejected God’s original plan for marriage (Mark 10:9; Gen 2:24). What Moses required was that a divorce document be written to discourage hasty divorces and to mitigate the hardship of divorce. Even when the divorce document was given, the way for reconciliation was still open as long as the woman did not form a second marriage.
The Result of Divorce. The primary purpose of the divorce procedure was to close the way forever for the man to remarry his former wife once she had remarried.
The reason is that if a husband could easily remarry the same woman, divorce would become a "legal" form of committing adultery.
Conclusion. Divorce was not instituted by Moses, nor was it approved as an intrinsic right of the husband. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 indicates that Moses sought to curb the evil of divorce by requiring the husband to give a bill of divorcement to his wife to protect her after her marriage to another man. The Mosaic concession does not alter God’s original plan for marriage to be a sacred, permanent covenant. It simply provides protection for the divorced wife when sinful hearts violate God’s original plan for marriage.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/4.html continued:
ReplyDelete2. The Teaching of Malachi
Many of the Jews who returned from the Babylonian exile married unbelieving heathen women living in the land of Judah. Such marriages were strictly forbidden by the Mosaic law because they would inevitably lead to the worship of heathen gods (Deut 7:1-4; Judg 3:5-6; 1 Kings 11:1-8). The problem was met head-on first by Ezra (Ezra 10:2-3) and then by Nehemiah (Neh 13:23-24) during their tenure as governors. They ordered the offenders to separate from their foreign wives (Ezra 10:10-11; Neh 13:30).
Malachi exposes not only the sin of hypocrisy (Mal 2:17), neglect of tithes (Mal 3:7-9) and mixed marriages (Mal 2:10-12), but also the sin of divorce: "And this again you do. You cover the Lord’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand. You ask, ‘Why does he not?’ Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. ‘For I hate divorce,’ says the Lord the God of Israel and covering one’s garment with violence, says the Lord of host. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless’" (Mal 2:13-16).
Here Malachi informs us that God sees marriage as a sacred covenant binding two persons in a permanent relationship before God (Gen 31:50; Prov 2:17). Since "the Lord was witness to the [marriage] covenant," breaking it by divorcing one’s wife meant to be faithless not only to one’s spouse but also to God.
In other words, God intended that marriage be the covenant union of one man to one woman in order for them to raise up godly offspring. Divorce, then, threatens not only the institution of marriage but also the security needed to raise a godly family.
It is noteworthy that God hates divorce and not the divorcèe. As Christians, we should reflect Christ’s caring and compassionate attitude toward those who have experienced the trauma of divorce. Christ dealt graciously with the Samaritan woman who had been married five times (John 4:6-26).
Those Jews who had divorced their wives had acted treacherously, spreading over them a garment of violence rather than of protection. Malachi closes by repeating his plea for faithfulness to the marriage covenant: "So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless" (Mal 2:16). Three times in four verses (13-16), Malachi speaks of the sin of divorce as faithlessness or, as rendered by the NASV, "treachery."
Conclusion. Malachi strongly emphasizes that divorce violates not only God’s original plan for marriage but also the sacred marriage covenant to which the Lord Himself is a witness. Divorce is a grievous sin which God hates because it represents a betrayal of life’s most intimate companion, a betrayal profoundly affecting the well-being of the family and community.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/4.html continued:
ReplyDeleteIt is remarkable to see how the same Biblical text (Deut 24:1) was interpreted in two radically different ways. The Pharisees wanted to force Christ to choose between the two schools so that they could use His answer to accuse Him either of laxity or narrow rigorism. Jesus, however, chose not to take sides. Instead, He answered by calling attention to God’s original plan for marriage.
Christ’s answer is characteristic. He immediately calls attention to God’s original plan for marriage, almost chiding them for failing to realize that divorce is totally alien to such a plan. God’s original plan consists of a man and a woman being united in a marriage bond so strong that the two actually become one flesh (Gen 2:26; Matt 19:6; Mark 10:8). The "one flesh" unity of the couple is reflected especially in their offspring who partake of the genetic characteristics of father and mother, and the two are absolutely inseparable. Jesus affirms that it is God Himself who actually joins together a couple in marriage and what God has joined together no human being has the right to separate.
Moses’ Permission. It is significant that Christ answered the Pharisees’ question as to whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife by affirming the permanence of the God-ordained marriage union. Such an answer, however, provoked another question on the part of the Pharisees: "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" (Matt 19:7). By this question the Pharisees apparently intended to challenge the position Christ had just enunciated by assuming that Moses did command divorce. The argument of the Pharisees could be paraphrased as follows: if according to its original institution, marriage is a permanent union that cannot be dissolved by human authority, why then did Moses command divorce? Is not Your teaching contradicted by Moses’ commandment?
Christ’s answer is of fundamental importance because it clarifies the whole question of the Old Testament Mosaic provision. "He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’" (Matt 19:8; cf. Mark 10:5-6).
Two features of Christ’s reply should be noticed. First, the phrase "for the hardness of your hearts" implies that the Mosaic permission was occasioned by the insubordination and stubbornness of the Israelites. The latter did not invalidate the original institution of marriage as a permanent union. The bill of divorce was intended to regulate a perverse situation and not to abrogate the divine institution of marriage.
A second significant element of Jesus’ reply is the distinction between the verb He used to describe Moses’ provision and the verb used by the Pharisees. Jesus said that Moses "allowed" divorce while the Pharisees said that Moses "commanded" divorce.8 The verb Jesus used implies sufferance or tolerance of divorce but not a sanction of its practice. In the Mosaic economy, divorce was permitted because of the hardheartedness of the Israelites, but from the beginning there was no such permission. This means that the Mosaic permission was a departure from the creation ordinance of marriage which no man has the right to put asunder.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/4.html continued:
ReplyDeleteJesus utterly condemns divorce as contrary to the divine institution of marriage. Divorce is the sundering by man of a union God Himself has constituted. As John Murray puts it, "Divorce is the breaking of a seal which has been engraven by the hand of God."
The unconditional form of Christ’s statement in Mark 10:11-12 (and Luke 16:18) where no exceptions are allowed for divorce serves to emphasize the abrogation of the Mosaic permission for divorce (Deut 24:1-4). Jesus declares to His disciples in no uncertain terms that, contrary to the Mosaic concession, divorce and remarriage by either the husband or the wife is a sin of adultery clearly condemned by God’s law. A man who divorces his wife and marries another woman is sinning not only against God but also against his former wife. He "commits adultery against her" because by marrying another woman, he is violating his covenant of commitment to his wife.
Mark applies the same rule to both the husband and the wife, a truth not expressed in Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Matt 19:9). The reason is that Matthew was writing for Jews among whom it was most uncommon for a wife to divorce her husband. But what was most uncommon among the Jews was common in the Graeco-Roman world where, in matters of divorce, wives enjoyed equal rights with their husbands. Since Mark writes for a predominantly Gentile readership, he records the application of Christ’s teaching to both the husband and the wife.
Such a radical teaching, as Hugh Montefiore points out, "was revolutionary to Jewish ways of thought. So far as we know, Jesus was alone among Jewish teachers when He asserted that marriage was intended by God to be lasting and permanent."
Adultery or Sexual Misconduct. The traditional and most popular interpretation of the exception clause takes porneia in its wider meaning of sexual misconduct.
Problems with the Sexual Misconduct View. In spite of its popularity, this interpretation has several problems. In the first place, it contradicts the immediate context where Jesus rejects the Mosaic provision of divorce as being against God’s creational plan for the permanence of the marriage union.
In the light of Christ’s refusal to accept the Mosaic provision for divorce, it is hard to imagine that He would make allowance for the dissolution of marriage in the case of sexual misconduct. If the latter were true, Jesus would be contradicting what He had just affirmed regarding the permanence of the marriage union. His teaching would represent not a rejection of the Mosaic concession but merely an interpretation essentially similar to that of the Shammaites. But the Pharisees certainly understood Jesus’ teaching to be in conflict with Moses ("Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"—Matt 19:7). The clear conflict between Jesus’ teaching on the permanence of the marriage union and the Mosaic concession, logically rules out the wider meaning of porneia as sexual misconduct.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/marriage/4.html continued:
ReplyDeleteWould Christ teach that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees and then side with one party of the Pharisees by saying that a man should not divorce his wife except for the cause of unfaithfulness? If that were true, where would the superiority of Christ’s teaching be? And why would the disciples be astonished at His teaching? They could well have expected Christ to side more with the conservative view of Shammai than with the liberal view of Hillel? In the light of considerations such as these, porneia must have a narrower meaning that does not contradict the astonishingly radical and revolutionary teaching of Matthew 19:3-9.
A second problem with interpretating porneia as sexual misconduct is posed by the teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18 where divorce and remarriage are condemned as adultery without any exceptions.
A third problem with interpretating the exception clause as sexual misconduct is that it contradicts Paul’s "no divorce" teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. In this passage, Paul claims to give Christ’s own command by enjoining the wife not to separate from her husband and the husband not to divorce his wife. The total prohibition of divorce by Paul reflects the teaching of Jesus found in Mark and Luke.
A fourth problem with the interpretation of porneia as sexual misconduct (adultery) is that this term is not the normal word for adultery, though it may include it. The normal Greek term for adultery is moicheia, a term used by Jesus in all the divorce texts to describe the outcome of divorce and remarriage, namely, "commits adultery." If Jesus intended to permit divorce specifically in the case of adultery, He would probably have used the explicit term moicheia. The fact that He used another term suggests that porneia may refer to something other than adultery.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that there is no provision in the Pentateuch for divorce in the case of adultery. The penalty for proven adultery was death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22, 23-27) and not divorce. The same was true in the case of a woman who had engaged in premarital sex before marriage (Deut 22:13-21). She was stoned to death and not divorced. There are no indications in the Pentateuch that divorce was ever allowed for sexual misconduct.
A fifth problem with interpreting the exception clause as sexual misconduct is that it fails to take into account the astonishment of the disciples at the saying of Jesus.
Unfaithfulness During the Betrothal Period. A second interpretation of the exception clause is that Jesus allowed for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality during the betrothal period.13 Unlike modern engagement, the Jewish betrothal was a legal contract that was as binding as marriage (Deut 20:7; 22:24). If the betrothed proved unfaithful prior to the consummation of the marriage, legal action could be taken and divorce could be obtained. Following this custom, when Joseph discovered that Mary was expecting a child while betrothed to him, he planned to divorce her quietly rather than exposing her to public disgrace (Matt 1:18, 19).
According to this view, the exception of porneia allows divorce only in the case of unfaithfulness during the betrothal period.
My 2 cents:
ReplyDeleteI think that the first truth is that divorce is never part of God's perfect standard. The same is true of telling a lie. Neither one would happen in a perfect world.
Saying that, we need to do our best to hold to God's standard in all ways. It is when we miss God's standard that things start unraveling.
I think that we in the church have come to look at divorce incorrectly. We look at the act of divorce as missing God's standard, but we don't look at the thousands of acts before that led up to the divorce as missing God's standard.
So we know that Moses allowed divorce. When Jesus was asked about it, He pointed to God's standard and told us to uphold it. In a marriage, a husband and wife will do many things that does not uphold God's standard for a marriage.
My point is that the bulk of the sin hasn't happened at the point the couple has gotten divorced (or later remarried). The bulk of the sin has happened before that.
This gets complicated. Is it ever OK for a couple to get divorced and remarried? The answer is an emphatic "No". However, the divorce may be the ending of a series of sins. I think that it's possible with unrepentant sin, that a divorce is the only practical outcome. In fact, I speculate that divorce may be the only logical choice left.
So does that make sense? Divorce is never "OK". Yet in some cases, divorce may be the only option. Because when unrepentant sin is involved (and it only takes one part of the couple for this to be true), things become messy.
Assuming that the above makes sense, how does one apply this? This is where the local governing board of our church comes into play. The advising person (or persons) will speak with the couple and identify the sin(s) involved. The adviser (i.e. judge) will then ask the persons if they are willing to repent of their sins. If they are, the marriage will continue. If they are not, the adviser will go through the "confronting your brother of sin" process. If at the end of that process, if one of the people refuses to (be willing to) repent, the adviser will treat them as a pagan. At that point, a divorce can occur.
Two additional points:
1. An affair has nothing to do with whether a divorce can occur (except that it is one of the sins that needs to be repented of). In fact I would even go so far as to say that a divorce can occur because of the spouses continued unforgiveness, rather than the affair in the first place.
2. Whether someone can remarry or not is also complicated. Once again, it depends on various factors. It is better not to remarry. That's God's standard. However, because we are susceptible to sin, it may be better is we marry again.
For more on this see https://soulguardian.info/bible/divorce.pdf
ReplyDelete