Answers to Questions Regarding Marriage and Divorce Pt.4

The title of the message is Answers to Questions regarding marriage and divorce, Part 4, and, what I want us to do is to go to the Gospel of Matthew and as we continue to work our way backwards, let's go to Matthew chapter 19. We'll be there for just a moment and then we'll go even further to Matthew chapter 5. Matthew chapter. 19 Verse 9.

Jesus, now in the context of this, I'm not gonna reread a lot of this because we've already been acquainted with some of the dialogue that we encountered in Mark. This is a parallel account, but let's look at verses 9 and 10. Jesus says, and I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. Jesus makes this statement and you'll notice something different about this statement, and that is what is commonly called the exception clause, to Jesus' prohibition of divorce.

And you wanna underline that because this is a very important statement that Jesus is making. Whatever it's gonna mean. And we'll talk at length about that tonight. This is something that came out of Jesus' mouth and we need to be seriously considering this.

Whatever this means, it is absolutely authoritative and no one has any right to have a different view other than that which Jesus is espousing here and he says that anyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality and marries another woman commits adultery. Obviously the implication is if a man divorces his wife for the sin of immorality, because she's been guilty of the sin of immorality, whatever that means, and then he remarries another, what he's doing is not committing adultery.

All right? That's obviously what that means.

Now let me just tell you right now that the word that's translated immorality is the Greek word pornea. It's a word that we've encountered in 1 Corinthians chapter 5 and verse 1. And in another place or two in chapter 5, we also encountered this word in 1 Corinthians 6. And basically just it speaks of sexual sin, all right?

We'll try to nail it down more specifically in a few moments, but it clearly is a reference to sexual sin. Everyone's agreed on that. Well now go leave Matthew 19 and go to Matthew chapter 5, where in another sermon that Jesus is preaching, Jesus once again says something that's very similar to what we find in Matthew. chapter 19.

Matthew chapter 5 and verse 31. Jesus, in this sermon is saying, people say, or the rabbis say this, but I say this, and he continues that flow of thought in Matthew 5:31, when he says, it was said, whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But verse 32, I say to you. That everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery.

And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery, Jesus says. Now, I don't know how the NIV and the King James and New King James handle. The word that the new American Standard translates as unchastity, but it's an unfortunate thing that the new American Standard translators give it this translation of unchastity. This is basically the same Greek word that we see in Matthew 19:9.

It means immorality. It's from the root word pornea. so, it's basically the same word. You can give it the same translation in both of the verses.

So Jesus is basically saying. That if a man divorces his wife, for any other reason other than for the sin of immorality, and then remarries another woman, he is committing adultery. Unless he divorces his wife and remarries under the conditions of the exception that I am giving to you. Is everyone clear on that?

What in the world is Jesus speaking of when he gives us this exception? It seems like what Jesus is saying. That divorce is something that is not permissible unless you're divorcing for the reason of immorality. If you do divorce someone for the reason of immorality, and then you remarry another, you are not committing adultery because your divorce and remarriage are lawful in the eyes of God.

And so with that exception clause in Matthew 19 and 5, commentators gather around it and try to do an honest job of figuring out exactly. what it is that Jesus is referring to when he gives this exception. Now, the truth is, folks, there are actually about 8 different views of what this exception clause. is referring to and 7 of them I understand there's an 8th 1 that I have no clue.

I've read about it, but I don't even understand what those who advocate this point of view are trying to advocate. but I am not going to go through those with you, tonight. Out of all of the 8 views, there are 2 views that when I look at them have merit. All right?

They're the 2 most compelling views. And if you were to talk to 500 scholars, you would probably find that most of them hold one of these two views. All right? If you wanna know what the others are, you can talk to me afterwards.

but nonetheless, here is the first view, and I will tell you this is the more popular view. It is the more common view. held by individuals today, and that is viewing the immorality of which Jesus speaks in the exception clause to be referring to sins of adultery committed by someone who is fully married in the eyes of God. Jesus is referring to sins of adultery, committed by someone who is fully married in the eyes of God.

I don't have time to, to make this case to you. I think you'll all agree with it anyway. When you look through the scriptures. There are basically two fundamental requirements for a union to be considered marriage in the eyes of God.

If you have these two things in place, even if nothing else is in place, two people are indeed de facto married in the eyes of God. And the first of those required elements is covenant. All right? You make promises to each other.

You find indications in scripture where the entering into a. Covenant with a person of the opposite sex, pledging your lives together is a fundamental requirement of making that person yours and of being married to them. But that is not all that is required for a union to be marriage in the eyes of God. God says there needs to be consummation of that covenant.

So the two essential requirements are covenant. And consummation of that covenant through sexual union or coming together sexually and physical intimacy. You have those two things in place. You have a full-fledged a valid marriage in the eyes of God, if you have covenant and also consummation of that covenant.

Now, having said that, the first view that we're looking at tonight. And the view that many people hold to is that when Jesus is referring to the sins of immorality that allow for an exception, allowing for divorce, that many would take Jesus to be referring to sins of adultery committed by someone who is fully married in the eyes of God, who has entered into a covenant relationship with another person, and they have consummated that covenant through sexual union. Now, having said that, let me give you the arguments for this point of view.

And trust me, I know what the arguments for this view are because this at one point was the view that I held.

In fact, I was surprised, a couple weeks ago when I pulled out of my file, my sermon notes from back in Mark chapter 10, which are right here, the morning and evening sermon. I pulled out my sermon notes to see what I said. And I, I must just not remember much about this, but in my written notes, I actually take this view. If you read my notes, I am advocating and arguing for this view, but something happened between my making these notes and my preaching the sermon I did back in 1996, I changed my view.

Towards the other alternative, so I know what the arguments are when I held this view, these are the things that I would have said to individuals to show them that this is actually a very workable way of understanding this exception clause. All right, one of the arguments for this view is that the. the term, pornea or the sin of adultery. By the way, what, before I lose you, let me say this, when I speak of adulterous sins after, the consummation of a complete marriage, and those who hold that view, please understand there's even variety amongst those who hold this particular view.

Some would say just one simple act of adultery. Is what Jesus is referring to. If your spouse commits one act of adultery, then boom, you can lawfully divorce her and remarry, and you are not committing adultery in that act of remarriage. Others say no, not so fast.

Jesus is not talking about a single act of adult. or a period of adultery over which there's been repentance. Jesus is talking about ongoing persistent immorality and adultery over which there is no repentance on the part of the sinning spouse. folks, there are also others who take it to mean even more than that, and they would say, well, actually, the Greek term here is pornea.

That speaks of the enjoyment of any physical or or the mental or physical enjoyment of any sexual pleasure, apart from that which is enjoyed between husband and wife in a marriage relationship. And they would take this term to speak of any heterosexual, homosexual, autosexual behavior. They would include the looking at pornography on the internet or in magazines or on videos and what have you. I heard a message from a pastor in the Midwest last week who includes within the definition of the term pornea, looking at pornography.

All right, and someone who is consumed. by lust and so understand, even amongst those who take this particular view, there is actually a considerable amount of variety, and the truth is the term pornea, if you wanna take it to its fullest extent. It is mental, there is mental Pornea and also physical Pornea. Someone who is lusting in his heart, Jesus says, if you look at a woman and covet her in your heart, you have committed adultery with that woman.

And 2 Peter, Peter speaks of false teachers whose eyes are full of adultery, the sin of adultery, and So folks, you can actually go crazy with this, and if you want to go all the way the full distance with this term, you can actually basically say that someone who is guilty of lust is someone who is now divorceable. Their spouse can now divorce them. If a spouse catches their spouse looking at pornography, for example, or looking at something on a television program. Where they're looking at a sexually stimulating image or whatever and they know that they're lusting after that.

A spouse could say, well, according to the definition of the term pornea in this passage, I have the right to divorce you. You can end up going crazy with this, but in all fairness, most people who go this way and view, their view is that Jesus is saying divorce is allowable. In the event of adulterous sins committed by someone fully mirrored in the eyes of God, most people who hold this view would say that Jesus is speaking of, just persistent acts of adultery over which there is no repentance.

OK.

Now those who hold this view have some arguments, and now here's basically the arguments. They would say the sin of adultery does fit within easily the meaning of the term pornea that is used, and they would be right. in that argument, although it is unusual, Jesus does not use the word adultery. That's what you would have expected him to use if he's speaking of adulterous sins committed by someone fully married in the eyes of God.

But nonetheless, it is a valid point that adultery, committed by a married person, you can use the term pornea to describe that. So that's a valid argument. Another argument that those who hold this view would. would give is they would say, listen, the sin of adultery is a very grave sin.

It is a serious violation of the marriage covenant, and it is such a serious sin that when a person enters into an adulterous relationship with someone who is not their spouse, they have broken that marriage covenant and in breaking that covenant, they have dissolved the marital union by their sin. So the person who divorces them, the person divorcing them is not so much dissolving the marital union, it has already been dissolved by the person. Who committed the act of adultery.

Those who hold this particular point of view have a very high view of the seriousness of the sin of adultery, and I would certainly stand with them on that.

OK. Well, there's another argument that those who hold this view would give that I think you need to be aware of, and it goes something like this. In the Old Testament, what happened to a spouse that committed adultery? What would happen to them?

They would be stoned. What was the usual outcome of stoning? OK, death. so, basically, in God's economy in the Old Testament, if one spouse committed adultery, that adulterous spouse would be stoned anyway and would die, and in their death, they would thus dissolve the marital union, and now the living and innocent spouse is obviously free to remarry.

No one would have a problem with that because the marital. Union has been dissolved. And so the argument would go that obviously in the Old Testament, God viewed the sin of adultery as a serious enough sin to merit the dissolution or the dissolving of the marital union through death by stoning. Therefore, we should not be surprised if Jesus says, is speaking of this as being a valid cause for someone to divorce someone because in that act of.

Adultery, the adulterous spouse has by the nature of their sin, broken the marriage covenant. It doesn't exist anymore, and they have thereby done violence to that union and dissolved the marital union. Thus, and also they would be dead anyway if they were living in the Old Testament era, so you're free to divorce them and remarry and basically act as if they are dead in the eyes of God. In fact, if you read the Westminster Confession of Faith, listen to what they say, and it's based on this argument.

They say in the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another as if the offending party were dead. All right, now where do they get that? They get that from this line of thought. That I have just explained to you.

This is a very weighty argument and it is worth considering. Having said that, you do want to be careful with this because if you're gonna start beginning your trains of thought with what would have happened in the Old Testament, you're gonna get into. Trouble. For example, in the Old Testament era, if you had a 15 year old son who was rebellious and was a glutton and was getting involved in drunkenness and this son would not listen to you at all, whatever you told him to do, he wouldn't do it.

what you were supposed to do? You were to take your son to the elders of the city, and they were to stone him in the presence of other people, and your son would die by that stoning. So, if you're gonna begin your trains of thought by thinking about that thing, what would you say to someone today, a friend of yours that maybe has a teenage son or daughter that is being rebellious. And they're being a glutton, they're eating too much, or they're not listening to their parents.

What would you say to them? Would you say, well, in the Old Testament, they'd be dead anyway. So, let's make an extension here. You can base it, what you need to do is you need to cut off relations with your child and you need to just view them as being dead, from this point on because in the eyes of the law, they would have been stoned anyway.

So you don't, you wanna be careful in using this argument, that I've given to you that some who advocate the point of view that Jesus is speaking of adulterous sins after. the consummation of a marriage, you want to be careful with that, but nonetheless, I do believe that in spite of that, it is a compelling argument because it demonstrates that at least in the eyes of God, he views the sin of adultery as a sin that is serious enough to merit the dissolving of the marital union through death by stoning, OK.

there's another argument, and this is the last argument that we'll look at. I'm sure there's other arguments, but I know when I held this view, this was the last argument that I found really compelling, and if I were talking to someone trying to convince them of this particular viewpoint, these are basically the only arguments that I would have given because they were the only ones that I felt carried weight.

And here's the fourth argument. And that is in the Old Testament, you will observe that God divorced Israel. See, technically speaking, God is a divorced person as well. And he had a marriage with Israel, and he divorced Israel and why he divorced Israel?

Because of her sins of adultery, of spiritual adultery. Write down the reference Jeremiah chapter 3 verse 8, where God says this, for all of. The adulteries of faithless Israel. I had sent her away and given her a certificate of divorce.

And so here is God saying that Israel was my wife, and I divorced her. I gave her a bill of divorcement, and I did so because of her adulteries. And so some would say that if in the Old Testament, God divorced Israel because of her adulteries, then we should not be surprised to hear Jesus say in Matthew 5:19, that divorce is not allowed except for the cause of adulterous sins committed by one spouse. This is actually a compelling argument.

but even in this argument, you wanna be careful with this and keep some things in mind. And what I'm about to say doesn't devastate this argument, but it does mitigate against it to some degree and so I need to say this to you. And that is, yes indeed God did divorce Israel. But he divorced her only after repeated sins on Israel's part that had gone through the period of decades and centuries and after so many efforts on Jehovah's part in reaching out to Israel and restoring her and then she's.

Unfaithful again and then restoring her. She's unfaithful again. God ultimately did, in a sense, give her a bill of divorcement. So God did divorce Israel, but he did so after Israel persisted stubbornly in repeated acts of spiritual adultery against the Lord.

So he did divorce her, alright? But also another thing to keep in mind is that though God did divorce Israel, has he ever remarried? Has he? No, God has remained unmarried.

You say, well what about the church? No, that's the bride of Christ, the bride of Jesus Christ. God the Father has never remarried. Yes, he divorced Israel, but God has remained unmarried, and not only that, though God has divorced Israel, what is the message of the Old Testament and the New Testament regarding God's future plans for Israel?

Does not God say, my plans are and my promises, I'm going to get her back. And the day is going to come when all Israel will be saved, and God is going to bring Israel back to himself. And God at that point will enjoy the union, the marital union with Israel that his heart has longed for down through the centuries and even the millennia. So God did divorce Israel, but he only did so after just repeated efforts.

Of reconciliation and repeated acts of adultery on her part, God did divorce Israel, but he did not remarry. God did divorce Israel, but he's not through with Israel and his plan is I'm going to get her back, and that's my promise. I will get her back. So determined is he to get Israel back that he is orchestrating all of human history to that intended end.

Alright, he is still very much working for the benefit of Israel and the full reconciliation of that marital union with his wife, the people of Israel. In fact, when you really look at this, it actually fits with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, that don't divorce, but if you do divorce, you are to remain unmarried or else be reconciled. to your original spouse. So anyway, these are basically the four arguments, that show that this is actually a valid point of view that is worth, thinking about and considering by anyone trying to sort through what is meant by Jesus' words in this exception clause.

Having given those to you in all fairness, I do have to say that there are some nagging problems, with this view that if you are going to hold this view, you do want to sort through. All right, and one of the nagging problems with this view that really bugged me when I myself held this view is that according to teaching elsewhere in scripture, the marital union is only dissolved by death. It is only death that dissolves the marital union. Let me have you go to Romans chapter 6 and folks, try to turn quickly because we're.

I don't want to end up going longer than an hour tonight. And I'm sorry, Romans chapter 7. In Romans chapter 7, look at what Paul says in verse 2. Romans chapter 7 verse 2, Paul says, for the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living.

But if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress, but if her husband dies, she is free from the law so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined. To another man, I was talking on the phone to one scholar and commentator, and he pointed out this passage, and he says, if indeed, according to this view that we're looking at, there are two things that dissolve marriage, right?

Death and adultery.

And if indeed it is true that adultery dissolves the marital bond, it just seems strange that Paul doesn't mention that. That Paul doesn't say the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living and as long as he is not guilty of the sin of adultery. It would just be a strange argument for Paul to use in Romans 7, if indeed not only death but also adultery did serve to dissolve the marital union. Go to 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and verse 39 where we have a similar statement by Paul.

1 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 39. Where Paul says this, a wife is bound as long as her husband lives, but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Once again, Paul says nothing about the fact that the sin of adultery in and of itself dissolves the marital bond, it is only death. According to this verse, at least, that would serve to do that.

Now I'm not saying that based on these two verses that that just devastates the point of view that we're looking at, but I am saying that if you do want to hold that view, this is a nagging thing that you would want to sort through in your mind and try to reconcile your viewpoint, to what Paul says in Romans 7 as well as 1 Corinthians 7. verse 39. There's another, nagging problem with this viewpoint that even those who do hold this viewpoint, they try to address this cause it bugs them too.

And that is that when you look at Matthew chapter 19, especially in verse 10.

The disciples are absolutely blown away by what Jesus has just said. Listen to this in Matthew 19:9, Jesus says, I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, marries another woman, and marries another woman, commits adultery. Verse 10, and the disciples said to him, if the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, then it's better not to marry at all. The disciples are stunned by what they've heard Jesus say.

And, and what, here's the deal. If you take the view that Jesus is saying, adultery committed by someone fully married allows for divorce, if that is really what he's saying, do you realize Jesus is saying nothing new, nothing original at all. In fact, all he's saying is, hey, I agree with the school of Shammai. I agree with what this school of rabbis have taught regarding valid reasons for divorce.

If you hold this view, then basically Jesus is not saying anything original here. He is merely agreeing with Shamai, and if that is the case, you would expect the disciples to go, oh OK, well, apparently Jesus you then agree with the rabbi Shamai, and you hold his view, but they don't respond that way. They respond as if they've just heard something they've never heard before. And so they respond by saying, man, if the relationship of the of the man with his wife is like this, then it's better not to be married at all.

So if you wanna hold the view that Jesus is speaking of the sin of adultery, committed by someone fully married in the eyes of God. Having consummated the marriage before they committed the act of adultery, you want to sort through this issue of just accounting for the stunned, shocked response of the disciples. I don't believe they would have been so stunned if Jesus was merely saying, let me answer your question. I agree with what Rabbi Shamai says.

one other problem, a nagging problem with this view that always bugged me, and I've already mentioned this before, in previous sermons over the last couple of weeks, and that is that there are 4 books of the Bible where there is clear-cut teaching on the subject of divorce, marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and that is 1 Corinthians and Luke and Mark and Matthew. Why is it that in 3 out of the 4 of those books. That talk about this subject that in 3 of the 4, nothing is said about this exception.

Folks, I want you to feel the weight of that.

That this is a very important exception. If that is truly what Jesus is intending to mean, that's very important. And if I were ever speaking to someone, I would always make sure to state that exception, but nonetheless, Paul doesn't do it, Mark doesn't do it, Luke doesn't do it. Matthew is the only one who makes mention of this exception.

Now for Matthew to mention it, we know Jesus said these words, there's no doubt about that. But it's just bothersome that Paul, especially Paul, talking to a church of people who have been immoral, would not state that exception. the Corinthians should have known about this. Paul should have stated this, I would imagine, if indeed this was something that applied to them.

So this is at least a question that I'm giving to you. If you hold this view, I just wanna challenge you., we all need to challenge each other. And if you end up being right when we stand before God, you're gonna be better off for the fact that I challenged you with this, all right? and that is this, just, just try to sort through the issue of why is it that in 3 out of the 4 books of the New Testament that talk about this issue, 3 of the 4 do not mention this exception.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking, and that is Milton. You of all people ought to know better than this. doesn't God only have to say something once for it to be authoritative? Forget the fact it doesn't show up in 3 other passages.

The fact that it shows up in Matthew makes it authoritative and absolutely binding. God doesn't have to say something 4 times or 10 times to make it more authoritative. All he's gotta do is say something 1 time and that's all we need. And what, I would be the first to agree with you.

in, in that point that you're making, but I would simply reply to you, is it not though worth asking the question, Is there maybe a reason that Paul leaves it out and Luke leaves it out and Mark leaves it out, and is there maybe a reason that Matthew, amongst those four authors chooses to include this exception clause? Is there maybe something unique about? Matthew and his gospel and what his agenda is, and is there something unique about his particular audience that would distinguish, for example, Matthew's audience from the audience that these other three authors of the New Testament are writing to.

And folks, scholars would quickly reply, yes, there is a difference, and that is that 1 Corinthians and Luke and Mark are written to.

Presumably and largely Gentile audiences, Matthew undeniably is being written to virtually and exclusively Jewish audience. As far as the original readership of Matthew, it is very evident that Matthew is thinking of Jews. He quotes from the Old Testament voluminously, trying to demonstrate to the Jewish mind and convince them from the Old Testament scriptures that. Jesus is the long awaited and promised Messiah.

Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, whereas Luke and Mark and Paul were writing to what were largely, if not entirely Gentile audiences as far as their intended original readership of what they wrote. The next question that's worth asking is, was there maybe something unique about the Jews and about. The marital customs of the Jews that distinguished them from the marital customs of Gentiles. Was there anything unique about that that may be worth considering and trying to figure out perhaps what this exception clause may mean?

And folks, there is an answer to that, and that is yes. Now regardless of what view you take, you would have to acknowledge there was something unique and different about. the marital practices of Jews in Jesus' day that distinguish them from the marital practices of Gentiles during this era. You say, what was the difference?

Here's the difference, guys, listen up, that. In Jewish culture, they had what you would call a legally binding engagement period. A legally binding engagement period. In our day to day and in the Gentile cultures of Jesus day, basically you got married, you entered into a covenant, you consummated that marriage right away, and you're married.

in our society today, we have an engagement period, but it's not legally binding. You're not husband and wife yet. so it's very different than what was done in the Jewish culture. In Jewish culture, what would happen would be that a man and woman would enter into a contract agreement, basically a covenant relationship with one another, and the parents were involved in that, very much involved in that.

And so now, legally they are married, legally they are husband and wife, but did you realize that a whole year would go by in Jewish custom before they would then have the. Wedding ceremony and then that evening come together and consummate the covenant that was made 12 months earlier. Nonetheless, so in the eyes of God during that 12 month period, in the eyes of God, they are not fully married because they've not consummated that covenant through sexual union, but in the eyes of the law in Jewish culture, they were husband and wife.

In fact, I, I refer you to Joseph and Mary.

Even before they consummated their marital union, you have in Matthew chapter one, Matthew referring to Joseph as being Mary's husband and Mary as being the wife of Joseph. And so they were, they were husband and wife even though they had not yet come together and consummated their covenant relationship with each other. In fact, let me have you go to Matthew chapter one very quickly. But look at Matthew chapter 1 verse 19.

No, go to verse 18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, in other words, they're engaged, but don't think of engagement like we do today. When she had been betrothed to Joseph before they came together, it's very important for Matthew to tell you that that they had not come together sexually yet.

She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. Alright, now look at verse 19, and Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her plan to send her away secretly. Notice Joseph is being referred to here as her husband. Alright?

And also notice this, it says, and Joseph being a righteous man, and not wanting to disgrace her plan to send her away. the Greek word that is translated send away is exactly the same word that is used in Matthew and Mark that is translated divorce. Now we don't think of, if you break off an engagement, none of us would ever say, yeah, I divorced my fiance. none of us would speak that way because we don't have a legally binding engagement or betrothal period.

But in this day, the marriage legally began at the point of the covenant and the beginning of the contract relationship, but nonetheless, the husband and wife were not living together. Until the 12 month point when they had a ceremony and then after that ceremony they consummated their covenant relationship by coming together in physical intimacy and then at that point they were fully married and one flesh in the eyes of God. Nonetheless, during that 12 month period, if a man was going to break off an engagement with a woman because she had been immoral, he would use the term divorce.

He would write her a bill of divorcement.

All right. And notice poor Joseph here, when Joseph finds out Mary's pregnant, his thinking is not, oh, this is, this is the story of the virgin birth that's happening here, and the Holy Spirit must have come upon her, and that's what made her conceive. No, in his mind at this point, before he hears from any angel about the matter, he honestly believes as much as he loves Mary that she's been unfaithful to me, she has been sexually immoral with another man, and so look what it says.

Being a righteous man, in other words, what he's wanting to do is the righteous thing to do for a man to do in this circumstance.

Being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, he planned, he was making plans to divorce her and to do so secretly. OK, so they are now in the middle of a legally binding engagement period for Joseph to break off the marriage at this point, which would have been the righteous thing to do if she had been immoral. you would have used the term divorce to speak of that. And I just share that with you to let that this was, the custom amongst the Jews, the Gentiles that Paul is writing to in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, and that Mark is writing to the Christians in the Church of Rome and that Luke is writing to, which is clearly.

A Gentile audience, as you read through the book and see the things Luke says and the things he chooses not to say, when you look at that, amongst the Gentiles there was not this practice, but amongst the Jews there was this practice. And folks, because Matthew was written to a Jewish audience in this sense and that Matthew would have these sensitivities. towards his Jewish audience and because the other writers that we've spoken about view this exception clause as perhaps being irrelevant, irrelevant enough for their audiences to where they don't mention it, when you would think it would be important if it applied to them, this leads commentators and scholars, some of them, to the viewpoint that what Jesus is referring to when he gives this exception clause is this.

He's speaking of sexual sin during the legally binding betrothal period.

That was common amongst the Jews. Jesus was referring to sexual sin. that was engaged in by someone during the legally binding betrothal period or the engagement period that was common amongst the Jews. Now there are, commentators that hold this viewpoint, as I mentioned to you earlier.

I spoke to two, commentators in their own rights, on the phone. this week, and one of them dogmatically holds this view and can cite others who hold this view as well. The other one leans towards this view, but he's not real dogmatic about it. several years ago, I had a student at the master seminary.

He wrote his THM, his Master of Theology, a thesis on this particular subject. And he wanted me to review his paper and to give suggestions before he handed it in, and here's his paper on the subject, OK? And and he is very dogmatically in favor of this betrothal view that that is what Jesus is referring to. Now, just so where I stand, I lean towards this view.

If I had to pick between the two views, I would choose this view, but I am not dogmatic about it. I want you to understand that. But having said that, let me give you some reasons why I believe this is a workable view that is worth your consideration. here's, here's the first reason I would give why this is a very workable view that's worth considering, and that is because it does indeed avoid all of the problems that I gave you.

with the, the, the first view that we looked at tonight, it avoids all of those, particular difficulties. a second reason why this is a workable view is because for Jesus to be speaking of divorce. And even remarriage, this is not a problem because the relationship between this engaged couple, though it was legally a marriage, they never consummated the marriage, so there was no true one flesh union in the eyes of God in the first place, and so they're not one flesh at this point.

Yes, they entered into a covenant, but by the immorality of the sinning spouse, they.

Violated, they broke that covenant, and so this engaged man who is technically her husband legally, but not in the eyes of God quite yet, at least fully, this engaged man can now divorce this woman and he's free to remarry because he's never had sexual intimacy with his fiance, as it were, or his wife legally because they never consummated. their marital union. So the prospect of divorce and also a remarriage, it's, it's not a struggle, it's not a problem at all because they never did become one flesh.

It was not a full de facto marriage in the eyes of God.

some would say, here's the third reason why it's a workable view, but let me state the objection. Some would say, well, if that's what Jesus was talking about, then he would not have used the word divorce. Whoever divorces his wife except for this reason, if they're just engaged, he wouldn't have said., use the word divorce to speak of breaking off that engagement, but I've already given you indication that that's not a valid objection. The fact is divorce was a term that was used, to speak of Jews who broke off their engagement.

We actually find that word being used in Matthew chapter 1, verses 18 and 19, and so it fits even with Jesus' use of the word divorce. Also this view would serve to explain why this exception clause is not in Mark. It would explain why it is not in Luke. It would explain why this exception clause is not in First Corinthians, all of which were written to largely gentile audiences.

Their audiences were largely Greek audiences who did not have this legally binding betrothal period and so that is perhaps why Paul and Luke and Mark view this exception clause as irrelevant, but Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience does view it as being very relevant and very important for them to keep in mind. also, another reason I believe we're on number 5, Why this is a workable view is that sexual sin during this legally binding engagement period actually does easily fit within the meaning of the Greek word pornea.

In fact, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Deuteronomy chapter 22, there is spoken about sexual indiscretions of an engaged woman, and in the Greek translation of that passage. in the Greek Septuagint, it's the same Greek word that is used, so sexual sins, sexual indiscretions that one engages in during this engagement period fits well within the range of meanings, that are allowed with the word pornea.

And then a, a fifth reason why this is actually a workable view, is because the fact is sexual sin during the engagement period was a very common. And thought about concern. That was part of the reason why this betrothal period was always so long to prove the faithfulness. And the fidelity of both partners, ultimately it was a common enough concern in the minds and the thinking of the Jewish people for God to give legislation on what to do in the case that someone is unfaithful during the betrothal period.

He gives legislation regulating that in Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 20 and 21. Also, it was such a common concern that during this day if you were going to marry someone. Who maybe was widowed and everyone knew, because she was previously married that she wasn't a virgin. Then it didn't matter what day of the week you were going to get married on, you can get married on any particular day.

But if you were marrying a woman who professed to be a virgin and her parents professed that she was a virgin, you had to be married on the 4th day of the week because on the 5th day of the week, the courts were in session at the local synagogues and you would be. A if you found out somehow that your wife had been unfaithful, she was not a virgin, you could go the day after your ceremony to the synagogue and file a complaint against the girl's dad. The whole issue of sexual faithfulness and fidelity during the engagement period was a very common concern.

In the mind of the Jews, common enough for God to give legislation about it in Deuteronomy chapter 22.

Common enough even for even the scheduling of marriages in this day, marrying virgins, it was scheduled in such a way so that a, a husband could file a complaint against the girl's father if it, proved that she had not been a virgin and that she had been unfaithful in any way during that engagement period. And even before the engagement period. All right, those are reasons why this is a very workable view. It's actually the view that I lean towards.

Let me tell you the problem I have with this view though, and it's, it's this is just the one question that I asked that makes me less than dogmatic about it. And that is, would the Jews standing there listening to Jesus, would the Jewish readers of Matthew's gospel, would all of them have automatically thought, oh that I know what he's talking about he's talking about the engagement period and sexual sin during that particular time period. In fact, the two commentators I talked to this week, I asked both of them that question, and one of them said, of course that's what they would have thought of.

I, I believe that very strongly, and the other one was like, I'm not so sure, and it was one of the hangups he had with this view that made him less than dogmatic.

That is a valid question to at least. However, none of us really know the thinking process of the Jews during this day and the type of lingo that they would normally use in speaking about marriage and about betrothal periods and so forth. For all we know, they would have very readily understood what it was that Jesus was talking about. when he does, speak of this exception that is found in this exception clause, OK, so that is of the two out of the eight views, here are the two that are most worthy of your consideration and my leaning, and as I said last Sunday, I think I gave you the percentage of 5149.

percent. That's about where I am. I lean towards this view, but the other view has a lot of arguments in its favor. And if this other view that allows for divorce in the case of the sin of adultery.

After the consummation of the marriage covenant, if that view is right and one does has a spouse, one does have a spouse that has committed adultery, especially adultery over which they refuse to repent, if that is truly the meaning of this exception clause, then in the eyes of God, divorce and remarriage would be allowable, and it would not be adultery to remarry. If that view is wrong. Here's how high the stakes are. If that view is wrong, then divorce would be wrong and remarriage, would be committing the sin of adultery.

And I simply say that to you to say, however you're gonna land on this, do your homework. do your homework and don't just read one commentary or two. You, you just earnestly seek this matter out and go before the Lord. When I have dealt with individuals in this church who are divorced, for example, and especially if there is, adultery on the part of their spouse and.

Nonetheless, they're now divorced and it's possible that this exception clause would cover them. What I, my policy is that I say to them, listen, if you're wanting to pursue remarriage, I'm not so much gonna stand in your way, but I've, I've required them to get my sermon tapes from '96 and now I'm gonna require them to get this sermon tape. from tonight and also this morning, and I tell them to do your homework and as you pray over it and research it and do your homework, if you come to the point where you believe that you are allowed in the eyes of God to remarry and it's not adultery, then I cannot stand before you and say, no, you're wrong, it is adultery.

I cannot do that because I am not dogmatic enough about this issue.

Nonetheless, what I've sought to do today is to be faithful to. Let what the issues are and what the scripture clearly says, what is not totally clear, and to let the options that are available to you, the arguments for and against them. OK, let's close in prayer. Father, we, We know that the the issues we've looked at today are just extraordinarily difficult.

We're talking about realities, Lord, that I don't think any of us fully fathom the full length and breadth of it all. But Lord, I want to be the pastor that. On judgment day, everyone in this church will be glad that I was their pastor. I don't want anyone standing before you on judgment day and something they thought was totally OK, they find out is not OK and they're thinking why didn't my pastor challenge me?

Or at least make me think about things or. I don't, I don't wanna wimp out Lord, and I, I want everyone in this church on judgment day to to be glad that that I was a shepherd that you put in their lives and at the same time Lord, I know that some of the things we've looked at actually do hurt. And that makes this very difficult for me and I know for a number of people. Lord, I just pray that that all of us would see ourselves as being in process and that we're learning and we're growing and we're just trying to grow up along with the light of the revelation you provide and.

trying to follow you and that's the adventure of it all because we don't always know where it's going to lead and sometimes we fumble around and make mistakes and, and then we're corrected down the road and we have a long way to go, Lord, but I take a lot of comfort in the fact that you are. You are our best friend right now and you do not wait until we arrive at perfect knowledge before you are our most intimate and satisfying friend. May us, may all of us, Lord, during the days of this week enjoy intimacy with you.

May we live at the foot of the cross.

And may that friendship profoundly impact us and change us. May we live inside of the gospel and live and breathe the atmosphere of the gospel of the message of salvation through Jesus. May we preach this to ourselves every day and live in the enjoyment of just the wonderful realities that belong to us every second of every day. We just give ourselves to you, Lord, with these, desires in our hearts and minds.

In Jesus' name we pray, and all God's people said, Amen, amen.