What God has Joined Together
Matthew 19:1-12
Harry Stoliker
January 10, 2010 EBC
What God has Joined Together
Let's first put this chapter in the overall flow of the larger story
in Matthew's gospel. A couple of quick points:
A. Jesus has been in Galilee, preaching and teaching and doing miracles.
Now that phase ends and he beings his journey south into Judea
and eventually to Jerusalem where He will face crucifixion.
We see this clearly in V.1. He probably enters the region known as Perea,
east of the Jordan River. I've always loved Luke 9:51 "When the days drew
near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem."
We get the feel that Jesus steeled himself for the Cross. His resolve
was seen on His face. He had accepted His divine destiny out of His
divine love for His people. Nothing could divert him.
B. Notice, however, that even though Jesus was focused and locked in
on reaching Jerusalem, he didn't become callous to the needs and pains
of the mobs that thronged Him. V.2 "And
large crowds followed him, and he healed them there." What does that tell
you about our Lord Jesus? It tells us that he overflowed with compassion
for people, not all of whom gave him thanks or worship
for the healing they received. Jesus' motives were pure love.
Let's now dig into the real drama of the moment between Jesus and
the Pharisees:
Notice that the Pharisees are up to their old sinful scheme of trying
to get Jesus to hang himself on the horns of a dilemma
over the interpretation of the Mosaic Law. They wanted to pit Jesus
against Moses and win the people over to their opposition
of Jesus by making Him look like a law breaker. V.3 "And
Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce
one's wife for any cause?" There was a heated debate
between two Pharisaic parties on the correct interpretation of Dt.
24:1. The "for any reason" form of divorce was not only the
most popular, but was considered to be the most righteous form!
The Pharisees were at least trying to alienate Jesus from most of
the Jewish men, who no doubt valued their freedom and power in this
"for any reason" practice. The school of Shammai said that
a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity
in her. "Unchastity" was some kind of "indecency" or
impurity or immodesty which fell short
of adultery, because adultery was punishable by death
not divorce under the Old Covenant. It referred to some sort of moral-sexual misconduct.
The school of Hillel said he may divorce her even if she burned
his supper or if he found another woman whom he considered
fairer than his wife. Both schools permitted, though not necessarily required,
divorce in the case of continued infertility. (France)
The Jewish historian Josephus records his own divorce
this way: "At this point I divorced my wife, being displeased at her behavior.
Then I took as a wife a woman from Crete." He says in his book Antiquities
of the Jews: "He who desires to be divorce from his wife, for whatever cause,
(and with mortals many such may arise), must certify it in writing…"
Jesus uses this opportunity to dig down deeper into
the real ethics behind their divorce practices. He wants to drive
them back to God's Word and God's design. That is what we constantly need:
to be driven back to God's Word and God's design for our lives!
The problem was that they misinterpreted Dt. 24 as though
it was a command for divorce, when actually it was but a limitation
on remarriage in the event of a divorce. They saw it as a license
for divorce. Jesus straightens them out by telling that
that Dt. 24 was merely a "consession" or a "pragmatic provision"-
"trouble-shooting legislation" - for dealing with their hard-hearted
sinful patterns. It was like a tourniquet to slow down
the bleeding, that's all. Dt. 24 discouraged hasty divorce and provided
some legal protection for the woman. Moses was regulating
the way they handled the reality of divorce. He was responding
to the human failure that was already taking place. God gave them
laws to make the best out of the mess they wanted to be in. Vvs.7-8
"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."
Jesus' answer forces them back to God's original design for marriage
in Gen. 1-2. The original pattern takes precedence
over the "concession" for their sinfulness. The people had rejected
God's design for marriage. Jesus now addressed what was going on in their
hearts.
What Jesus did that was so fantastic was to change the focus
from the question of what grounds are permitted for divorce, to
how marriage may best live up to the Creator's original purpose
and design! (RT France) The prevailing, conventional attitude about
divorce in Jesus' day was sinful and full of self-centered convenience.
"Jesus is demanding a complete rethinking of their attitudes about
marriage, not on the basis of sinful human convenience but on the
basis of God's purpose for his creation" (France). If couples then
and today had this corrected focus of living up
to God's original design there would be enormously fewer
divorces. Here's the lesson: Husbands and wives should be giving
themselves to living up to God's original design for marriage!
That is the way to "divorce-proof" your marriage. Aggressively pursue
God's original design. This is the question we should ask in every
area of our lives: "What is God's original design for this area as described in
Scripture?" What did God say about money, leisure, work, relationships,
anxiety, motives, child raising, the fear of man,
the fear of God, how to be saved, how to be sanctified,
justice, humility, neighbors, enemies, time management, loving your wife/husband,
etc. etc.
What was that design for marriage? V.4-6 spells it out. One
man and one woman will leave their parents, cleave
to one another, establish new lifetime loyalties to each other and
form a family unit, a one-flesh union formed by God
Himself. Never to be broken. Permanent, monogamous, male/female
covenantal, one flesh union. The Greek word for "cleave"
gives us a vivid metaphor of being glued or welded or cementing
together, stressing the permanence! The "one flesh"
metaphor taken seriously points to how indissoluble
the union is. "To break it is like tearing apart a single body.
So to break up a marriage is to usurp the function of the God by whose
creative order it was set up, and who has decreed that
it shall be a permanent one flesh union." (RT France). God wants permanent marriages
and He hates divorce (Mal.2:16); He doesn't want any man or woman
to usurp the right to break what He makes permanent.
The Pharisees felt the power of what Jesus was saying about the
permanence of marriage, hence they ask the question in
V.7 "Why then did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of
divorce and send her away." That led Jesus, as I mentioned,
to send them back to Genesis in V.8. Then Jesus really turns the
screws tight on them in V.9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his
wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
His aim is to destroy the self-centered frivolous nature of their
divorce practices that dishonored God and God's original design for
marriage. He eliminates all the grounds for divorce that were being
used in the misinterpretation of Dt. 24. Jesus exerts his divine authority
by saying clearly "I tell you…" He'd already said this on another occasion
as we saw in Mt. 5:31-32. There is only one exception that
allows divorce, not an infinite number of trivial concoctions
of a disgruntled, self-centered husband.
V.9 "except for marital unfaithfulness" – "sexual immorality"
– "adultery" – these are all translations of the Greek word
"porneia." This is known as what's called the "exception clause."
Jesus is saying that if your divorce for any other reason than this
and remarry, you commit adultery; but if you divorce
and remarry on the basis of the exception clause, you do not commit
adultery in the new marriage. The word "porneia" had a broad range
of meaning in ordinary usage that referred to any sexual intercourse
that was contrary to the moral standards of Scripture. (ESV notes).
Adultery then, certainly defiled the 'one flesh' union. Some scholars
say that "porneia" referred to a very narrow, specific kind of immorality,
either sexual relations among close relatives or sexual immorality
discovered during the "betrothal" period or engagement period. They
then say that divorce in any situation other than these two is prohibited.
So you can see this divorce issue is still a matter of disagreement in our age.
As an eldership here at EBC we take the position that the exception
clause is the only grounds for a divorce. However,
it is not a COMMAND to rush to a divorce if your mate does commit
adultery. Reconciliation and restoration through in depth counseling
is the greatest good and should be sought with all
the heart by both parties! Many marriages have suffered
the evil of adultery and have survived because both
parties were humble, repentant and forgiving.
If a divorce occurs because of adultery, and the guilty party remarries
without repentance and reconciliation with his mate, he does commit adultery
in that second marriage. That marriage begins with adultery.
It still is a marriage according to the text, and it should not be
broken up, nor is it to be viewed as continually adulterous. There
is much repenting to be done in such a situation. The
offended party then is free from the former covenant
and free to remarry.
V.10 shows us that the disciples got the drift. "The
disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better
not to marry." They realized what Jesus was saying and that
it was radical compared to what people of their day practiced. One
commentator said "The risks of becoming inseparably linked
with an unsatisfactory wife, in whatever way, were too great in their
estimation." (Hagner) They showed that they needed to mature in their
grasp of the beauty and demands of God's original design! They were
stained with their culture as well! They saw the tension
between what Jesus was teaching and the Jewish society they lived
in, in which remaining celibate was not a recognized option
(France). If celibacy wasn't an acceptable option in the mindsand
committing themselves to a permanent marriage covenant
sounded seemed too demanding, then what were they to think and do?
The last paragraph starting at V.11 sets out an option they had never considered.
In V.11 Jesus says that not everyone can "receive" or "accept" this word
or saying. What word? The comment the disciples just made about its better not
to get married at all. Not everyone can stay single; it
hasn't been given to them. Celibacy then is a gift as Paul seems to
indicate in 1 Cor. 7:7.
Then there is the final discussion about eunuchs. There are three
types mentioned. Men who are born impotent, unable to
have children; men who are made eunuchs (castrated) by kings who use
them to take care of their harems, the chief example being the Ethiopia
eunuch in Acts 8; and those who figuratively make
themselves eunuchs. What is this all about??? Let me boil it down
in my application.
Jesus is saying that for the disciples in the Kingdom of God there are two options.
One is to get married, have children and stay married to the same woman for your
whole life – no divorce. The other option is to choose to be celibate
for the Kingdom – like John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostle Paul. Paul gave
up marriage so he could be totally available for the work of the Kingdom.
He limited his earthly responsibilities in order to increase his kingdom
availabilities. For Kingdom disciples, divorce is NOT an option.
That is what Jesus is saying. Jesus is stating the Kingdom ethics in absolute
terms. We should aim at nothing less that total commitment
to making our marriage permanent or total dedication
to the kingdom work through forgoing the work of making our marriage
permanent. Those are the absolute terms.
Jesus knows we live in a wicked generation and there may be times
when a believer is either deserted by an unbelieving
spouse who doesn't ever come back, or a spouse who destroys the marriage covenant
by entrenched sexual immorality. In those exception-cases,
divorce is not commanded but permitted.
This whole discussion is about what it means to be a kingdom disciple
of Jesus Christ. It means you don't yield to current worldly standards,
whether in marriage, values, ethics, or behavior. It
means you live the way God designed Kingdom disciples to live, you
carry out His original design. Finally, it means that you must understand
God's high calling upon your life. Perhaps he has given
you the gift of celibacy so that you can be much more available
for kingdom work? If not, you have then the high calling of glorifying
God by making your marriage a clear picture of the love of Christ
for His people. Either way, every true Christian ought to be a fully
committed disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. Giving up in marriage
for selfish, small, solvable little problems just isn't want our Lord
wants.
May the Holy Spirit empower us as single people and husband and
wives to fulfill our Kingdom responsibilities to the Glory
of God.
Let's pray.