In my previous article we began to explore what Jesus has to say about divorce in Matthew 19. We concluded that just because God, Moses, and Jesus all realize that broken marriages exist and may need to end via divorce, we shouldn’t set broken marriages as the ideal outcome for all marriages.
The Pharisees see divorce as the standard, but Jesus sets pure hearts and loving, committed marriages as the ideal, just as it was in the beginning before sin ever entered the picture. Sin is a universal problem. Divorce is painful. Jesus calls us to God’s ideal, rather than accepting brokenness as a way of life. Blessed are those who mourn. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are the peacemakers. This is the way of Jesus. And the way of Jesus doesn’t view marriage as just another relationship bound for the trash heap.
The Pharisees see divorce as the standard, but Jesus sets pure hearts and loving, committed marriages as the ideal, just as it was in the beginning before sin ever entered the picture. Sin is a universal problem. Divorce is painful. Jesus calls us to God’s ideal, rather than accepting brokenness as a way of life. Blessed are those who mourn. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Blessed are the merciful. Blessed are the peacemakers. This is the way of Jesus. And the way of Jesus doesn’t view marriage as just another relationship bound for the trash heap.
Now, let’s consider some of the consequences that arise from not approaching marriage and divorce biblically.
Consequences of Illegitimate Divorce
Jesus clarifies for the Pharisees the consequence of “any matter” divorces to marry another as causing adultery. When someone misuses the Scriptures about divorce to ordain “any matter” divorces, they have not legitimately divorced their spouse. Again, please note that Jesus is dealing squarely with the Pharisees’ question about Deuteronomy 24. Jesus is not here to abolish the Torah (law), to set aside God’s Word, or to do something different from what the Lord ever intended. What Jesus is doing is strengthening the sanctity of marriage, while rightly interpreting Deuteronomy 24. And Jesus rightly tells us that Deuteronomy 24 only deals with the “nakedness of a matter”, and that matter is sexual indecency, not “any matter.” And when someone divorces someone else for “any matter,” they have not legitimately divorced their spouse. In the eyes of Jesus, the man of Matthew 19 commits adultery when he remarries, because he is still married to his original spouse in the eyes of God.
This statement by Jesus is a protection of the married woman. In that world (though not in God’s intent), women did not have as many freedoms as men. In Jesus’ world, man could unilaterally divorce a woman for “any and every reason”, leaving the woman with very little support. This teaching of Jesus intends to stop these men from using and abusing women in this way under the guise of Scriptural divorce. According to Jesus, when men or women (see the parallel passage in Mark 10:10-12) seek to use the “any matter” exit out of a marriage to chase after another, they are not acting righteously. If they marry another after this, they have committed adultery against their original spouse. Jesus and Aquiba certainly wouldn’t have agreed on legitimate grounds for divorce.
The Disciples are Shocked
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Mt 19:10–12, The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
It seems the disciples had accepted Hillel’s teaching, which was the predominate divorce teaching of the day. Now hearing Jesus state that marriage was intended to last—that ending a marriage just because you feel like it was unacceptable—the disciples believe marriage may not be a good option!
And Jesus agrees! Well, sort of agrees. The standard of marriage has been set, and Jesus points out that some choose to be celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus goes further to state that those “who can accept this should accept it.” In other words, if one can live a single, celibate life that honors God, they should. And I bet you haven’t heard many sermons about these words of Jesus, or the words of Paul in agreement (see my next post on this).
Many churches have taught that good Christians need to grow up and get married. Both Jesus and Paul would argue that getting married isn’t a sin, but you might live a more faithful, God honoring life by being single. Churches shouldn’t single shame people! Both Jesus and Paul viewed single celibacy as a high calling that should be accepted if possible.
But notice Jesus doesn’t budge on his ideal of marriage. Marriage isn’t to be entered into lightly, and isn’t to be ended lightly either. Any divorce is painful, and divorcing for “any matter” is just plain sinful.
What about the other Jesus on Divorce passages?
Scholars have generally approached the shorter divorce statements of Jesus as abbreviated versions of Matthew 19/Mark 10. These abbreviated accounts appear in Matthew 5:31-32, as well as Luke 16:18, and should not be viewed as in conflict with Matthew 19. As is the case with many themes in the Sermon on the Mount, the quotable moments from the sermon are later elaborated upon by Matthew’s stories of Jesus. The purpose of abbreviation was to produce a short statement that could be easily remembered, and jogged the memory to recall the fuller statement later. Therefore, 5:31-32 is the shocking attention getting statement, and is fleshed out more fully by the Pharisee’s testing in Matthew 19.
Let’s take Matthew 5:31-32 on its face value. If this was the only statement from Jesus that we had on divorce, then Jesus would clearly not agree with Scripture since the whole point of the certificate of divorce was to allow the newly divorced woman to marry again. The only remarriage of that woman that was forbidden was back to her original spouse. To say this is the final statement of Jesus, and everything must be filtered through this abbreviated statement puts the words of Jesus in conflict with Deuteronomy, God’s own divorce and reasoning in Jeremiah 3, and with his apostle Paul (we’ll deal with this passage next). One needs to understand the fuller context of Jesus’ teachings here in order to discern a Biblical theology of divorce that tracks with all Scripture has to say about divorce, and allowing Jesus to be our guide through those texts. Reducing Matthew 5 to a standalone verdict on divorce creates textual disharmony, and puts the Holy Spirit at odds with Himself. Let’s avoid oversimplifying complex Biblical teachings, and instead adopt a more nuanced understanding. Doing good Biblical theology matters.
Historical context also matters when we consider the larger contextual flow of this portion of the Sermon on the Mount, namely the leadership of the Jewish people in that time. Herod Antipas had a public divorce from his wife in order to marry the wife of his brother, Herodias. This is the illegitimate marriage John the Baptist criticized, was arrested for, and ultimately put to death over (see Matthew 14 for more on this). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus in rapid succession speaks of murder (5:21-26), adultery (5:27-30), and illegitimate divorce (5:31-32), all of which Herod Antipas was guilty of, and publicly known for. Jesus certainly wasn’t one to pull punches when dealing with the religious elite. Instone-Brewer provides a good summary of Luke 16.
The precise wording of the Lukan version fits the actions of Herod Antipas particularly well. It describes the actions of Herod, who divorced his wife in order to marry Herodias, and Herodias, who divorced her husband Philip in order to marry Herod (Josephus, Ant. 18.110–12). The verb describing the woman as ἀπολελυμένην, “divorced,” is usually translated as a passive, but it could also be a reflexive middle, which would fit Herodias better because she initiated the divorce herself. This makes sense in the context of Luke where the Gospel speaks about the ministry of John the Baptist (in v. 16). John was the only person who stood up against Herod and told him that he was acting sinfully.
David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 160–161.
The more serious problem with these shorter versions is the misunderstanding that they can produce in a reader. When Jesus’ conclusion is removed from the context of the debate, it is impossible for a reader to understand the meaning.
I appreciate Instone-Brewer’s summation of Luke 16:18 being about John the Baptist (16:16) and his criticism of Herod Antipas, to which I believe Jesus issues his own criticism in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in the immediately following verses (16:19-31).
What Jesus never said, and how churches have misapplied it
I have heard many sermons and classes that seem to take Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 as the trump card for any and every divorce on the planet. According to these teachers, if someone divorces for any reason other than sexual infidelity, the divorce is invalid (which ignores whole passages of the Bible). These are not small, misguided churches with uneducated folks doing the best they know how. Some well known megachurches with well educated staff members have also misapplied Jesus’ words.
Well known pastor John MacArthur’s church disfellowshipped Eileen Gray and her children for leaving David Gray, Eileen’s husband, because he had been physically abusing her and their children. Eileen went to her church elders and disclosed the child abuse her husband David had committed. Rather than report the matter to police as required by law, the church instructed Eileen that she and her children must stay with her husband David, stating Eileen needed to “suffer for Jesus” by enduring David’s abuse of her and her children. Eileen Gray was kicked out of the church, and John MacArthur asked everyone to pray for David Gray because he was the victim. David Gray is now serving 21 years to life in a California prison for his 2005 convictions for aggravated child molestation, corporal injury to a child, and child abuse.
If you truly believe Jesus wants the victims of abuse to stay with their abuser, you truly don’t know Jesus and his teachings. If you believe that a violent, abusive marriage is God honoring simply because sexual immorality hasn’t occurred (turns out it actually did happen in this case), you don’t know the Word of God. Exodus 21 sets the bare standards of a God-honoring marriage, and Eileen Gray’s divorce was absolutely valid. Jesus never came to delete Exodus 21 from our Bibles. Jesus corrected the Pharisee’s distorted understanding of Deuteronomy 24 and the ways they used it to abuse women. And sadly, people have taken these same words of Jesus and also abused women with them. May God forgive our wicked ways.
As of the time of this writing, Grace Community Church has not retracted their statements, acknowledged any wrong doing, or apologized for their role in perpetuating Eileen’s abuse by ignoring her cries for help. They stand by their statements and inaction.
There is so much more that could be written about Jesus and Matthew 19, and perhaps I’ll return to this passage in future posts to address any questions you may have on this passage. Next week we will turn our attention to Paul and 1 Corinthians 7. But for now, let’s consider what Jesus did and didn’t say.
- Jesus responds to a question from the Pharisees, which directly quotes the common interpretation of Deuteronomy 24. Jesus’ response is then an interpretation of Deuteronomy 24.
- By responding to one text of the Bible, Jesus did not abolish other texts of the Bible on the same subject. Therefore, Exodus 21 is still a valid teaching about divorce for today (as we’ll see when Paul deals with divorce in 1 Corinthians 7).
- Jesus taught that the one who ends a marriage without valid grounds (the man in the case of Matthew 19, and either party in the case of Mark 10) to marry another is guilty of adultery.
- Notice that Jesus never condemns the victim in these divorces. If one party wrongly divorces the victim, the victim has done no wrong. In this case, one party has sinned and one party is innocent. It is the one who abuses their spouse through an illegitimate ending of the marriage that is guilty.
- I reiterate my original point in this series of posts that being divorced does not make one guilty of sin. Divorce is often caused by sin, but divorce itself is not a sin. In the examples Jesus gives, the wronged party has done no wrong, and should feel no shame for their divorced status. The hard heart of the former spouse is the reason God gave a certificate of divorce, which frees them to marry again.
- Paul’s teachings on divorce draw upon Deuteronomy 24 and Exodus 21, and will further enlighten how to interpret Jesus’ words here.
Living in the Word 