For example, the command of God was true and still in effect – “Thou shalt not kill.” But the Lord Jesus declared that to limit the command to murder was to make it too narrow. “Whosoever is angry with this brother without a cause” is a murderer in the eyes of God. The Pharisees were correct in teaching, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But whoever even wished or hoped for adultery, was also an adulterer. Jehovah, as the Author of the Law, and all the Old Testament knew the Law better than the Pharisees. Christ, the Son of God, has the mind of God to expound and elaborate the Law. And as the King of the Kingdom and as the Head of His Church, He has every right to raise the standard for His own people.
It is but a natural step to move from the subject of adultery in general to marriage and divorce and another variety of adultery.
First, there was the problem of the Pharisees.
The rabbis of Jesus’ day were basically divided into two camps on the subject of divorce. There had been two well-known teachers, one named Shammai and another – Hillell. Generally speaking, most of the Pharisees followed the teaching of Hillell. This man had taught his disciples that if a wife offended her husband in virtually anything, he had cause to give her a bill of divorcement If she burned his meal, he could get a divorce and find himself a better cook. If she put too much salt in the soup, it was ground for divorce. If she got too sick to tend to the herd properly, or if she couldn’t walk to the market any longer, he could find a new wife. If the man’s wife was not as intelligent as he wanted her to be, or she was lazy, or impulsive or talkative, quiet, or virtually anything, he could divorce her and find another wife. They even used Deuteronomy 24:1 to argue for divorce, if the man found a prettier woman willing to marry him. Forgetting about the true meaning of words, they read Moses to say, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes … then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.” If the man’s wife got too wrinkled, too skinny, too heavy, too sun-spotted or too grey-haired, and “she find no favour in his eyes,” he could cast her aside to find a prettier, and probably younger, wife. According most commentaries, this was the common practice of Jesus’ day. And of course it is the basic policy in our day as well.
On the other hand, there was another leading teacher named Shammai who, according to most commentators, granted divorce only on the grounds of adultery.
If we are given enough time by the Lord to reach Matthew 19, we’ll come to this question once again. On that second occasion the subject of marriage and divorce will be brought up by the Pharisees. It was one of their many attempts to test and entrap the Lord. “On which side of the question are you? Hillell or Shammai?” As always, the Lord Jesus will once again avoid the trap and declare the truth. Now, just for the sake of some back ground, let’s read that passage without comment. Matthew 19:3 – “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
When we leave behind the selfish and sinful thoughts of the Pharisees, and we try to focus on what the Lord Jesus was saying about the subject of divorce and remarriage, there are two major paths of interpretation. Today, in just about every congregation of Bible-believing Christians, we will find staunch supporters of both interpretations. And our congregation is no different. Obviously, this puts the preacher in a very difficult situation. No matter what he says about this scripture, there will be people upset with him. For that reason let me lay out, to the best of my ability, what I perceive to be the basic arguments of both. And as I do, let me urge everyone to understand that your neighbor has his arguments, emotions and even has some scriptures on his side – as much as you do on yours. Let me also point out that the message this evening is not nearly as important as our message this morning. As important as is the Christian home, and as important as our understanding of this scripture, it doesn’t come close to the importance of the doctrine of the church, or the sovereignty of God, or salvation by grace. Sometimes people think that they have reason to leave a church where too many members disagree with their understanding on this scripture, but I don’t believe that they do. This is a question, which I began debating within myself soon after I first entered the ministry. I have flip-flopped back an forth on the issues involved, not because I am necessarily weak-of-mind or heart, but because the difficulties are so acute. One interpretation of this passage, is that Christ Jesus never condoned or permitted divorce and remarriage. The other is that He granted divorce, although reluctantly, only on the grounds of fornication.
The Lord Jesus’ declaration about divorce and remarriage.
Right off the bat, it needs to be clearly understood that Christ condemned the ideas of Hillell. “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The “every cause” idea should have no place in the heart or life of the child of God. Hillell and his followers were self-seeking, hedonistic, flesh-pleasing worldlings. They probably traded their Fords and Chevrolets every other year, simply because they got tired of them. It’s a wonder that they kept their children when they began to displease them. Perhaps they didn’t. Perhaps they divorced the kids’ mothers and sent the kids away with them. The children may have been one of the excuses they used to cast aside their lawful wives.
It is the opinion of many that Christ granted permission for divorce based on only one thing – fornication. It is the definition and understanding of “fornication” which separates the two interpretations of Jesus’ words. As I said last week, “fornication” speaks of sexual immorality between people who are not married. “Adultery” may be the very same physical act, but it involves at least one married person. Is it possible that one of the two sinners commits adultery while the other fornicates, or is that splitting hairs? Let’s not worry about that for the time being. In both the Sermon on the Mount and His argument with the Pharisees in Matthew 19, Jesus only used the word “fornication” leading up to divorce. As far as both interpretations are concerned, there is only one reason for divorce – fornication. Alcoholism is not grounds for divorce and remarriage, nor is drug addiction. Physical or emotional abuse, might be reason to leave a spouse, but it is not ground for remarriage. Christ used only one word “fornication.” And those who say that Jesus never commissioned divorce lay great weight on the word “fornication.”
It needs to be understood that in Jewish culture, when two people were espoused (engaged) they were considered to be “married,” in a limited sort of way. Turn to Matthew 1:18 – “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Joseph and Mary were espoused – all the parties involved had agreed to be marriage, but it had not yet been finalized and consummated. When Mary explained to her fiancé – her “husband” – that she was pregnant, he was placed in a very difficult situation. One option was to “put her away” which most people interpret to be – “give her a divorce.” And because they were not fully married, the grounds would have been “fornication.”
Using this as their example, many people say that this is the “fornication” to which Jesus referred. They argue that once the marriage is formalized and consummated, any immorality by either party would no longer be “fornication” but “adultery.” In neither Matthew 5 nor Matthew 19 did the Lord speak about “adultery.” Therefore, they argue, the Lord doesn’t leave any grounds whatsoever for divorce once a marriage has been finalized and consummated. This may be a simplification of their argument, but that is the gist of it.
Now let me try to explain the second interpretation of Jesus’ words.
It boils down to this – when one partner in the marriage commits adultery, the bond between them is broken and a divorce is permitted – although not required. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that word “fornication.” Christ Jesus didn’t speak of “adultery” as the grounds for the divorce – only “fornication.” Premarital immorality is grounds for divorce, but after the marriage is finalized, there can be no fornication and therefore no divorce. Is this the serious problem that it appears to be? People taking this second interpretation say that “fornication” and “adultery” are, at least at times, the same thing.
Let’s think back to the situation of Joseph and Mary. Were they husband and wife? Yes they were, at least in one sense. Were they married? In one sense they were and in another sense they were not. So in one sense of the question, Joseph might have accused Mary of “adultery” but in another the charge would have been “fornication.” In those conditions, adultery and fornication kind of blend together. This gives credence to the interpretation that many have in saying adultery is grounds for divorce.
Then there is the scripture that we looked at last week. If we rigidly apply the word “adultery” to verse 28, it might be argued by Pharisees that Jesus was giving His approval to premarital lust. “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Since, by definition, unmarried people cannot commit adultery, then Christ didn’t condemn the lust of the sixteen-year-old, unmarried man. But who in his right mind would argue that to be true. As I said last week, lust is lust no matter the age, gender, marital condition or physical ability. Many would say that in Matthew 5:28 we are forced to say that ”adultery” and “fornication” are interchangeable. And if they are interchangeable in one verse the two words should be interchangeable two verses later.
What I am trying to tell you is that both sides of the interpretation have strong and reasonable arguments.
It should also be pointed out that 90% of the major commentators, take the second interpretation. Most commentaries say that there is one Biblical ground for divorce, and divorce means the opportunity for remarriage without the commission of adultery. “I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” After quoting those words John Gill says, “which must not be taken strictly for what is called fornication, but as including adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation; and is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Hillell: who admitted of divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous pretences whatever; when Shammai and his followers insisted on it, that a man ought only to put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ.”
Jamison Faucett and Brown – “The one legitimate ground of divorce allowed by the enactment just quoted was “some uncleanness” – in other words, conjugal infidelity. But while one school of interpreters (that of Shammai) explained this quite correctly, as prohibiting divorce in every case save that of adultery, another school (that of Hillel) stretched the expression so far as to include everything in the wife offensive or disagreeable to the husband – a view of the law too well fitted to minister to caprice and depraved inclination not to find extensive favor. And, indeed, to this day the Jews allow divorces on the most frivolous pretexts. It was to meet this that our Lord uttered what follows: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery — that is, drives her into it in case she marries again. and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced — for anything short of conjugal infidelity – committeth adultery — for if the commandment is broken by the one party, it must be by the other also.”
C.H. Spurgeon in his “Commentary on Matthew” says, “Our Lord is more heroic in his legislation. He forbids divorce except for the one crime of infidelity to the marriage-vow. She who commits adultery does by that act and deed in effect sunder the marriage-bond, and it ought then to be formally recognized … as being sundered; but for nothing else should a man be divorced from his wife. Marriage is for life, and cannot be loosed, except by the one great crime which severs its bond, whoever of the two is guilty of it.”
I know that there are commentaries which demand that there are never any grounds for a marriage to be ended in divorce, and any remarriage must therefore be considered as adultery. But it is the opinion of the majority that there is one, and only one grounds for divorce – adultery – and that people who have the divorce granted on that grounds alone are free to marry again without having to wear the scarlet letter – “A.”.
A plea for Christian charity.
As I have said, we find people on both sides of this issue here in our church. And because the arguments and logic are so strong, on both sides, I doubt that there will ever be complete agreement on this subject. And for the same reasons I don’t think that there are reasons to fight among ourselves over this subject. Let each man be persuaded in his own mind and feel free to teach what he believes to his family. But in a public forum like the church pulpit, I think that both sides of the question ought to be shared as best we can.