|
Lesson Eight: The Nature
of Marriage
"The Permanency of
Marriage"
continued
Matt. 19:1 - 12
Introduction:
Several weeks ago (nearly four weeks ago!), we started looking at
the permanency of marriage. In our series on creating strong
families, we have been focusing on creating strong marriages. First
of all, we saw that if we are to have a strong marriage, we are
going to have to view that marriage from the perspective of an
unconditional covenant. Christian marriage is not a
contract. It is not a civil agreement, it is not governed primarily
by societal regulations - it is an unconditional covenant.
Secondly, we saw that if we are going to have a strong marriage, we
are going to have to understand the picture of
marriage. Marriage is an object lesson that illustrates the
relationship between Christ and the Christian. From the practical
perspective, marriage protects us against immorality, it enables us
to fulfil our God given vocation, it provides companionship, and it
enables us to be fruitful and multiply; but from a spiritual
perspective, marriage shows the world around us the nature of our
relationship to God. The final point I have been making in this
series has to do with the duration of marriage. If we
are going to have strong marriages, we need to understand that
marriage is to be a permanent relationship.
There is a quick caveat I need
to make here. When I say that marriage is a permanent relationship,
I do not mean that it is an eternal relationship. There is a
difference between those two ideas. In heaven, there is going to be
no marrying or giving in marriage. Marriage is only for our time
here on the earth. Closely related to this qualification is the
idea that marriage is not a permanent relationship in the sense that
it can be broken by death. In 1 Tim. 5 Paul is giving
instructions to young widows, and he tells them to get married, have
children, and keep the house. If God had intended for your first
spouse to be your only spouse, He never would have had Paul give
these instructions to the young widows. So those are the two
qualifications I want to make to the idea that marriage is to be a
permanent relationship.
This brings us up to where we
are today. Several weeks ago we were in Matthew 19 looking at what
has come to be known as "the exception clause." I shared with you
that I believe Evangelicalism has really missed the point of what
Jesus was saying in that exchange with the Pharisees. They were
trying to pin Him down and find if He held to either the liberal or
conservative school of thought concerning divorce. And instead of
aligning Himself with either position, two times He calls them to a
higher standard by going back to the original model established by
God in the Garden of Eden. Twice He explicitly says, "What God has
joined together, let no man separate."
And when we looked at verse
nine where we see the phrase, "except for immorality," I shared with
you that all Jesus was saying was that if you had divorced your
spouse because he had been unfaithful to the vows of marriage, and
you had then married someone else, you were not living in
adultery. Exegitically (grammar, vocabulary, and context) and
logically, that is all Jesus is saying in verse nine. To infer or
deduce that Jesus also meant by that statement that He was approving
of divorce in the case of immorality is logically indefensible.
It is an argument from silence. When I was a Junior at Bob
Jones, I went swimming late one night in one of the large fountains
on campus. Several of my friends saw me and decided to join me.
The problem was that they didn't want to get their clothes wet, so
they were swimming around completely nude. Sure enough, we got
caught, and when I was making my defense before the discipline
committee, I pointed out to them that the student handbook didn't
say anywhere that a student was not allowed to swim in the
fountains! That was when I learned about the weakness of a position
based on silence. Those kinds of arguments don't stand up in
court!
This is why I believe that the
"exception clause" argument in favor of "biblical divorce" is not a
sound, logical argument. And when you add the reaction of the
disciples (v. 10) to the issue, it is even more difficult to defend
the idea that adultery constitutes legitimate grounds for divorce.
Their response to the whole conversation was "If the relationship
of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry."
The $64,000 question is, "What does the word "this" refer to?"
We only have two choices. First - "this" could refer to Jesus'
statement, "What God has joined together, let no man separate." If
that is what the word "this" refers to, the thought of the passage
would be, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is that what
God has joined together, let no man separate, then it is better not
to get married." That is our first option. The second way we could
interpret this is that the word "this" could refer to Jesus'
statement, "whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and
marries another woman commits adultery." If that is what the word
"this" refers to, then the thought of the passage would be, "If the
relationship of the man with his wife is that whoever divorces his
wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits
adultery, then it is better not to marry." Those are our only two
options when it comes down to how to interpret what "this" refers
to.
So, how do we figure out which
one is it? It is the one that most likely would cause the
disciples' reactionary response. If Jesus had been saying, "you may
divorce your spouse if he is unfaithful to the marriage vows," the
disciples would not have responded the way they did because that
view was the current, conservative position on marriage and
divorce. But these disciples understood the reality of infidelity
in marriage (this is not a 21st century, Evangelical phenomenon!),
and they also understood the point that Jesus was making about the
permanency of marriage. And because of these two facts they
conclude that it may be a better idea not to ever get married -
because "what God joins together, let no man separate."
And this brings us up to where
we are in the passage, verse 11, where we see Jesus' response to the
disciple's reaction. Does He correct their thinking when they say,
"It is better not to get married?" Not at all - He affirms their
conclusion. "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 (some physical abnormality has made them incapable of human
reproduction); and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men
(this is a reference to the practice of castrating male slaves);
and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake
of the kingdom of heaven (this is a reference to a person who
voluntarily chooses singleness as a lifestyle - not a reference to
some kind of self mutilation as seen in the Heaven's Gate cult).
He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
What is going on here? In a
nutshell, Jesus is agreeing with the disciple's assessment that "if
the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better
not to marry." Jesus is saying, "You're right! Singleness (or as
He puts it, "being a eunuch") is a viable option for humanity." I
want to be quick to say that it is not the norm, nor is it
desirable. What is normative for humankind is to get married. That
is why God said in the Garden of Eden, "It is not good for a man to
be alone." It is also normative for humankind to get married as a
protection against immorality. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 7, "it is
better to marry than to burn with unrequited sexual desire." But
Jesus is saying here that singleness is a viable option,
especially in light of the permanency of marriage. "What
God has joined together, let no man separate."
His point is that it would be
better for a person to go against the normal scheme of life and
never get married, than to get married and then break those vows.
Because in God's scheme of life, vows are important. In Psalm 15,
David is describing the character of a person who has close
fellowship with God. And one of things that mark a person like that
is that he is willing to "swear to his own hurt, and not change."
In other words, when you take a vow and then find out that it is
going to cost you to keep it, you keep it even if it is personally
difficult. Solomon expresses the same sentiment in Ecclesiastes
5:4-5. "When you make a vow to God, do not be late in
paying it, for He takes no delight in fools. Pay what you vow!
5 It is better that you should not vow than that you should
vow and not pay." It is better not to get married than to get
married and then break the vows you made to your spouse.
So, to summarize Mt. 19, I
think it is safe to say that Jesus is not teaching the legitimacy of
divorce in some cases. That is a forced interpretation, based on
silence, it is inconsistent with the rest of the passage. And what
is probably even more compelling than these three points is the fact
that this understanding is not supported by the rest of scripture.
In fact, why don't we look at some of the rest of the Bible to see
what God says about the permanency of marriage.
Let's start by looking at
Malachi 2:13 - 16. While you are turning there, let me remind you
about the context of Malachi. Judah as a nation is about through -
they are in their final years. Israel has already been conquered,
and Judah knows it's time is short. The people of the nation make a
pretense of following God, but it is a sham. And as they suffer for
their sins, they approach God and ask, "Why are things going so
badly for us?" They had become so desensitized to the true worship
of Yahweh that they were incapable of drawing obvious conclusions.
So God speaks to them through the prophet Malachi and gives them a
list of all the things they are doing that is causing God's hand of
cursing to be upon them.
Let's pick up the dialogue in
Malachi 2:13-16 where God is speaking. "And this
is another thing you do: you cover the altar of the LORD with tears,
with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the
offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14
"Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because the LORD has been a witness
between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt
treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by
covenant. 15 "But not one has done so who has a remnant
of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly
offspring? Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal
treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 "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 is God's attitude toward
divorce, and note how God views it. And let me point out that there
are two sets of three in these verses. This alerts us to God's
perception. 1) It is an act of treachery, vv. 14, 15, 16.
Three times in three verses God says that divorce is a treacherous
way to treat your spouse. Why is it treachery? Because of the
nature of unconditional covenants. It is going back on your word.
It is breaking a vow. If you take a vow and say, "I will hold you
as the sole object of my affection until death do us part," do you
really mean it? This is why I tell the couples who come to me for
premarital counseling that if they hold to the idea that adultery
gives them the right to divorce their spouse, that belief needs to
be expressed in their vows. Now, it won't sound too romantic to say
"I'll hold you as the sole object of my affection until death do us
part, or until you have an affair" but at least you'll be honest.
This is why God labels divorce as an act of treachery. It is
breaking a vow.
But note also that divorce 2)
indicates a lack of spirituality, v. 15 (twice), 16. Three
times in two verses God makes a connection between divorce and the
ruach. I'm not sure exactly what the Hebrew is conveying
here; but the translators of the NAS capitalized the word ruach,
which can be translated as either breath, wind, or spirit. So they
are taking it to be a reference to the Holy Spirit. If that is what
God is implying, it fits perfectly with the reasoning behind Moses'
permitting divorce. Why did Mose permit divorce? Because of the
hardness of their hearts. The lack of sensitivity to God's plan
("what God has joined together, let no man separate"). In other
words, it was a sign of being callused. We use the term "seared
conscience" to convey when a person's conscience is no longer
sensitive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I believe that is
what God is saying here. Divorce is a callused, willful violation
of God's original intent.
Transition:
There is one other main passage in the Bible that addresses divorce,
and that is Matthew 5:31-32. We aren't going to be able to go
through it because of our time constraints, but I do want you to be
familiar with it. Jesus spoke these words early in His ministry,
and they are found in that section that records for us the new
teachings Jesus was bringing in. In Matthew 5 through 7, Jesus
repeatedly contrasts the old system under Moses with the new system
under Jesus. We could say He was highlighting the differences
between the Old Covenant enacted at Mt. Sinai and the New Covenant
that was going to be enacted on Mt. Calvary in the very near
future. And as I said in the previous message, Jesus repeatedly
calls His followers to a higher standard than the Mosaic system
asked for. In verses 31 and 32, Jesus says, "And it was said,
'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of
divorce'; (This was the Mosaic standard taught in Deut. 24:1)
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,
except for the cause of unchastity [the same word is used in Mt.
19:9, only there it is translated as 'immorality'] , makes her
commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.
What is Jesus teaching here?
Right off the bat, we know that it is going to be a higher standard
than what they were used to.
The first thing Jesus is saying
is that if you divorce your spouse for some reason other than
porneia (the general term for sexual sins of any nature), you
have just caused your spouse to commit adultery. You
have caused your spouse to stumble. You have
caused your spouse to break the 7th commandment. Why is
that? What is the connection between divorce and adultery? The
connection is that your spouse is almost certainly going to get
married again (especially the women in that culture who were
dependent on a husband for their existence), and the new teaching
Jesus is imparting in this passage is that that new marriage is
going to constitute committing adultery. From God's perspective,
those wedding vows were still intact. Now of course, this isn't
going to happen if your spouse has already committed adultery - your
act of divorce and his / her subsequent remarriage are all after the
fact of the original committing of adultery.
And then Jesus goes on to say
that if you marry a divorced woman, who was divorced for some reason
other than adultery, you are committing adultery. Why? Because
again, from God's perspective, those wedding vows are still intact.
Now, I want to make sure we understand the context. Jesus is
referring to the liberal school of thought that allowed divorce for
"any cause" at all. And I think you can see how he is calling His
followers to a higher standard than they were used to.
But the question comes up
again, "Does this teaching constitute God's stamp of approval on
divorce if you have a spouse who is sexually unfaithful to you?"
And my answer again is "no." The only points Jesus is making here
are:
1) If you divorce your spouse
for reasons other than sexual sin, you are causing that spouse to
commit adultery; and
2) If you divorce your spouse
for any reason other than sexual sin, and then you get married
again, you are living in adultery.
Something I want to make sure
we all understand is that in this passage, Jesus is not giving a
comprehensive teaching on the issue of divorce. He is dealing with
a very narrow issue - what about cases of divorce that involve
sexual sins. His teaching is clear - if you get remarried, you are
not living in adultery. That is all Jesus is saying, and it was
news to the people who were listening to Him. They had not heard
this kind of teaching before. This teaching wasn't part of the
Mosaic system of thought. But I want to reiterate, you are reading
things into the passage if you think that this somehow constitutes
biblical grounds for divorce.
Conclusion: So
by way of conclusion, let me say that if you want a comprehensive
picture of what the Bible teaches about the permanency of marriage,
you are going to have to do several things. You are going to have
to go back to the book of Genesis and look at the original model.
Then, you are going to have to study the book of Hosea and Eph. 5
and see the object lesson of marriage. Then, you are going to have
to study Malachi 2 and see how God views divorce. And finally, you
are going to have to study Matthew 19. But you are going to have to
study all 12 verses, not just the first nine, and certainly not just
verse nine.
And hopefully this teaching
this morning will make you even more committed to your spouse.
Remember, that is my objective - strong marriages. I understand the
reality of divorce and its existence here at Cornerstone Baptist
Church. And I want to reiterate that my purpose in bringing these
messages is not to open old wounds, but to spur us on to doing what
the Apostle Paul exhorts us to do - press on toward becoming all
that God wants us to be. And part of becoming all of what God wants
us to be is to understand the permanency of marriage and to be
committed to our spouse.
I want to close in prayer, but
before I do, I want each husband and wife to join hands. If you
aren't sitting next to your spouse, go ahead and shuffle around to
get next to him, because I want to pray a prayer of commitment for
the marriages in our church. If we are going to have strong
families, we are going to have to have strong marriages. And a huge
part of having a strong marriage is to have husbands and wives
committed to each other - for better, for worse, and forever.
Our Father, as your children, we understand
that you have called us to an incredibly high standard. When we see
your expectations in this matter of marriage, we are tempted to
agree with the disciples that it may be easier just not to get
married. But we also know that marriage is a wonderful relationship
that has a divine stamp of approval on it. And when we think about
the potential a strong marriage has, we agree with you that it is
indeed not good for a man to be alone and that marriage is to be
held in honor among all.
But Lord, we also understand that we live
in a fallen, sinful world. Just because we have come to you for
salvation and have been regenerated and justified doesn't exempt us
from the struggles and temptations that are so numerous. And we
further understand that our adversary is prowling around like a
roaring lion, seeking to destroy the family.
Because of these realities, we are coming
before you as a church this morning; and as the shepherd of this
flock, I am asking you for three things.
First of all, I pray that each couple here
would be as committed to the person he holds by the hand as you are
to Him. Help us to understand the nature of covenants, the picture
of marriage, and the permanency of marriage. Secondly, I ask that
you would protect each marriage here at Cornerstone from the assault
of the enemy. Each time our adversary succeeds in destroying a
marriage covenant, the cause of Christ suffers, spouses are deeply
wounded, and innocent children are scarred for life. So because of
the magnitude of the ramifications, please protect our marriages.
And finally, Lord, I ask for special grace to be granted to each
person here. The standard to which you have called us is
unattainable in our own strength. The only way we can fulfill your
expectations is if we rely on your grace, which we know is
sufficient for every circumstance. |
