The Priority of Marriage, Matthew 19:7-12
So many people go to these passages and their focus is sort of what does God allow in terms of being able to get out of my marriage? They look at it as this is Jesus' teaching on divorce, and the real emphasis here is on marriage.
What Jesus said is hard for a lot of people to handle, and it was for the disciples because when Jesus finished teaching thew disciples said to Him in verse 10: “If this is what the Scriptures really teach then it is better not to marry”. The standard is high and Jesus is reinforcing God's original intent and purpose for marriage.
Granted, there are exceptions when things go really bad that come into play and there are legitimate reasons for divorce. But what Jesus is really saying, to just summarize it, is that even if there may be an exception at play in a situation it doesn't mean that you should necessarily take advantage of it, unless it is absolutely certain that there is no hope of redeeming that relationship and resolving the differences in that marriage.
I want to remind you that this is not about second guessing past decisions. It is not about judging any kind of wrong decision. We are all sinners and everybody has failed at one point or another in different areas. This is really about understanding what the Scripture says so that as we go forward from this point on, no matter what past decisions may have been made, we can focus on what the Lord has said. As we go through life we may have opportunities to advise, council, encourage other believers who are struggling in the area of their own marriage.
Marriage and divorce, like any other topic in the Scriptures, is always governed by grace where we fail, it is governed by grace in forgiveness and restoration, because God is involved in turning that which is dead into that which is alive. There are numerous situations in marriages where it has just seemed absolutely hopeless, where one or the other of the people in the marriage have committed all kinds of egregious sins and breaches of the marriage covenant, but yet because of the ultimate devotion to God and Scripture they have subordinated themselves to the truth of the Word. And though it was not easy, though it took time, the God of grace allowed these people to step beyond what mistakes and failures they'd had and turned their marriages into trophies of His grace and testimonies of how God can bring light into darkness.
There are things that we always have to be aware of. One of those is that it takes two people to make a marriage work and it only takes one person to destroy the marriage. The second thing that is important to understand is that the person we are married to have dirty, rotten, corrupt sin natures. When we are living in the energy of the flesh and the power of the sin nature we are capable of some of the most horrendous, egregious acts. But God meets us where we are and we can have forgiveness, cleansing, and we can move forward.
Sometimes it seems a whole lot easier for God to forgive us than for our spouse to forgive us. Yet one thing I want to begin with and end with is the context of this particular teaching of Jesus as Matthew puts it in this section that has immediately been preceded by a chapter emphasizing the importance of personal forgiveness of those who sin against us. Let me remind you that at the end of chapter eighteen Peter comes to the Lord and says: “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?” Peter says: “Up to seven times?” Peter thinks he's being generous here, but the Lord comes back and says: “No, seventy times seven”. That is basically an idiom for you don't stop forgiving.
There are situations that occur where there is a person who continuously takes advantage in some way or another. We get the idea that forgiveness means that I don't protect myself against the fact that this person may be committing a type of sin that seriously takes advantage of me and may bring me harm. It is one thing to forgive somebody, it is another thing to be stupid and irrational and put yourself in harm's way.
The question that is not addressed in divorce passages in Scripture—I do not think they are necessarily exhaustive—is what do you do where you are married to someone and that person, for example, has a gambling problem and may gamble away all of the resources, the house and everything? What do you do? Forgiveness doesn't mean that you put yourself in harm's way. You may have to separate for a while, you may have to do something to create a firewall in terms of finances. Other situations involving emotional abuse and physical abuse come into that same category. That's criminal in those situations and God is not saying that you should put yourself in harm's way where your life or your health is threatened by somebody else. So there may be intermediate means that have to be taken in order to protect one's self.
Forgiveness is a mental attitude whereby we are not holding the sin against another person. The slate is wiped clean, but that doesn't mean there aren't certain consequences that ought to follow. We think of the situation in the Old Testament where David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then went on to conspire to have her husband Uriah put in a position where his life would be taken. He conspired to commit murder. God forgave David when he confessed the sin but there were still consequences to the sin.
Sometimes when God forgives us for a sin removes the consequences, sometimes He leaves the consequences in place, and sometimes He doubles down on the consequences in order to teach us a lesson. Forgiveness does not absolve a person of consequences.
Another example. If someone commits murder and they are taken to court for their criminal action and given the death penalty, even if they are a believer or become a believer, then the penalty is in place. Forgiveness, though, is just as real even though that penalty is in place. Americans have great difficulty understanding the concept that forgiveness doesn't mean removal of consequences. They think that forgiveness means everything is okay and we can just go forward. That is not the biblical teaching on forgiveness. It means the decks are cleared and our relationship with God is no longer hindered by that sin, but it doesn't mean we are automatically cleared of all consequences.
Here is the situation. Jesus has come down from Galilee towards Jerusalem and is over by the Jordan. The Pharisees decide to trap Him. They are asking Him a specific question but it is a loaded question because there is a controversy among the Pharisees as t whether they were going to have tight restrictions on divorce or loose restrictions on divorce, and it comes down to a debate between two rabbinical schools of thought.
Jesus is going to take the position close to Shammai's, but Shammai said, like the Roman and Greek culture at the time, that if there was sexual immorality then that necessitated divorce. Jesus is not going to go along with that, but there is a possible exception if there is sexual immorality but there is not a mandate to divorce. The focal point of Jesus' teaching is to elevate the priority of marriage in their eyes.
It is sealed in the marriage vow and marriage covenant that a couple's loyalty is to one another. The one emphasis that we are going to see on this is that when sexual immorality occurs that is a violation of that loyalty agreement that is part of the marriage covenant. This is at the essence of the marriage. That doesn't mean that sexual infidelity ends the marriage, it just means it is a violation of that loyalty oath that is part of being a covenant.
Where this comes out later on is that we will see that when Israel violates their covenant with God, what does God call it? He calls it adultery. The core semantic value of that term adultery is not sexual inherently, it is a violation of a loyalty oath.
Matthew 19:7 NASB “They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND {her} AWAY?'” The text did not say that they had to send her away. That was Shammai's interpretation. They are misinterpreting Deuteronomy 24:1 which doesn't mandate a divorce, it just recognizes certain circumstances where a divorce could take place. This shows that they are misinterpreting the text by saying that just because a legitimate basis does exist that you should end the marriage.
Deuteronomy 24:1 NASB “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.” Whatever “indecency” means it doesn't matter, it is not germane to what Jesus is saying in Matthew chapter 19, and secondly, this passage is not prescribing divorce, it is not even talking about what makes a divorce legitimate. At the very least what this is simply saying is, when this happens. And it is recognizing that the divorce that occurs here where he writes her a certificate of divorce he is recognizing that (for whatever the uncleanness/indecency is, and it is an ambiguous term) it is a legitimate divorce. So you have a man married to a woman and he writes her a certificate of divorce, and it is legitimate. He goes on from there, puts it in her hand and sends her out of the house.
One question that often comes up. It just seems like all of these passages tend to focus on the man having the priority in determining whether or not the marriage is going to make it or not. He is the one who writes the certificate of divorce. Doesn't the woman have anything to say about this?
Exodus 21:7 talks about a situation where a man sells his daughter to be a female slave. Once again the liberals and the people who don't understand the Bible and can't think beyond the end of their nose, say, the Bible is so bad. It has this awful ethic, it validates slavery. It is not validating slavery, it is recognizing (like with polygamy) that this is part of the culture and God is regulating it in order to protect those who are slaves. And incidentally, under the guidance of Exodus the kind of slavery they had wasn't a chattel slavery like we had in the US. The kind of slavery they had was an indentured servitude so that when the sabbatical year came around every seventh year the slaves were set free—unless they wanted to voluntarily stay in a position of servitude. This slavery was what occurred in the culture and God is going to regulate the circumstances (that is what is happening in Deuteronomy 24) to protect the woman and to make sure that she is not going to be taken advantage of.
Exodus 21:7 NASB “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. [8] If she doesn't please her master who has betrothed himself to her …” The situation is that she gets sold as a slave and the new master says he wants to marry her. So they enter into a betrothal. After a while he takes another wife. What is going to happen to the first wife? She was often just a second class citizen now. So this is to protect her and her rights as a wife. [10] “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. [11] If he will not do these three {things} for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without {payment of} money.” She has a claim against him and if he doesn't take care of her in those areas, then that ends the marriage and she is protected. That is a legitimate basis for divorce, that she hasn't been taken care of. This passage is often overlooked in the whole marriage and divorce discussion.
What is interesting is what applies here. It is called an a fortiori argument. She is a slave. If this applies to a slave it would apply even more in a situation where the first wife is a free woman. As a free woman she would certainly have more rights than a slave would. So this applies to the slave that has been betrothed to the man; it applies even more to the free woman who was married and then he takes a second wife. Her rights are protected in this situation by God.
Another passage that comes up that is germane to what we see in Deuteronomy 24 is Malachi 2:16. But before we look at this, Deuteronomy 24:2ff gives us the rest of the situation.
Deuteronomy 24:2 NASB “and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s {wife,}”. There is nothing said about that being wrong. It is a legitimate divorce, she goes and remarries, and then [3] “and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and …” The point here is that that is considered an illegitimate divorce. The first husband has a cause for divorce because he has found some uncleanness in her. The second husband just hates her. This is aversion, and that is never accepted as a legitimate basis for divorce in the Scripture.
You don't like your spouse anymore? Then you need to have an attitude correction and straighten things out, and that is not done with divorce. Aversion is never a legitimate basis for divorce in the Scripture. The reason I point that out is you have this combination of terms, hate and divorce, in another passage: Malachi 2:16 NASB “For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”
This verse is often quoted when people are talking about divorce, and they quote it from the translation that is found in a lot of English translations. They will just quote the key phrase, “God hates divorce”, and that is the final overriding principle. The problem is the Hebrew is ambiguous. This is the not the best translation though it is the most common translation.
The NKJV says, “For the Lord of Israel says that [there is no 'that' in the Hebrew] He hates divorce, For it covers one's garment with violence”. It is self-destructive, is what that is saying. The NASB translates, “I hate divorce”. The first translation, “He hates divorce”, is more accurate because it is a third person singular verb. But because of the difficulty of the Hebrew construction there are those who take it that the verb ought to be repointed in terms of the vowels and it ought to be a first person singular. The Hebrew is third person—He hates. The ESV, which is a more recent translation is, I think, more accurate at this point, and there have been a couple of very technical monographs and dissertations written on this in the last twenty or thirty years that support this translation: “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.” It is a recognition that hating your spouse or not liking them is not a legitimate basis for divorce and it is self-destructive. This follows the LXX translation and a number of ancient translations which also translate the same way: “If while hating you dismiss your wife, says the Lord God of Israel, you will conceal the wrongdoing of your thoughts.” This is a legitimate translation. I think it makes much better sense both grammatically and contextually.
There are a number of other passages, Deuteronomy 21:15-17; 22:3, that talk about a situation, and usually translated “unloved”. Deuteronomy 21:15 NASB “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved ...” It doesn't say unloved in the Hebrew, it says the one loved and the other hated. Verse 16 uses loved wife in preference to the son of the hated wife. This was a common recognition that this is not a legitimate basis for divorce. Hate in some contexts does refer to an unjustified divorce where a person can't stand the sight of that person anymore. It is not a legitimate basis for divorce.
Jesus answers the Pharisees. Matthew 19:8 NASB “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'.” Notice how He changed the term. They said Moses commanded them. It doesn't say command, he just allows, recognizes, but it is not mandated. God created and instituted marriage so that a man would come together and stay together, He didn't institute marriage so that they would not stay together. The ideal is for a man and woman to stay together in marriage.
Matthew 19:9 NASB “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” “Except for immorality” is ME EPI in the Greek and it is always used to state an exception, a clear legitimate exception to anything. So this is a clear exception, but it is not the only exception. Paul is going to bring in another exception in 1 Corinthians 7, and that is when the spouse is an unbeliever and the spouse departs. In both passages—Jesus in Matthew 19 and Paul in 1 Corinthians 7—they are answering specific questions, they are not giving an exhaustive answer. They are not saying that this is the complete doctrine of marriage and divorce. But in answering those questions, just like case law in the Old Testament, they do stake out certain boundaries and parameters for the answer and for the doctrine.
“Immorality” is the Greek word PORNEIA, from which we get our word pornography. It is a word that would refer to any sort of sexual activity that violates the marriage covenant.
Jesus is saying that this is a legitimate reason but it doesn't necessitate divorce. Some people have said and thought that if you didn't have a legitimate basis that you are just in a continuous state of adultery. Here we have to go back to that core semantic value of adultery as a violation of the covenant. What Jesus is saying is whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another violates the covenant—that marriage covenant from the beginning. And whoever marries her that is divorced (the exception clause would be assumed to be true there) breaches that marriage covenant.
Jeremiah 3:8 is one of numerous verses we can go to in the Old Testament where adultery is used to describe that breach of a covenant: “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.”
This is not literal adultery, this is a violation of the Mosaic covenant. The core value of adultery when it comes to this passage is that of you put off/divorce a spouse for the wrong reason you cause them to breach the marriage covenant.
The disciples understood that Jesus is saying something much tougher than the two rabbinic schools of thought. What Jesus is saying is that there were these exceptions under the Mosaic Law but we are entering into the church age and there is a higher standard for marriage. That is Ephesians 5. The higher standard for marriage is that you do whatever it takes to work it out. Does that mean you are always going to be able to work it out? Unfortunately is doesn't because you might be married to someone who just doesn't want to work it out.
Matthew 19:10 NASB “ The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Yes, marriage is a very serious decision and it should be entered into very carefully.
Matthew 19:11 NASB “But He said to them, “Not all men {can} accept this statement, but {only} those to whom it has been given. [12] For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are {also} eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept {this,} let him accept {it.}”
The bottom line: What makes marriage work is forgiveness. Whatever the degree, whatever the problems, we have to forgive one another. This goes back to the context of Matthew 18, “Then Peter came and said to Him, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven'.”
Forgiveness is a corollary to love. Love is a decision that we make based upon our relationship with the Lord. It is not an emotion, it is a decision that we are going to love somebody. That means we are going to honor the covenant that we make with God and we are going to be faithful to that, even if that person isn't. And we are going to forgive them so that we can move forward.
We can't do it on our own. That is why Paul says in Galatians 5:22, “The fruit of the Spirit is love”. We can't
just manufacture it on our own, it has to be part of our spiritual life and the fruit of the Spirit.