Download the Bethlehem Baptist Church Mobile App
Available for iOS and Android
September 1/2, 2018
Jason Meyer | Matthew 19:7-9
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. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”—Matthew 19:7–9
Introduction: Setting the Stage
This is the second sermon in a series of four sermons on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Last week we looked at Mark 10:1–12 and how Jesus addressed the no-fault culture of divorce in his day. Today, we turn our focus to a parallel text in this discussion that causes a lot of controversy and confusion: Matthew 19. The debate is over what Jesus means by the phrase “except for sexual immorality” (Matthew 19:9). Let me try to put this controversy into perspective with an opening plea.
Opening Plea ...
In our sermons on Mark 9, we discussed something called “theological triage.” Just like an emergency room nurse has to do triage in deciding which injuries are more life-threatening and need to be treated first (gun-shot wound vs. a sprained ankle), some theological doctrines are more urgent and eternal-life threatening than others.
First-tier doctrines are essential to be orthodox—like the second coming of Christ. Second-tier doctrines are essential to church life and order—like baptism. Third-tier doctrines are important, but not essential for salvation or church order—like the timing and sequence of the second coming of Christ.
We have to be aware of what we say about these things, but also need to be careful how we say them. The way you would communicate something to your child should change depending on the danger (walking out on the street when a car is coming vs. having a shoe untied). We face this same problem in talking about doctrinal issues. The problem is that sometimes we take a tier-three issue and argue about it with tier-one passion.
We said that the doctrine of hell is a first-tier issue. Our specific view on divorce and remarriage is a tier-three issue. You can adopt any of these three views and still be a member or even an elder at Bethlehem—your salvation is not at stake if you read the text in one of these three ways.
This sermon is unlike anything that I have ever preached. Rather than preach my own reading of the text, I am going to represent the range of views represented at Bethlehem on this text. This is an important exercise in how to love one another on debated issues. It is much easier to react to views that are different than our own than to show common courtesy and listen patiently and think clearly until you can summarize someone else’s view in such a way that they would say “Yes, you have understood my view.” This is an exercise in patience, humility, and love.
Therefore, rather than having three points from a passage, I am preaching three views of a passage (held here at Bethlehem among the leaders). I want to acknowledge how helpful John Piper, Jason DeRouchie, and Andy Naselli have been in this process. Jason and Andy both wrote papers on this topic that the elders went through, and their work helped me tremendously in this sermon. And John Piper—I just love that man—replied back with such a heartfelt, helpful email after I sent him a copy of my sermon to make sure that I was accurately representing his view in a way that he found satisfactory. He really helped me tighten up a couple of things that will make this sermon more fruitful for all of us.
The sermon will walk through this controversy in three steps. First, we will survey the three views. We will ask each view the same three questions so that you can compare and contrast them. The end goal of this step is understanding. I want you to walk out of this sermon understanding each view better.
The second step has a different goal. I want you to move from understanding each view to appreciating each view and respecting those who hold each view. Each view is held with passion because each view is trying to uphold something precious.
The third step is the conclusion. Here I want to return to a point I made in the introduction—why this is a tier-three issue. We will attempt to show that none of the three views compromise the hope of the gospel.
The main issue before us for discussion is what Jesus means by the phrase “except for sexual immorality” (Matthew 19:9). I will ask each view three questions. I will allow the listener to come to his or her own conclusions. Here are the three questions: (1) What does Jesus mean by the Greek word porneia? (2) How does the exception clause function? (3) Why are the disciples so surprised in the verses that follow (verses 10–12)?
Here is a thumbnail sketch of the three views.
|
View |
Divorce |
Remarriage after Divorce |
|
1. Accept Divorce, |
Believers should not initiate or pursue a divorce, but they can accept it as 1 Corinthians 7 says ... |
Only legitimate if one’s former spouse dies (as long as one’s former spouse is still alive) |
|
2. Sometimes Pursue Divorce, Remarriage only after death of a spouse |
Pursuing a divorce is sometimes legitimate (a) Only for sexual immorality or physical desertion by an unbeliever (b) Also for other actions that break the marriage covenant, like abuse |
|
|
3. Sometimes Divorce, |
Legitimate when the divorce is legitimate |
We need to be clear about a couple of points right off the bat with this view. It would not be accurate to call this view “Divorce is never legitimate,” because of 1 Corinthians 7:15, “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” There are cases when it is “legitimate” for a Christian to accept the demand of a spouse for a divorce (but not initiate, pressure, or pursue).
Secondly, it would also be inaccurate to call this position “Never Divorce/Never Remarriage,” because remarriage is legitimate in one scenario: after the death of the spouse.
What is the meaning of porneia?
Pastor John Piper has a very specific read on how to translate the Greek word porneia. He argues that it is a reference to fornication that occurs before marriage, in the betrothal period. He draws this conclusion on the basis of four points:
1) Strikingly, Matthew distinguishes between porneia and moicheia in Matthew 15:19, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery [moicheia], sexual immorality [porneia], theft, false witness, slander.”
That observation raises the question why he did not use moicheia in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32.
2) Equally strikingly, in John 8:41 the Jewish leaders mock Jesus with the words, “We were not born of porneia,” pointing back to their rejection of the virgin birth explanation of Mary’s pregnancy. They thought she had gotten pregnant during her betrothal by porneia.
3) Neither Mark 10:11–12 nor Luke 16:18 provides an “exception clause,” which raises the question as to whether they should be qualified in view of Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 or the other way around: whether there is a way of understanding the exception clauses in Matthew that conforms to Mark and Luke.
4) At this point, Pastor John turns to Matthew 1:18–20 for help—not for the meaning of porneia per se, but for a context that would help make sense of those three observations. (He also points to other factors that you can see in his article at Desiring God on this topic.[1])
And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.—Matthew 1:19
In Matthew 1:18–20 he sees a man who is called “just” in pursuing a “divorce.” This looks like a contradiction of Jesus’ prohibition of “divorce.” So Jesus clarifies in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that he is not talking about situations like that.
Therefore, in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 the word porneia refers to premarital sex when a person is betrothed according to the first-century Jewish custom.
How does the exception clause function?
The clause modifies the verb “to divorce,” not remarriage. One could put an end to the commitment of betrothal (which required divorce), if the spouse discovered sexual immorality.
Therefore, here is how Pastor John would translate Matthew 19:9, “Whoever divorces his wife—not including, of course, the case of fornication [πορνεία] between betrothed couples—and marries another, commits adultery.”[2]
Why are the disciples so shocked?
(difference between Rabbis and Jesus)
The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”—Matthew 19:10–12
Notice the disciples’ response: If what Jesus is saying is true, then “it is better not to marry” (v. 10). He responds in verse 11 with these words: “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given” (v. 11). What is the “This saying” (v. 11)? “This saying” is a reference to the hard word Jesus spoke against divorce and remarriage in verse 9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Who can receive that saying? Answer: Only “those to whom it is given” (Matthew 19:11). To whom does this phrase refer? This view takes it as a reference to the faithful disciples. The Pharisees and the outsiders cannot receive the word to not divorce a spouse even if they are sexually unfaithful.
How does Jesus differ from the most conservative viewpoint of his day? Andy Naselli has a helpful summary in his paper: “Jesus is much more radical than the Rabbi Shammai. Shammai mandated divorce for sexual immorality, but Jesus prohibits most divorces and remarriage after divorce for porneia (i.e., adultery, bestiality, incest, sodomy, homosexuality, etc.).”
What is the meaning of porneia?
Both this view and View #3 disagree with View #1 on the meaning of porneia. Both views believe that the word has its normal or customary meaning here – not a restricted meaning. The word normally refers to sexual immorality in general. It is a term for the junk drawer of all kinds of sexual unfaithfulness. D.A. Carson translates porneia as “marital unfaithfulness.” He says that porneia includes adultery, but goes beyond it as well. It is “a larger category than adultery, and includes homosexuality and all other sexual indecency.”[3]
Both views #2 and #3 would give multiple reasons for reading this term more broadly than betrothal.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”—1 Corinthians 6:9–10
Three terms are used in overlapping ways. If Paul had wanted to use one word, porneia was a catch-all term that would cover them all.
For example, if the background of this texta is the debate between Rabbi Hillel and Shammai, then that further clarifies the context. For example, if Rabbi Hillel said that a husband could divorce his wife for ruining the meal, then it does not fit betrothal because no betrothed woman would be making her “as-yet-to-be” husband a meal because they are not living together (this point was made by William Heth in email correspondence with Andy Naselli).
How does the exception clause function?
This view disagrees with View #1 about the meaning of porneia, but it agrees with view one on how to connect the exception clause—it goes with divorce, not remarriage. The placement of the clause after “divorces” but before “and remarries” argues that Jesus permitted divorce for marital unfaithfulness but not also remarriage. In a culture that demanded the wife be divorced for immorality, the exception clause relieves the man of the responsibility for the divorce and its consequences.
Therefore, Jesus says that when sexual unfaithfulness happens in marriage (not just betrothal), it is a legitimate ground for divorce, but not for remarriage (different than View #3).
Why are the disciples so shocked?
(difference between Rabbis and Jesus)
What is the “This saying” (v. 11)? This view says “This saying” is a reference to the hard word Jesus spoke against divorce and remarriage in verse 9: “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
The phrase “Those to whom it is given” in verse 11 would be a reference to the faithful disciples. Pharisees and the outsiders cannot receive the word to remain single after a divorce and not remarry (even in the case of marital unfaithfulness).
Note again Andy Naselli’s summary of the difference between Jesus and Shammai. “Jesus is much more radical than Shammai. Shammai mandated divorce for sexual immorality, but Jesus prohibits most divorces and remarriage after divorce for porneia (i.e., adultery, bestiality, incest, sodomy, homosexuality, etc.).”
What is the meaning of porneia?
This view agrees with view #2 about the normal meaning for the word porneia. It refers to sexual immorality that happens within marriage.
How does the exception clause function?
This view disagrees with both views #1 and #2 about what the exception clause modifies. They would say it goes with both verbs: divorces and remarries. The grammar of the sentence alone does not demand that it go with only one verb and not the other. Grammar gives the option to take it with one or both. The fact that divorce is justified makes it natural to put the exception with both verbs. If immorality makes divorce justifiable, then it also makes remarriage justifiable.
The historical-cultural context really matters to View #3. A valid divorce would always include the right to remarry in Jesus’ day. Both Jewish and Roman cultural contexts permitted (even required) divorce for adultery. Remarriage could naturally follow. It was simply part of the fabric of expectation. Matthew’s readers would operate on the same assumption (if Jesus permitted divorce, it would include the common right to remarry; if Jesus wanted to say something against this, then he would have made that more explicit).
Andy Naselli has a great summary of this perspective:
“Both Shammai and Hillel permitted remarriage, as did all known Jewish and Greco-Roman views at that time.[4] If Jesus intended to forbid remarriage, then he would have forbidden it explicitly because everyone—Jew and Gentile—assumed that remarriage is legitimate when the divorce is legitimate. Divorce in the Jewish and Greco-Roman historical-cultural contexts always included the right to remarry.[5] The standard wording on rabbinic divorce certificates was,“You are allowed to marry any man you wish.” This wording can be traced through Jewish divorce certificates and marriage certificates that have survived from as far back as the fifth century b.c.e., and it can then be traced through Babylonian marriage certificates and law codes back as far as the fourteenth century b.c.e.[6]
Therefore, sexual immorality gives biblical grounds to divorce and get married again.
Why are the disciples so shocked?
(difference between Rabbis and Jesus)
“This saying” (v. 11) refers to the statement that the disciples make in v. 10: “It is better not to marry.” Jesus does not deny the legitimacy of singleness (remain unmarried), but he does qualify the idea that “thus everyone should not marry.” Jesus affirms that some should not marry—those whom God enables to remain celibate and single. The apostle Paul make the same point (1 Corinthians 7:7; 25–38).
Andy Naselli had a great summary of how Jesus is different than Shammai in this third view. “Jesus is more radical than Shammai. Jewish (and Roman) law mandated divorce for sexual immorality, but Jesus only permits it. This means that broken marriages may still be restored.” I would add that Jesus says that the application for divorce apply to both women and men, whereas Shammai and Hillel restricted the right to divorce to men only.
Category #1) Divorce should never be initiated and pursued by a Christian, but accepted by a Christian if the partner separates and persistently demands it (1 Corinthians 7:15). Remarriage after divorce should not be pursued by a Christian unless the partner dies. (This is John Piper’s view.)
Category #2) Divorce may be initiated and pursued (or accepted) by a Christian when the spouse commits adultery or deserts the relationship. (Some elders hold this view.)
Category #3a) Divorce may be initiated and pursued (or accepted) by a Christian when the spouse commits adultery or deserts the relationship. Remarriage is permitted only after divorces that happened for those causes. This is based on the historic Protestant view from the Westminster Confession xxiv.6: “Nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage.” (Some elders hold this view.)
Category #3b) Divorce may be initiated and pursued (or accepted) by a Christian not only when the spouse commits adultery or deserts, but also for abuse, which breaks the marriage covenant. Remarriage is permitted after such permitted divorces. (Many elders hold this view.)
Why one is persuaded by certain view or certain argument is a great mystery. Sometimes we are logically convinced, while at other times our hearts just find certain ideas or implications more attractive. Do we take the time to appreciate what makes each of these views attractive?
1. Never Divorce/Never Remarriage
What is attractive about this view? View #1 has a really high view of the marriage covenant. It also stands against our culture’s low view of marriage commitment. Many treat marriage merely as a contractual commitment that lasts as long as one feels like committing. By way of contrast, this view has a high view of marriage. It says to preserve the marriage at any cost. It is also attractive in that it attempts to make the earthly symbol and the heavenly reality match. Christ never divorces his bride in a heavenly marriage and so we should never divorce in earthly marriage.
2. Sometimes Divorce/Never Remarriage
What is attractive about this second view? View #2 also holds up a high view of the marriage covenant, but in addition, it takes sexual immorality as a sin seriously in that it is covenant-breaking behavior. This view believes that there can be such a thing as a marriage that dishonors God. It says preserve the marriage at great cost, but not at any cost. The marriage covenant is broken when covenant-breaking behavior happens. Someone can choose to divorce in those contexts and be free from an unfaithful spouse.
3. Sometimes Divorce/Sometimes Remarriage
What is attractive about this view? It also upholds a high view of marriage like the other two. Like View #2, it also looks at marital infidelity as covenant-breaking behavior. Perhaps what stands out about this view most is its passion for the vulnerable. This view says preserve the marriage at great cost, but not at any cost. The clause about unbiblical divorce and remarriage is there because God cares deeply about the covenant commitment of marriage. The exception clause applies to both divorce and remarriage because God cares deeply for the vulnerable and makes allowance for hardness of heart and allows the marriage experience to be redeemed so that there is provision for remarriage.
Now that we have moved from understanding each view to appreciating each view, I want to close with a monumental, worshipful claim: Where you land on these three views does not call into question the hope of the gospel.
What happens when the earthly symbol fails? Does it alter the heavenly reality? No. The failure of the symbol does not do anything to the unshakably certain and fixed reality. If I lose my wedding ring, I will do almost anything to find it. You will see me go into a frantic “stop-the-music, everything-is-on-hold-while-I-look-for-this-ring” moment. It means something to me as a symbol because I so cherish the reality of my marriage to my wife. But if (God help me) I can’t find it, I am not going to call up Cara frantically and tell her to get her wedding dress on, and I’ll go rent a tux and we will call our closest friends and family and ask one of the pastors to do an emergency wedding ceremony. The loss of the symbol has not changed the fact that we are married.
We don’t adore viewpoints and debates and conceptual frameworks. We adore a Person. We don’t trust in articulation and argumentation. We trust in a Person. We must be clear at this point on the difference between the earthly symbol and the heavenly reality.
We must also make sure that the gospel is clear in your minds—especially if the earthly symbol has failed you or if you have been the one to fail a spouse. There is blessed hope for you today. If you are the one who failed your marriage, I call you to repent, fully owning your sinful actions so you can fully embrace the provision of the gospel. The only hope is on the other side of repentance—getting out of denial so you can own your sin. That is the only hope. Because if you confess it as sin, there is a sacrifice for sin. There is no sacrifice for denial.
The ultimate hope is not the changeability of your current circumstances. We believe that God can intervene. His arm is not too short to reach into the depth of the mess and change it. But beware of putting your hope in any sinner, whether it be in a better future version of you or your spouse or your marriage. Our hope is in Jesus Christ, who is gloriously the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is good—unchangeably good—and he is sovereignly working for our good. The One who suffered knows how to shepherd those who suffer. He cares for you not as a concept, but as a child.
__________
[1] https://www.desiringGod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper
[2] John Piper, What Jesus Demands From the World, 6:743–44.
[3] D.A. Carson, God With Us: Themes From Matthew (Ventura: Regal, 1985), p. 118.
[4] For a concise summary of divorce and remarriage in the ancient Near Eastern, Greco-Roman, and Jewish worlds, see Edwin M. Yamauchi, “Divorce,” in Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and Post-Biblical Antiquity, ed. Edwin M. Yamauchi and Marvin R. Wilson, 4 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2014–2016), 2:116–27.
[5] Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, forthcoming).
[6] David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 29.
Main Goal: Understand and appreciate the three views that people have on this text.
Outline in Three Steps
Step 1: Understand the Views
Discussion Questions
Application Questions
Prayer Focus
Pray for a grace to uphold the hope of the gospel in this discussion and to show grace, patience, and love to those who disagree.