Play

“God's Marriage Law”

Allen Dvorak
11/10/24 - Sun AM

The following transcription is computer-generated and may not accurately reflect the contents of the audio. Please verify the content before quoting.

(Transcribed by Congregate. Always check document for possible errors and inaccuracies in automated transcriptions.)

It's good to be with you this morning.

We have some, uh, here this morning who have not been able to be here by reason of health and, and Lindsay are both able to be here this morning.

We're certainly glad about that.

Uh, and there are others I think that, uh, have been out some with sickness and are here today.

Uh, I am sounding congested this morning.

It is actually part of my training for the Don Trux voice.

And so I think I've just about accomplished it.

Uh, I was very careful about checking for fever this morning and I've also been trying to give you a holy elbow.

Uh, it's not anything, uh, that I'm trying to, you know, be nasty or anything.

I just don't wanna share anything if in fact, I have some germs that could be shared.

It's always good to be with you and to be able to talk about God's word 11 of the things I've noticed and, and I'm probably, uh partly guilty of this also is that we tend to think of things in our generation as being unique, but there's never been a generation as wicked as our generation or, you know, the country is at the lowest point of its history and on and on and on.

It goes and yet just a quick study of history would tell us that that's not a true notion that in fact, previous generations have accomplished truly magnificent feats.

We are not unique in that sense and they face the same problems.

They've held many of the same attitudes that we talk about as being characteristic of Western society.

Oh, we're going downhill morally.

Just a quick reading of Genesis six will tell you that we're not unique in that regard.

In any sense, the attitude of modern Western society toward divorce has changed.

We know in the last uh couple of 100 years.

Uh Nowadays people think that divorce should be readily available.

There shouldn't be any stigma attached to those who might be divorced.

Such an attitude is not a new attitude.

And that's the point I want to make to you that that was a common attitude in the time of Jesus among the Jews, they favored easy divorce without the stigma of violating law.

Just as members of the church are frequently faced with divorce and the people that we try to teach, we find that a lot of times we're teaching people or wanting to teach people and they're in a second or third marriage, even some young people.

So it was in the first century that Jesus probably faced somewhat the same situation in Palestine because divorce was pursued, uh for trivial causes, at least according to the rabbis.

And yet Jesus courageously taught God's truth on the subject and we need to do the same thing.

It's not very popular to teach what the Bible says about marriage and divorce.

And yet Jesus did that.

We're going to do that as well.

It's interesting to me and you may have noticed this as well that despite the incredible significance of marriage in our lives, there are not that many passages, my wife would correct me.

There are exactly that many passages.

There are few passages in the New Testament that directly talk about marriage and divorce and we're not going to talk about all of them this morning, but I'm listing them up on the screen.

We're going to focus on the first two, Matthew five and Matthew 19.

Mark 10 is essentially a record of the same conversation that Jesus had with the Jews as recorded in Matthew 19.

Although there are some differences in there that is that Mark records some things that Matthew did not and uh the reverse is true as well.

So we're gonna look at Mark Matthew five and Matthew 19 primarily as we talk about God's marriage law.

And I would point out first of all that in Matthew, the fifth chapter, Jesus engages in a series six, in fact of contrasts contrast between uh the what was said as he says in the ESV you have heard that it was said and what the spirit of the law was teaching the Pharisees, it seems, had a tendency to hide behind the letter of the law without really respecting the spirit of the law as an illustration.

Uh You shall not commit adultery.

Well, does that mean that as long as we don't commit the overt act of sexual immorality of adultery, we can go ahead and look on a woman and lust after her.

Jesus says, no, whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So Jesus gets to the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law as it seems, sometimes the Pharisees would emphasize.

And I think the purpose of Jesus comments in the sermon on the mount, at least one of the purposes was to reveal the emptiness of fara righteousness.

Jesus says an amazing thing in chapter five and verse 93 when he says, unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, what how could that possibly happen?

The Pharisees were the paragon of righteousness.

No, Jesus indicates in his comments on the sermon on the mount that the Pharisees were missing the point in many cases as was illustrated, I think rather well in Matthew six in talking about uh praying and giving to be seen of men.

So at the same time that Jesus was laying out the moral principles of the Kingdom he was also, I think correcting the focus of the Pharisees as they missed the spirit of the law in some cases.

So let's take a look at Matthew chapter five and verses 31 and 32.

Jesus said, furthermore, it has been said, whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.

But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery and whoever divorces a woman who is divorced, commits adultery.

Jesus actually quotes from the Old Testament in verse 31 or at least makes a reference to it.

Excuse me, it seems that the fair, what he's quoting is actually what the Pharisees would have understood from the passage that is referenced.

And that passage is Deuteronomy chapter 24.

The first four verses.

The fact of the matter is that in Deuteronomy 24 Moses didn't command to give a certificate of divorce.

You'll notice that in Deuteronomy 24 I'm citing the new King James version.

And the reason for that is I think the New King James version more faithfully transmits the concept.

The point of the passage read along with me beginning in Deuteronomy 24 and verse one, 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 uncleanness in her and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand and sends her out of her, his house when she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife.

If the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her as his wife, then you see this whole passage is an, if, then statement, there are several conditions.

Moses says, if, if, if, if, if these are the circumstances, here's the conclusion, then verse four, her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she's been defiled for that is an abomination before the Lord.

And you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

So the thrust of Matthew or excuse me, Deuteronomy 24 is not.

Moses said, if you divorce your wife, give her a certificate of divorce, Moses just observes that if these things happen, if you send your wife out of your house and you give her a certificate of divorce and she goes and marries somebody else, the first husband may not take her back again.

That's the point.

Moses is not giving a command to give a certificate of divorce.

Nor is he necessarily speaking about the goodness or badness of that practice the Jews.

It seems focused on the right to divorce a wife for some uncleanness.

The ESV uses indecency.

Uh You were, I was reading from the New King James version literally in the text, the Hebrew text.

It's a thing of nakedness.

And the rabbis disputed about what that meant, what was the cause?

But at any rate, the Jews focused on the right of a man to divorce his wife.

And they disputed about among the rabbis about what that cause might include the man who gave his wife a certificate of divorce when he put her away may have been uh following the letter of the law, but in fact, he was failing to love his wife by divorcing her.

Jesus didn't comment in Matthew five.

It's still up on the screen in Matthew 531 and 993.

Jesus didn't comment on the right of a man to remarry in the event that he divorces his wife for sexual immorality.

In the second half of the verse.

In fact, attention is paid to the question of whether he causes her, the divorced woman, his wife to commit adultery, assuming of course, that she remarries, listen to the verse and whoever marries a woman who is divorced, commits adultery.

And so the emphasis is on the one that whosoever would marry this uh put away woman.

I would point out that the second half of Matthew 32 5 32 actually contemplates two different women who have been divorced.

The text literally is having been put away women, one of them, of course, would be the woman who's divorced for just any calls.

But the introduction of the exception clause in verse 31 excuse me.

32 the first part of 32 introduces a second, put away woman.

And that's the woman who's put away for sexual immorality.

But notice in the last part of verse 32 there's no distinction made between this woman who's put away for just any cause.

And this woman who's put away for sexual immorality.

Jesus just said, whoever marries her, who's put away, that would include this woman and this woman, any put away woman that is, she's been divorced for one of these causes, whoever marries her then commits adultery.

The other passage I wanted to look at is Matthew 19.

And part of the reason for these two passages is that Matthew 19 and Matthew five are the only passages that deal with marriage where we find that exception except it before or except for sexual immorality.

I want to take a bird's eye view of Matthew 193.

This is a conversation obviously that uh took place later in Jesus uh ministry.

And in the beginning of the passage, the Pharisees come and they ask Jesus the question, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any cause?

Now they're testing him.

Matthew says in verse three, they testing him.

They're not asking for his opinion about marital law.

They're not asking for information's sake, they are testing him.

And we'll see that after Jesus makes his first response in verse four and verse five, they're going to ask another question in verse seven, which is not on the screen.

At this point, the Pharisees are gonna sharpen their question and Jesus will again respond to their question.

And then finally, in verses 10 to 12, we have the response of the disciples uh to the conversation.

And I want to look at some of these verse verses in a little bit more detail.

Jesus has already in Matthew chapter five, early in his ministry.

As we looked at just a few moments ago, he's already taught against divorce for just any cause.

And yet the Pharisees come again and ask the question.

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for just any cause?

It seems to me that what they're trying to do is to pit Jesus against, what was the commonly accepted view among the Jews for divorce?

As I said earlier, the rabbis, the Jewish rabbis of Jesus time and even before, had different opinions about what that meant in Deuteronomy 24.

For some matter of uncleanness, a rabbi named Hillel who was roughly contemporary with Jesus, had many followers had taught that Deuteronomy 24.

And verse one meant that a husband could divorce his wife for practically any unseemly thing that he found in her.

And it might not surprise you that this was the most favored view of Deuteronomy 24 among the Jews because it gave them all kinds of latitude for divorcing their wives.

Well, just anything that I don't like about her becomes a legitimate cause for divorce the Pharisees.

When uh in verse seven, they respond to Jesus first, uh answer to them, they could have cited Genesis two.

When Jesus said, what did Moses command you instead of citing Genesis two, which was God's initial marriage law.

They run over to Deuteronomy 24 that talks about a man putting away his wife and their view of that, of course, was that Moses was commanding to give a certificate of divorce, as we've seen from Matthew chapter five and verse 31 I think that the Pharisees were attempting to pit Jesus against the commonly held view of Deuteronomy 24 Jesus, what they knew what he believed about marriage and divorce.

He'd already taught that in the sermon on the man.

I'm sure that was probably commonly known, but they also know that most Jews would favor the, the freer interpretation of Matthew 24.

And so they want Jesus to be pitted against what most people thought about divorce.

I'll tell you what a lot of preachers would have done.

They would have soft pedaled whatever they were going to say, perhaps even changed it or just kinda got pretty vague about things so that they didn't antagonize anybody who might otherwise disagree with them.

Jesus didn't do that.

Jesus responds by citing the initial marriage law and then God's intention from that law when he says in verse six, what therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

That's a bold frank statement about God's intention for marriage to people who marry it is intended by God that they would stay together for life.

And so Jesus responded by citing God's original intent for marriage from the Old Testament, citing Genesis two.

But then adding in verse six, his own comment about divorce.

I want you to notice in Matthew 93 6 and I apologize.

It's on the previous screen.

So look backwards in your mind.

And if you look at Matthew 19 6, you'll see that Jesus is not quoting any longer from Genesis two.

That's Jesus speaking in Matthew 19 6 and it's a command.

Jesus says when God joins two people together, let not man put them asunder, don't divorce.

That was God's overall original intent for marriage.

That's Jesus comment in response to the Pharisees first question, but the Pharisees are gonna sharpen their divorce question in verse seven.

Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away just like Matthew 531?

They're misunderstanding what's going on in Deuteronomy 24 Moses didn't command to give a certificate of divorce.

But Jesus response in verse eight is Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to divorce your wives but from the beginning, it was not.

So Moses permitted, he didn't command you to do this, but he did permit it because of the hardness of your hearts.

But it wasn't intended by God to be that way.

From the beginning.

I really think that the thrust of the fair psychical question is, aren't you contradicting Moses you, you, you know you're saying here, don't divorce Matthew 19 6.

And Moses said we should give a certificate of divorce.

And so Jesus responds to that statement by noting that Moses statement was not for the purpose of commanding divorce or contradicting God's original marriage law.

His statement in Deuteronomy 5323 that is Moses statement was for the purpose of regulating marriage or remarriage.

I should say Jesus of course, is going to state his law in the ninth verse.

And the restriction upon divorce that Jesus makes in verse nine is really the logical extinction of the original law on marriage from Genesis 224.

Divorce for just any cause results in adultery.

Now, something interesting about we're gonna come back to verse nine in just a few moments.

But something interesting about this passage is that the disciples will respond then in verses 10 through 12, Alex already read this.

But if you don't mind, I'm going to read it again.

His disciples said to him, if such is the case of the man with his wife, it's better not to marry. What?

So if we can't get out of these marriages easily.

Then the best thing is just not to marry.

That's a pretty low view, I think uh of marriage.

But Jesus then responds, all cannot accept this saying.

I think the saying that Jesus mentions here is not his teaching on marriage and divorce.

But what the disciples had said, the disciples say, oh, well, it's better not to marry.

And Jesus says, well, not everybody can, can follow that kind of view.

He goes on to say for there were but only to those to whom it has been given for.

There are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb.

And there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men.

And there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom's sake.

He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.

Oh, you think it's better not to marry?

Well, not everybody can live that way.

And so Jesus says, let those who can uh accept it, those who cannot are going to need to, to marry.

The disciple's view is kind of a pessimistic one.

If you, if you ask me the goodness of marriage really depends upon easy divorce.

And their comment, I think also reveals that they understood Jesus to be limiting divorce and remarriage.

There have been some who have taught uh viewpoints about marriage and divorce and remarriage uh even among our brethren in which virtually anybody can remarry after a divorce there's no sin involved, but that's not what Jesus is saying.

And the disciples response makes that clear.

They say, oh listen, if that's the way it is, then it's better not to marry.

Some people have argued and still do that.

Matthew 19 9 is really just an explanation of the old law.

Uh that Jesus is uh in the sermon on the mount and here in Matthew 19 9, he's just trying to help the Jews understand what the old law taught.

But the old law had provisions for cases in which adultery was committed in the course of a marriage.

You can look at passages like the Levis 20 verse 10 and Deuteronomy 193 and verse 22 under the old law.

If there were witnesses, if there were people who were aware who could testify to adultery being committed, the penalty was not divorced.

Oh, I'll just divorce.

My, the penalty was stoning.

Someone says, well, they didn't really have a, they didn't have a choice about, they had a choice about that.

No, the law said stoning.

That's the penalty.

It's pretty clear here if a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be surely be put to death.

That's the problem in John eight.

When the Pharisees and scribes been bring, the woman says she's been caught in adultery.

So there are witnesses to her sin.

Where's the adulterer?

Where's the man who was involved.

And that's why Jesus says, he who is without sin, let him throw the first stone, he convicts them of their own hypocrisy in asking this question, what should we do with this woman?

The law says we should stone her.

Duroy 2222 says essentially the same thing.

Now, you couldn't put somebody to death under the old law, except at the testimony of two or three witnesses.

You couldn't have a single witness who would say, well, I saw such and so you carry out the death penalty in that case.

So what happens if a husband is suspicious that his wife has committed adultery?

But there are no witnesses.

If he thinks that his wife has been unfaithful, she would be compelled to drink the water of bitterness.

I'll let you go to numbers the fifth chapter and read all the details there.

But essentially, it was God's way of saying this woman is guilty or not guilty.

Uh But you didn't put her away, you didn't kill her.

I should say on the basis of the husband's suspicion.

Now, here's something else that would suggest that Jesus is not simply explaining the old law because Jesus said that a woman who's put away for just any cause and marries another that she commits adultery.

And yet the passage that we looked at a little bit earlier in Deuteronomy 24 suggests that a woman can remarry.

Deuteronomy 29 says if a man puts away his wife gives her a certificate of divorce and she goes and marries another man.

There's no comment made there directly about uh whether that's a sin or not, it's not stated that she sins when she does that, the passage says she can't be taken back by the first husband if the second husband divorces her or dies.

And so under the old law, a divorced woman was permitted to remarry another man.

That's not what Jesus says in Matthew 29 299 or Matthew five in verse 219.

Now, one of the things that we haven't talked about a great deal, but we've mentioned is that Matthew five and Matthew 29 are the only two passages that deal directly with marriage and divorce that contain that exception clause except for sexual immorality.

And so I want to talk a little bit now about that exception clause.

I suspect that Matthew 92 is perhaps the most comprehensive statement of God's law on divorce and remarriage.

Now, there are some other passages uh Romans seven, for instance, and first Corinthians seven verses 63 through 26 or 219 through 26, that also adds some details.

But this really is the most comprehensive statement of God's marriage law.

Mark also records the same discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees, but he does not include the exception clause.

And he said to them, whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her.

And if she divorces her husband and marries another.

She commits adultery.

Mark's Gospel tells us that divorce by both the husband or the wife that is the one who's doing the putting away is contemplated.

Luke also recorded Jesus teaching on divorce and remarriage on another occasion.

Not the same as Mark 10 and Matthew 19, but he doesn't record or include the exception clause.

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery and who, who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

I want you to notice something in Luke 16 and verse 18, Jesus did not say whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery or whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Jesus didn't make a statement that would imply that in any divorce, at least one of the parties can remarry without sin.

Jesus said this is the point I'm making.

Look at the beginning of the second half of the verse and he who marries Jesus says the one who puts away his wife and the one who marries the woman put away.

They both commit adultery.

There are many people who teach that when a divorce occurs that God doesn't recognize that divorce if it's for a cause other than fornication or sexual immorality.

And so when one or the other of the partners remarries, then the second partner, the other partner can mentally put away the first partner and then can remarry. Visa.

Matthew 19 9.

The problem with that view is right here in Luke 193, because what Jesus says would not be true.

One of the two would have the right to remarry if that viewpoint is correct.

Are you following me?

How many of you would like me to start over?

Like from the beginning of the sermon?

No hands.

Ok. Jesus says they both commit adultery.

But in the viewpoint, I've just described, one of them will always get to remarry because they just have to outweigh the other mate and let them remarry first and then they become the innocent party.

Well, there are other problems with that view, but Luke 1618 gives us a very clear view of the fact that that's not a true view of the marriage law.

Matthew 99 deals explicitly or implicitly with four different individuals.

In four possible scenarios, you knew this was gonna happen, the HS and the WS, the husbands and the wives.

And sometimes these are a little difficult to follow.

I'll try to make some sense about them.

The first part of Matthew 19 9 says, whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.

And so I've indicated a husband who divorces his initial wife and then he marries wife, subscript two.

And that marriage is adulterous.

That's what Jesus says in verse 9, uh 99 B and whoever marries her, who is divorced commits adultery.

So now here's the woman who's been divorced, put away by her first husband and she then marries husband subscript two.

And that marriage Jesus says in Matthew 19 9 B, that's an adulterous marriage.

Ok. Well, there's several individuals spoken of already, but the exception clause introduces at least one other case.

And that is that if the divorce took place for sexual immorality, if the husband puts away his wife for fornication or sexual immorality, when he remarries, he does not commit adultery.

That's the significance of the exception clause.

It reverses the conclusion in the first part of the verse.

What was the conclusion?

And marries another commits adultery.

Well, that happens across the board except for in this case, what case if he puts his wife away for sexual immorality?

Well, doesn't that change something for the wife also?

And the answer is no, it doesn't actually because just like in Matthew 532 the second half of the verse says, and whoever marries her who is divorced, commits adultery, her who is divorced, which divorced woman, because the exception clause has introduced two possibilities.

She could be divorced for sexual immorality, she could be divorced for just any of cause which one are you talking about Jesus?

And the answer is both both because both of them are having been put away women.

That's the literal meaning of the text there.

Whoever marries one of these women who's been divorced by her husband for these causes, then commits adultery.

I want you to note also that the exception clause is not included in the second half of the verse and grammatically, it can't be really applied to the second half of the verse.

Well, I really appreciate your patience.

Sometimes these things are a little bit hard to follow, but let's see if we can't summarize some of the things, uh, that we have said this morning.

Marriage is intended to last until the death of one of the spouses.

Uh, and that's what brides and grooms usually vow.

Sometimes I wonder if they really mean it, they make solemn promises until death.

Do us pork.

You know, we're gonna stick together through thick and thin, rich and poor sickness and health or until one of us wants to watch that television program and the other one wants to watch that television program and we can't agree on it.

And if you think I'm being facetious, some divorces are just that trivial.

But usually the vows include the promise to stay together until death do us part.

I did a marriage one time for which I repented later.

I did a marriage ceremony and I talked to the young lady who was getting married before.

I didn't know her very well.

She wasn't a member of the church.

So I didn't know what she understood about marriage and divorce.

I want to make sure she hadn't been married before, et cetera, et cetera.

So I talked to her and, and, uh, I told her, I said Well, these, you know, usually they'll be typical vows.

I'll include some vows and everything.

And she said, I really don't like that.

Obey my husband thing.

Let me give you the, uh, cliff notes of what I said to her.

Tough because I'm not leaving it out.

You need to understand this what God says.

So when people get married, they need to understand they're not just promising to their spouse.

Oh, well, I didn't really like her anyway.

So when I promised I had my fingers crossed, you're making that promise before God in Ecclesiastes five says, don't be foolish and make promises or vows to God that you don't intend to keep marriage is intended to last until the death of one of the spouses.

The only divine approved cause for divorce is sexual immorality.

The one who's innocent of sexual immorality and such divorces may remarry without committing adultery.

That's the implication of the exception clause.

But the one who's guilty of sexual immorality may not remarry without committing adultery in that second marriage in a divorce for a cause, other than sexual immorality, both individuals to that divorce, commit adultery.

If and when they remarry in the absence of sexual immorality, divorce is sinful even without remarriage, someone says, well, I don't, my mate hasn't committed adultery or sexual immorality, but I don't intend to ever remarry.

It's as though that washes the divorce and makes it ok.

But that's ignoring what Jesus said in Matthew 19 6.

If I keep getting excited, there'll be no sermon this evening, I'm gonna have to calm down and my voice won't last.

But Matthew 19 6 says what God has joined together.

Let not man put asunder, he gives a command.

That's Jesus speaking.

He's not quoting the old law.

Although that was the intent, I think all along one more point though.

And that is that strong emotions or feelings do not change God's marriage law.

We're miserable.

God wouldn't want me to be unhappy.

God wants you to be obedient and God's primary goal for us in this life is holiness, not necessarily happiness.

Hopefully, there'll be that also, but there'll be some suffering.

There'll be some difficult times if you're gonna live like a Christian.

I'm not saying that marriage has to be this bad thing.

I don't think it does, but sometimes people act as though.

Well, you know, it's not, it's not working very well.

We're, we're not very happy.

So God must be willing to let us, you know, jettison this marriage.

No, no, God's marriage law doesn't change just because I don't like it or I don't feel like it's working very well in my situation.

Well, that same principle, this last fourth principle applies to our salvation as well.

God's plan isn't open to change.