← Back to sermon library

You may turn in your Bibles to 
Matthew chapter 19 for our continual exposition or our continued exposition 
of Matthew's gospel. We find ourselves in the section 
where Jesus is dealing with family matters. In chapter 18, we saw 
the fourth discourse. The primary emphasis there was 
on the community, the church of Christ, and how we are to 
deal with one another. Here in chapter 19, the Lord 
Jesus deals with marriage. He deals with divorce. He deals 
with celibacy. He deals with little children, 
then he'll deal with the rich young ruler. So what we are finding 
is that these are the routine daily affairs of life. As I mentioned 
last week, we are taking up the instruction on divorce, specifically 
chapter 19, verses 7 to 9. I realize there are persons who 
have a different opinion or a different conviction on that matter than 
what I'm going to preach this morning. But I do respect those 
who hold those contrary positions, and I hope that you will as well 
respect me. I do aim to show why I think 
that position is untenable, going to use this morning a sermon 
by Vodie Bauckham. I'm not going to pick on him. 
I think he's a godly man. I think he's a good man. But 
on this particular subject, I think he's wrong. And the reason why 
I want to deal with his particular message, just as a bit of a sparring 
partner, is for four reasons. The first is that he's a big 
boy. He can take criticism of his position. If anyone wants 
to take mine and have a sermon and use my particular sermon 
as a means to show why it's wrong, Bring it on. That's just the 
nature of theological discourse. That's the nature of the way 
men ought to be able to deal. What I say this morning has no 
reflection upon Voti as a human being. He is one of Christ's. 
He is a blood-bought believer, and I trust that he and I will 
indeed be sitting at the same marriage supper of the Lamb. 
Secondly, he does name names when he preaches his sermon called 
The Permanent's View of Marriage, dated, I believe, May 2009. He 
names names. He mentions men who take the 
contrary position. Thirdly, we need to understand 
that he goes under the identity of a Reformed Baptist. I wouldn't 
deal with Benny Hinn's view on marriage and remarriage, because 
I don't think Benny Hinn's on anybody's radar here. But I do 
think Vodibacham is on our radar. And while, again, not everything 
he has to say is wrong on this particular subject, I think there 
are some exegetical missteps that you need to be alerted to. 
And then as well, he's very influential. I noticed at the sermon audio 
page where that particular message is, there has been 61,020 downloads. I think the largest 
number I've ever had of a downloaded sermon was probably 300 or something. 
And that was on abortion or homosexuality. Those tend to be the hot topic 
items that people are looking for. But 61,020 downloads. So certainly there's an influence 
there. He represents or he's part of what's called the family 
integrated churches. Again, not everything they stand 
for is necessarily wrong or evil. There are some emphases there 
that perhaps are not as biblical as they could be or should be. 
So having said all that, I want to read 19 verses 1 to 12, and 
then our focus will be on 7 to 9. It came to pass when Jesus 
had finished these sayings that he departed from Galilee and 
came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes 
followed him and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came 
to him testing him and saying to him, is it lawful for a man 
to divorce his wife for just any reason? And he answered and 
said to them, have you not read that he who made them at the 
beginning made them male and female? And said, for this reason 
a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his 
wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then they are no 
longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined 
together, let not man separate. They said to him, why then did 
Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away? He said to them, Moses, because 
of the hardness of your hearts permitted 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. And whoever marries her who is 
divorced commits adultery. The disciples said to him, if 
such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to 
marry. But he said to them, all cannot 
accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. 
For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's 
womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and 
there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom 
of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, 
let him accept it. Amen. Well, let us pray. Our 
Father in heaven, we thank you for this opportunity to study 
in detail your holy word. I pray that the things that I 
say in terms of disagreement with Pastor Baucom would not 
be mean-spirited or vindictive or ungodly or unrighteous. Genuinely, the desire is that 
we would have a proper understanding on this aspect of your holy law. We ask that you would fill each 
one of us with the spirit of the living God. We pray that 
you would forgive us again for all of our transgression and 
unrighteousness. and help us, God, truly, to take 
every thought captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ, our 
Lord. And it's in His name that we 
pray. Amen. Well, just by way of review, 
the original intent for marriage by God, according to Genesis 
2.24, was permanence. God brought one man to one woman. He didn't bring one man to five 
women. He didn't bring one man to one 
man. He didn't bring a woman to a woman. He brought a man 
to a woman, joined them together as one flesh, and determined 
that they be together until death do them part. Well, at the entrance 
of sin, that produced a situation where God brings legislation 
to deal with the post-fall condition. There are other things analogous 
to this. In the garden, the original intent 
was not that man kill man, was not that man kill his wife. But 
once we get out of the garden and we enter into this post-fall 
condition, God regulates killing. He does provide in his law three 
provisions, self-defense, just and necessary war, and then the 
issue of capital punishment. So God's original intent at creation 
was not that men kill each other, but once sin entered, God regulates, 
God gives us specific requirements or specific details of his law 
to deal with this particular issue. I will argue, based on 
that post-fall revelation, specifically what we find in Deuteronomy 24, 
and then what we find practiced in Old Covenant Israel, that 
divorce and remarriage are permitted when there are lawful grounds 
for divorce. Now, remember the two competing 
schools of thought at the time of Jesus. There was Rabbi Hillel 
who had a very liberal view. If your wife overcooked your 
food or if you found a woman that pleased you more in terms 
of her physical appearance, Hillel said you could write the certificate 
of divorce and send wife number one away. Now there was another 
man by the name of Rabbi Shammai. He was far more conservative 
than what Hillel was. And so when the Pharisees ask 
this question, they're probing Jesus to see where he will land 
on this particular issue. Most of all, they want to see 
if he's in tension with or contrast to Moses. That is their primary 
goal. Now, it's always intrigued me 
that in preaching sometimes, people hear what they want to 
hear. Sometimes people say, well, if you preach that the Bible 
says that divorce is okay, then everybody's going to go out and 
divorce. Well, don't do that. If I preach that the Bible does 
not condemn alcohol, hopefully no one's going to go out and 
get hammered. Hopefully no one's going to go out and become an 
alcoholic. We need to listen responsibly. We need to understand 
what the permissions are given for. We need to understand what 
Bible or biblical law does regulate and speak to. So I hope that 
you'll pay attention through and through. I realize it's hot. 
I understand that. I'm hot too, but please, Lend 
me your ears, because this is most important. And then as well, 
I want to maintain that the position that I'm setting forth, and this 
doesn't necessarily mean that it's right, is consistent with 
Westminster Confession 24.5 and the bulk of the Protestant tradition. Again, not every Protestant, 
but the bulk of the Protestant tradition has in fact held this 
particular view. Again, that doesn't mean Jim's 
right. Vote he's wrong, but that does help us to see from whence 
I come. Now, let's look specifically 
at the instruction on divorce in verses 7 to 9 under two broad 
considerations. First, the objection raised by 
the Pharisees, and secondly, the response of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. So they ask him, verse 3, is 
it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? for just any reason. That's what they're asking for. 
What are the reasons that are acceptable when it comes to divorce. Jesus points them to the original 
intention of God at creation when God made male and female. He brought them together in this 
union. It was supposed to be, in fact, permanent. It was supposed 
to be there until death did them part. They then bring up this 
objection in verse 7. Why then did Moses command to 
give a certificate of divorce? and to put her away. As far as 
they're concerned, they're achieving their goal now. They've asked 
Jesus this particular question, as Matthew alerts us, to test 
Him. They're not coming as inquirers. 
They're not coming as learners. They're not coming as those humble 
and who really want to know what Rabbi Jesus has to say. They 
are testing him to try to bring his position into conflict with 
Moses and so they can expose him to be a fraud and a sham 
and a person that other persons should not follow. So as far 
as they are concerned, they have brought out their whole card. 
They say, we hear what you say with reference to Genesis 2, 
but why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce 
and to put her away? Notice they say command, Jesus 
says permit in verse eight. I think the end result is pretty 
much the same. Some have seen something here 
that Moses commanded it and Jesus says he permitted it. Either 
way, when Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, permits something, 
it has the binding nature of a command. So what Moses legislates is what 
God is telling Israel they are to function or how they are to 
function in this particular instance. Now note their question again. 
Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce 
and to put her away? The question almost sounds like 
they say that Moses commanded divorce. Doesn't it kind of read 
that way? Why then did Moses command to 
give a certificate of divorce and to put her away? Well, he 
doesn't command that in every instance. He doesn't command 
that in every situation. You know, like your wife, get 
a divorce. No. If there is a divorce, if 
this does happen, then write this Bill of Divorcement and 
send her away. We'll look at that in just a 
little bit more detail. But the focus of their appeal 
is on Moses in Deuteronomy 24 very specifically. Why then did 
Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away? 
They rightly assume or they rightly understand that divorce was going 
on. You can't miss this. This is 
a right supposition. Deuteronomy 24 does deal with 
this, and again, we'll see this in a few moments. But very specifically, 
what they are asking about is that particular arrangement. 
And in view is this detail concerning the certificate of divorce and 
to put her away. It's interesting that we understand 
what this certificate of divorce meant. It's not just this willy-nilly 
ability that somebody has to engage in a wicked practice anytime 
they want. John Murray explains it this 
way. The Bill of Divorcement served a variety of purposes. It was a legal document and therefore 
served as a deterrent of hasty action on the part of the husband. 
This Bill of Divorcement was put into place to deter hasty 
and frivolous divorce. In other words, it wasn't as 
easy just to tell your wife, you overcooked my dinner, get 
out. No, you had to undergo a particular 
judicial procedure. You had to actually file paperwork. You had to actually dissolve 
that existing marriage. Perhaps that would settle into 
a man's mind. And if he thought, you know, 
she just burned my dinner. I don't want to go through all 
the hassle of getting this bill. It might have protected her at 
that particular juncture. It was a legal document and therefore 
served as a deterrent of hasty action on the part of the husband. 
It would serve to restrain frivolous, thoughtless, and rash dismissal. 
It would also be a testimonial to the woman of her freedom from 
marital obligations to the husband who sent her away. Again, this 
is going to make a lot of sense when we get to Deuteronomy 24 
in a moment. It would be a testimonial to the woman of her freedom from 
marital obligations to the husband who sent her away. And it would 
be a protective instrument in the matter of the woman's reputation 
and well-being, particularly in the event that she married 
another man. You see, there was protection afforded by this Bill 
of Divorcement. It wasn't like they were just 
writing these things out, slapping them on the heads of women and 
sending them away. Calvin says the law, this law 
concerning the Bill of Divorcement, was made solely for the protection 
of the women, that they might not suffer any disgrace after 
they had been unjustly rejected. So they ask the question, first, 
what are the reasons for divorce? Secondly, they say, we can't 
square Genesis 2 and the original intent with this issue in Deuteronomy 
24, where Moses, in fact, permitted divorce. Help us, Jesus. That's not their attitude, but 
that's what they are, in essence, saying. They cannot reconcile 
the original intent with what had been practiced in Israel. 
And I suspect there's some of us who have that problem as well. 
We don't always understand that God's Word regulates messy situations. God's Word speaks to things that 
are bad. Deuteronomy and Exodus afford 
protection for the second wife in a polygamous marriage. In the beginning it was not so. 
God didn't make Adam, Eve, and Jane. He made Adam and Eve. But because of the hardness of 
men's hearts, they picked up Jane along the way and added 
her to Eve. And so God doesn't say, well, 
that's just tough. It's a bad thing to live in a messy world. 
His Bible, His word, His law speaks to these things to protect 
those women. Slavery. When God made Adam, 
He didn't mean or intend for her to enslave Eve. Now, I realize 
the feminists think that that's exactly the arrangement. But 
you know better, he didn't make him to enslave her. But what 
happens? Because of the hardness of men's 
hearts, they start to make men slaves. So what does the Bible 
do? The Bible regulates the way that a master treats his slave. 
It's not legitimizing it in the sense that all bets are off, 
but he's regulating it because of man's hard hearts. Warfare, 
the same thing. God didn't make man to lob bombs 
at Eve. But once sin enters and once 
the hardness of heart overtakes man, what do we see? Nation warring 
against nation. So God determines or God speaks 
to and designs how Israel is to function in terms of warfare. I hope you see this. There's 
a pre-fall and a post-fall ethic. They're not different ethics. 
There is the original intent and God's legislation that comes 
to regulate those things that are subsequent to the fall into 
sin. Now notice the response of our 
Lord Jesus in verses 8 to 9. We'll spend some time. First, 
there are four things I want to consider here. The explanation. 
Secondly, the exegesis of Deuteronomy 24. Thirdly, the practice in 
Israel. And then fourthly, the exception 
clause. Those are the four things. I 
realize this is more of a didactic message, more of a teaching sermon. 
But it's a very important subject, and maybe you don't have to think 
about this because your wife or your husband is a wonderful 
human being and everything is hunky-dory. That's fine, but 
you're going to bump into people who've gone through this. You're 
going to bump into people who are going through this. You're 
going to bump into people that are going to sometimes ask you 
for prayer, ask you for counsel, ask you for help. So it is good 
to know what the law of God says. Note first the explanation. Jesus 
responds in verse 8, He said to them, Moses, because of the 
hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but 
from the beginning it was not so. The original intent suffered 
after the fall into sin. I've already developed some other 
analogies, polygamy, slavery, warfare, killing it all. These things were not the original 
intent in creation. But because of the fall into 
sin and the hardness of man's hearts, God regulates, God speaks, 
God legislates, so that He can protect the innocent parties 
in these transactions. Ecclesiastes 7.29, what does 
Solomon say? Behold I have found this, God 
made man upright, but they've sought out many devices. And 
when it comes to the marriage covenant, some of the devices 
sought out are pornea or sexual immorality and desertion. And 
when men seek those things out, God doesn't just say tough to 
the innocent party. God speaks in his word to afford 
them protection. This is a goodness of God issue. Brother Voti and John Piper, 
they tell us that the marriage relationship is supposed to image 
Christ and His Church. I heartily amen that. A hundred 
percent. Paul says as much in Ephesians 
5. That's his point, really. It isn't necessarily to tell 
husbands what they need to do and wives what they need to do. 
The big thing that Paul wants to get across is that this mystery, 
this mystical union of Christ and His bride is represented 
by the church. And these men say, well, what 
picture does it portray to the world when a man or a woman leaves 
their spouse? What picture does it portray 
when a man is bloodying his wife? Is Christ bloody as church? What 
picture does it portray when a man is sexually profligate 
or a woman is whorish? Does that set forth that image? 
Does it picture it? Does it typify? Does it show 
what the church in Christ looks like? No. If God's word provides 
redress, then to forbid that to the people of God is to cut 
them off from the goodness of God. It's a massive issue, brethren. And I'm sorry, but I'm going 
to get a bit fired up because some of the things that are said, 
while it sounds pious and it sounds holy, doesn't deal with 
the Bible. You don't need my thoughts or 
my suggestions or my ramblings. Follow the scripture trail. Follow 
the things that we exegete. Test it. Go home. Listen to that 
sermon. Do your comparison. All that's 
fine. By all means, send it to Pastor Baucom and tell him to 
rip it apart on his sermon audio page. That's fine. It's a very 
crucial and a very important message in the way that we treat 
divorcees, in the way that we treat remarried people. And Pastor 
Bauckham is very intent to highlight the fact that they're not second-class 
citizens. And I praise God he says that, 
because they're not. It would seem to me a bit difficult 
if I was in his church hearing about this permanence view and 
there's no exceptions and there's no this. And I was a woman with 
a big shiner who had just recently gone through a divorce. I might 
feel a little bit like a second class citizen because I didn't 
stay the course. I didn't persevere. Brethren, 
we've got to take into consideration the totality of God's holy word. 
And this is my biggest concern, is that some of these passages 
are not dealt with, and when they are, they're not dealt with 
properly. This is unfortunate. Jesus highlights 
the reality that the original intent suffered after the fall 
into sin. He reiterates God's original 
intention, notice at the end of verse 8, but from the beginning 
it was not so. It's not the original intent, 
but because of the hardness of your hearts. Moses did permit 
this. God does speak to it. There is 
legislation provided in the Pentateuch for such issues, such instances. 
Now, that's another thing. Interpreters and commentators 
take this permission as if it's somehow inferior. No, when God 
permits something, it is good. You see this in the church sometimes. 
You know, somebody's gone through a divorce or remarriage and want 
to get remarried. We won't do it in the church. 
You can go to the justice of the peace, but we won't do it. If it's lawful, 
it's lawful. Whether it's in the justice of 
the peace or it's in the house of the living God. If it is lawful, 
it is lawful. If God permits something, it's 
lawful. It's not inferior. It's not less. 
It's not worse. It's lawful. It's permissible. 
This is good. The affirmation of the Mosaic 
permission is acknowledged by Jesus. Notice in verse 8, he 
does not deny that Moses said this. He does not say that Moses 
is wrong. He's not saying that Moses is 
at odds with Moses because God used Moses to write Genesis 2.24. 
God used Moses to write Deuteronomy 24.1-4. God's not at war with 
God. God is not lost His way when 
He leaves Genesis 2.24 and He gets to Deuteronomy 24. What 
are we supposed to think? There's a problem with God? God 
messed up? God's speaking now? God's this? 
God... No! God has regulated a post-false 
situation so that He can protect the innocent parties in a bad 
marriage. The Lord does not deny that God 
and Moses regulated divorce and the Lord explains the reason 
for the permission. Not just because you want to, 
not just because you think you have to, but it's because of 
the hardness of your heart. Never forget that. The ultimate 
impetus and the ultimate reason for a divorce is because of sin 
in one of the parties of the people involved. Right? Adultery or porneia. and desertion. That is a sinful act. The permission that is given 
is given to regulate the hardness of heart that is in vogue among 
men. Now notice secondly the exegesis 
of Deuteronomy 24. You can turn there. Deuteronomy 
24 is key to understanding something about divorce and remarriage 
in Old Covenant Israel. It is certainly behind the question 
of the Pharisees in Matthew 19, and it's certainly acknowledged 
by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 19. So it seems to me necessary 
that we have a proper understanding of what's going on in Deuteronomy 
24. Notice in verse one, when a man 
takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds 
no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness 
in her. some indecency or an unclean 
thing. And he writes her a certificate 
of divorce, puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house. 
When she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another 
man's wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a 
certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand and sends her 
out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as 
his wife, Then her former husband who divorced her must not take 
her back to be his wife after she has been defiled. For that 
is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring 
sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an 
inheritance." Now it's very important to understand what this says. Just read a lot of words, haven't 
I? A lot of things stated in these four verses that I wonder 
if we've taken the time to reflect upon the structure of what is 
being said. Notice in verses one to three, 
this is all an if clause. You young people who took geometry 
know what an if-then statement is. Hopefully you old people 
know that as well. It goes like this. If it's raining 
outside and I go outside, then I'll get wet. If something, then 
something, right? The technical grammatical terminology 
is this is the protesis, the if part of a statement. The protesis or the protasis 
if you're from Texas. Verses 1 to 3 is an if clause. There's no command in verses 
1 to 3. There is assumption, there is presupposition, there 
is operating procedure already in place. Notice, when a man 
takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds 
no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness 
in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand 
and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his 
house and goes and becomes another man's wife, notice that remarriage 
is assumed. Gotta see this, brethren. Pastor 
Baucom says that Moses is not writing here about divorce in 
particular. And he's right, Pastor Baucom. He says that Moses is writing 
about remarriage. And here he's right, but he's 
desperately wrong. We will see what Moses' prohibition 
deals with in just a moment. But if you look at verse 2, the 
supposition is, the assumption is, that the first husband has 
divorced her. The first husband has written 
her this bill of divorcement. The first husband has sent her 
away. And she remarries husband number 
2. She is not condemned in this 
section. This is not prohibited. This 
is not wrong. For if it was wrong, the Pentateuchal 
legislation demands execution of her and of the new husband. Follow with me. She has departed 
from his house, goes and becomes another man's wife, if the latter 
husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, 
puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the 
latter husband dies who took her as his wife. This is all 
if. If husband number one sees something unclean in his wife, 
husband number one writes her this bill of divorce, husband 
number one sends her from his house, then this woman marries 
husband number two. So far, so good. So far, no harm, 
no foul. So far, this is not a violation 
of the Mosaic Code. This is not a violation of God's 
holy law. The rub comes in verse four. Here's the prohibition. Here's 
the then clause. We have the if, now we have the 
then. We have the protesis. This is 
called technically the apothesis. That which follows. Here's the 
prohibition. So she goes out, she marries 
husband number two, the end of verse three. If he writes her 
a certificate of divorce, this is husband number two, puts it 
in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter 
husband dies, who took her as his wife. So here's the issue, 
she's remarried, husband number two either drops dead or he divorces 
her. Here's the prohibition, she can't 
return to husband number one. That's what the prohibition is. 
Notice in verse 4, then her former husband who divorced her must 
not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled. For 
that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring 
sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an 
inheritance. The remarriage to husband number 
two is not the abomination. It's not what's prohibited. It's 
when husband number two dies or divorces her, for her to return 
to husband number one, that's what the law forbids. You see, 
to say on the one hand that Moses is speaking about remarriage 
gives us the idea that remarriage is condemned by Moses. But that's 
not what's in view. Remarriage is condemned only 
in the sense that husband number two dies, and the wife goes back 
to number one. Does everybody understand this? 
This is huge. You misstep here, it's going 
to skew your entire view of what the Bible says concerning this 
particular issue of divorce and remarriage. Suffice it to say, 
the prohibition in Deuteronomy 24, 1-4 is that if a woman leaves 
her husband due to divorce and remarries another man, if that 
other man divorces her or dies, she cannot return to husband 
number one. Doesn't say she can't return 
to someone else. Doesn't say she can't have another 
husband. Now, I'm not saying this is all 
good and ethical and everyone ought to pursue these things, 
but look at what the text is prohibiting. What is assumed 
is that divorce was in practice. What is assumed is that the bill 
of divorcement was in play. And what is assumed is that the 
unclean thing or this indecency or this shameful thing was the 
reason why Moses said that this was going on. The uncleanness, 
if you look there specifically at verse 1, the uncleanness is 
the nakedness of a thing, probably indecency, improper behavior. 
Deuteronomy 23.14, it refers to fecal matter that needed to 
be buried so that the camp of the Lord was not unclean. Nakedness 
and indecency. It probably is answerable to 
Jesus' use of pornea in Matthew chapter 19. John Murray says 
this to summarize concerning Deuteronomy 24. He says the remarriage 
on the part of the divorced woman is not expressly stated to be 
defilement. It's not. It's assumed, it's 
presupposed, it's the operating assumption that when she is divorced 
lawfully, she remarries. In fact, when we look at the 
Bible cover to cover, whenever there is lawful divorce, I think 
it goes hand in hand with the fact that remarriage is operable 
as well. He says, the remarriage on the 
part of the divorced woman is not expressly stated to be defilement 
irrespective of return to the first husband. For these considerations, 
we are required to exercise great caution before stigmatizing the 
remarriage as adulterous. To just say that someone is an 
adulterer because they've remarried, you don't have that license from 
Deuteronomy 24. If it is a lawful divorce, according 
to our Bibles, then remarriage is legitimate. Murray says, one 
thing is certain, that the second marriage was not placed in the 
category of adultery, nor the woman regarded as an adulteress 
in terms of the Pentateuchal legislation. How do we know that? 
Because the Pentateuch in Deuteronomy 22 specifies execution for adultery. See, Moses could have dealt with 
it very sufficiently and very clearly without having to deal 
with a whole lot of rigmarole by just saying, refer back to 
Deuteronomy 22. If the husband divorces his wife 
and she goes out and remarries, the adulterers execute them. 
But that's not what Moses says. That's not what the scripture 
teaches. The woman and her second husband were not put to death 
as the Pentateuch required in the case of adultery. So, to 
maintain that all remarriage, all divorce, is necessarily sinful 
adultery. The Bible does not give us warrant 
to do that. See, this is where it's real 
practical. When you're dealing with souls and you're dealing 
with persons whom God, in his goodness, has given law to protect. And we come and cut them down 
and say, well, to do that is adultery. Do that is necessarily 
evil and it's wrong and it's immoral and you have invoked 
the displeasure and the wrath and fury of God. We can't do 
that. Now, to Pastor Bauckham's credit, 
he doesn't do that either like that. There is this implication. There is this less than sort 
of a situation that is constructed. Note the practice secondly in 
Israel. Turn back for just a moment to Leviticus 21. Leviticus 21. I would argue that chapter 24 
in Deuteronomy 1 to 3 indicates for us what the practice was. 
There was divorce for uncleanness or indecency or some sort of 
naked shamefulness. Probably all manner of sexual 
sin or things that were indelicate or unrighteous short of adultery. Certainly could include adultery, 
but the case in that respect would have been turned over to 
the magistrate for execution. But the practice was in place 
because of the hardness of your hearts, God legislates through 
Moses to speak to a particular condition that was not there 
in the original intent of God, because there was not sin in 
the Garden of Eden. Notice the prohibition in Leviticus 
21 verses 7 and 14. Verse 7, they shall not take 
a wife who is a harlot or a defiled woman, nor shall they take a 
woman divorced from her husband, for the priest is holy to his 
God. Verse 14, a widow or a divorced woman or a defiled woman or a 
harlot, these he shall not marry, but he shall take a virgin of 
his own people as wife. You see, the priest is prohibited 
from marrying a divorced woman. This teaches us, and I mentioned 
this last week, two things. There were divorced women in 
Israel. Weren't there? Yes! If Moses 
says to priests, don't marry divorced women, then there were 
divorced women. That's simple logic, brethren. 
You've got to work with me here. But the second implication I 
think is necessary as well. Non-priests could marry divorced 
women. If it was a specific calling 
for the priest, because he's holy in terms of his public office 
in Israel, not to marry a divorced woman, it doesn't mean the rest 
of the guys in Israel, the rest of the men in Israel, the non-priests 
in Israel, had to forego marrying divorced women. You see, it's 
going on, it's there, it's being regulated, it's being spoken 
to, it's being assumed, it's being blessed of God in terms 
of provision and protection for innocent parties that have suffered 
at the result of godless men or godless women. Notice secondly, 
this was a howler in Pastor Bauckham's sermon. He mentions that there's 
never an instance in all of the Bible where divorce is commanded. 
Have you read Ezra? Have you considered the post-exilic 
situation? Again, I'm not trying to be vicious 
or hard or mean or anything like that, but that's an amazing statement 
in light of the book of Ezra. What happens? The children of 
Israel marry pagans. What does Ezra say? Well, that's 
nice. Have a happy life. Enjoy your 
station together. He says, put them away. Put them 
away. You cannot be married to these 
pagans. We've got to protect the line. 
We've got to ensure that the seed is in fact pure and clean 
so that Jesus can come from the line of David. Notice Jeremiah 
3. Jeremiah chapter 3. Now this 
isn't an activity of physical divorce by a husband of a wife. This is the practice of God. 
You see, if we say that divorce is always wrong in the Bible, 
we cannot escape the conclusion, therefore God is wrong. Let's 
go back to our if-then statement. If divorce is always wrong, then 
God is wrong. I think that's tight logic. If 
divorce is always wrong, then God is wrong. Look at Jeremiah 
3, verse 8. Then I saw that for all the causes 
for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had 
put her away and given her a certificate of divorce. God does that with 
Israel. God divorces a covenant breaker. God divorces a spiritual whore. God divorces someone who engaged 
in uncleanness, or someone who engaged in pornea. Because you 
see, when the children of Israel went and sought out the other 
gods, the prophets didn't say, that's nice, it's good to have 
options. The prophets say, you have gone a-whoring from your 
God. So what does God do? but he invokes 
the very law that he had given because of the hardness of hearts, 
not that his heart is hard, but he invokes that particular law 
and he divorces Israel. When we read in Malachi 2.16, 
for the Lord God of Israel says that he hates divorce, we must 
understand with the pressure of divine revelation that he 
hates unlawful divorce because he can't hate himself. He himself 
had divorced Israel. God hates killing, but in the 
post-fall situation, God mandates that the civil government execute 
violators of the civil order. God mandates that men can protect 
themselves and engage in self-defense, up to and including lethal defense 
if necessary. God has mandated that nations, 
governments, protect their citizenry up to and including the use of 
the sword. That's not just to punish the 
private individuals, but to defend the body politic from foreign 
invasion. So God hates killing, but he's 
authorized three instances of it. God hates divorce, but he's 
given permission, or he's given specification, or he's given 
legislation to protect the innocent parties, because God is good. and because God is merciful. 
Back to Matthew 19 and the exception clause. We're on the way down now, so 
those of you who are understanding that it is ridiculously hot in here, please 
bear with me. Notice the exception clause, 
verse nine. Jesus says, and I say to you, 
whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, or we'll 
call that porneia. As you may have guessed, it's 
related to the word porn, pornography, probably a word every single 
person in here hears a lot, porn, pornography. Hopefully it's not 
a word that you engage in or a word that you practice or a 
way that you look at your computer. Porneia is wrong. Notice that 
Jesus says in verse 9, I say to you, whoever divorces his 
wife except for, this is why it's called an exception clause, 
except for pornea, and marries another commits adultery. And 
whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. The specific 
ground for a lawful divorce is given here by the Lord Jesus. 
And porneia here certainly includes adultery. But it's not identical 
with adultery. If you notice in our verse, Jesus 
says sexual immorality and adultery. Jesus knows the Greek. Jesus 
understands language. Some say it only applies to the 
case of adultery. That's not what Jesus says. It 
applies to porneia. It applies to sexual immorality. 
Certainly, adultery is covered by porneia, but porneia is far 
more comprehensive than just the act of adultery. Bagot, one 
of the lexicons for the Greek language, means, or it says, 
means prostitution, unchastity, fornication of every kind of 
unlawful sexual intercourse. Adultery, again, is used in our 
same verse, but here specifically what we find is the exception 
clause applied for porneia. Again, that's broader than adultery. Listen to Bagot or B-Dag now. Prostitution, unchastity, fornication 
of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. You see, that's 
more comprehensive than strictly adultery. Adultery is included 
in porneia, but adultery does not exhaust porneia. A man has 
a penchant for bestiality or homosexuality, or a man has a 
penchant for other sorts of wickedness. If a woman engages in things 
that are lewd and lascivious and things that are not necessarily 
categorized as adultery in terms of the physical act, porneia 
applies. It's a broad term. Brethren, 
you need to understand this. Pornea is a broad term. Young 
people, you need to understand this. This is a broad term. You 
may think that it's okay to look at porn. You may think that it's 
okay to engage in sexual practice. You may think that it's okay 
because I just love him or I love her and I want to demonstrate 
that to them. The marriage bed is honorable 
among all. But adulterers and whoremongers, 
God will judge. You see, the Bible is not in 
tune with this sex-crazed, flesh-exalting generation that we live in. It's 
just not. I'm not suggesting that the Roman 
Empire was a bastion of purity and righteousness and goodness, 
but we're in our generation. Sex sells, sex is used, sex is 
engaged in, and that by those who profess the name of Jesus 
Christ. Porneia is broad. Go home today, 
get the Westminster Larger Catechism. Google it, you'll find it. Read 
what the sins prohibited in the Seventh Commandment are. Speaks 
to clothing. Thought not to be the case that 
men have to come in to this place and guard their hearts as much 
as when they're in the world. Now sisters, I just want to encourage 
you. Dress appropriately for the worship of the living God. 
This isn't the boogie festival or the dance session. This is the worship of the triune 
and living God. Men, the same thing. There's 
modesty, there's appropriateness, there's a dressing for the place. When Joseph was sitting in his 
prison cell, he didn't feel the need to shave. When Potiphar 
summons him to his place, he shaves, he puts on a nice garment, 
dress appropriately for the condition or for the situation that you 
are visiting. The brothers in Christ shouldn't 
have to struggle while they're singing, you know, Jesus paid 
it all and guarding their hearts from looking at an immodest woman. 
And neither should the women have to come in here and fight 
the temptation or the tendency to look at an immodestly dressed 
man. You say, well Pastor Bob, you're 
really going off ship here. Porneia is broad. It's broad. It's broad. Now notice, if a 
man divorces his wife, Apart from the exception clause, verse 
9, and I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, skip the exception 
clause, and marries another commits adultery. And whoever marries 
her who is divorced commits adultery. If a man unlawfully divorces 
his wife and marries another woman, he commits adultery. We 
have to understand the passage that way or it doesn't make sense. 
If Jesus lays down an exception and says, I say to you, whoever 
divorces his wife except for sexual immorality. So if he divorces 
his wife for sexual immorality, then the things listed at the 
end of the verse don't apply to him. It's not his at that 
point because he divorced her for sexual immorality. This has 
to be understood in the sense of unlawful. Calvin says, though 
Christ condemns as an adulterer the man who shall marry a wife 
that has been divorced, this is undoubtedly restricted to 
unlawful and frivolous divorces. You have to see that. If Jesus 
lays down an exception and then condemns persons, we have to 
understand that if the persons fall under that exception, they're 
not condemned. If a man unlawfully divorces 
his wife and marries another woman, he commits adultery. Following 
the TR and MT, if a man marries an unlawfully divorced woman, 
he commits adultery. So if someone is divorced and 
it's the result of an unlawful activity, then whoever marries 
them brings themselves into this place of having committed adultery. 
But the exception clause is there, isn't it? Everybody sees that? 
Everybody understands that except for porneia? Guess what the common 
objection to this is? But it's not in Mark and it's 
not in Luke. The exception clause is not in Mark and it's not in 
Luke. It's only in Matthew. Well, the baptismal form in the 
name of the triune God is only in Matthew. It's not in Mark 
and Luke, but I don't hear a lot of debate about that particular 
subject. Mark does not have the exception clause, and I think 
for this very reason. I've wrestled through this, I've 
thought through this, I've read the literature, I've surveyed 
the data, and I could be wrong here, but Mark, the Pharisees 
ask Jesus, is it lawful to divorce? No, it's not lawful. It's wrong. God's original intent 
was that man marry woman and they stay together until death 
does them part. You ask a simple question, you 
get a simple answer. Is it lawful to divorce? No, it's not lawful to divorce. What's the nature of the question 
with the Pharisees in Matthew 19? What are the reasons? Why is it or what is acceptable? What is permitted? That's why 
the exception clause is here. They ask specifically. Now, when 
we compare 19 with 5, we'll see that the exception clause is 
there as well. Still the objection from Pastor 
Baucom and Pastor John Piper. They suggest that the exception 
clause is present in Matthew to cover Joseph. I'm going to 
explain this in just a moment, but they say that the reason 
Mark and Luke do not include the exception clause is because 
Matthew needs to cover Joseph. Look at Matthew 1 for just a 
moment. It's going to walk you through 
this objection and then bring this to a close. They're trying to remove the 
exception clause as it relates to the subject of marriage and 
tell us that it applies only to betrothal and the situation 
that Joseph and Mary faced in Matthew chapter 1. So, in other 
words, Matthew writes Matthew 1. Matthew sees that he's called 
Joseph a just man, even though Joseph was willing to put away 
his wife. He gets to Matthew 5 and he says, 
wait a minute, I'm prohibiting all divorce here. I've got to 
cover Joseph. That's the way the thinking goes. 
Notice in Matthew 1, verse 19, then Joseph, her husband, being 
a just man and not wanting to make her a public example, was 
minded to put her away secretly. So then we get to 5 and 19 and 
Jesus says, all divorce is wrong. The reader's going to say, well, 
what about Joseph? You called him a just man and yet he was 
going to do an unjust thing. Oh yeah, except for porneia. 
And in this instance, all porneia means is it deals with the betrothal 
arrangement between Joseph and Mary. It doesn't deal with a 
contracted marriage. It doesn't deal with an in-progress 
marriage. In fact, Bauckham says very specifically, 
concerning this. Porneo refers specifically to 
betrothal law and not to a consummated marriage. Does everybody get 
this? In the Bible, betrothal was different than just an engagement 
today. You know, Mrs. Mars or, I'm not 
going to use any personal examples. I could, you know, engage someone 
and then just call it off. There's no legal obligations. 
There's no legal responsibilities. When we are engaged today, we 
oftentimes or sometimes people break it off. No harm, no foul. In many respects, it protects 
the persons from entering into a marriage that may be less than 
ideal. But in a betrothal situation, 
money was already promised. There was property rights involved. 
There was an agreement. There was a covenant. There was 
an arrangement. So what Pastor Baucom argues 
is that porneia refers specifically to betrothal law and not to a 
consummated marriage. However, my response, Matthew 
5 and Matthew 19 indicate nothing of this. When you read of divorce 
and remarriage in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19, do you naturally 
think about betrothal law or do you think of a naturally contracted 
marriage? And I've mentioned BDAG, the 
foremost lexicon. Now, we don't put our trust in 
BDAG, but it is interesting. They give us no gloss whatsoever, 
no emphasis whatsoever that porneia refers only to betrothal. Again, 
they could be wrong, they could have missed it, but I doubt it. 
Listen to John Piper on this. He says, Matthew says that Joseph 
was just in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on 
account of her pornea, fornication. Therefore, as Matthew proceeded 
to construct the narrative of his gospel, he finds himself 
in chapter 5 and then later in chapter 19 needing to prohibit 
all remarriage after divorce as taught by Jesus. That's an 
assumption. He's assuming that Jesus forbids 
all divorce and remarriage. You've got to watch the pee when 
they're moving the shells around, brethren. Again, if the ramifications 
weren't serious and if souls weren't at stake and happiness 
and joy and those things weren't at play, if it was a theological 
debate about nothing, fine. Move your shells and let me miss 
the pee. But he's assuming his argument is right, that the Bible 
always forbids divorce and remarriage. and yet to allow for divorces 
in quotations like the one Joseph contemplated toward his betrothed 
whom he thought guilty of fornication or porneia." See, same argument. 
Pastor Bockham, Pastor Piper, the same thing. The exception 
clause is in 5 and 19 only because of Joseph. I don't know how anyone ever 
figured that out unless it was to escape the natural reading. of a clear text, except for porneia. You're reading a passage in Matthew 
5 in the Sermon on the Mount on marriage. You're reading a 
passage in Matthew 19 about marriage and divorce. Do you think of 
betrothal? No, you think of marriage and 
divorce. You don't think of betrothal. Here's what Pastor Piper goes 
on to say. We may take it for granted that the breakup of an 
engaged couple over fornication is not an evil divorce and does 
not prohibit remarriage. This is really amazing. We may 
take it for granted, but the Jewish audience who had the law 
wouldn't have known this. We cannot assume that Matthew's 
readers would take this for granted. They wouldn't have taken it for 
granted or they would have rather taken it for granted based on 
the fact of Deuteronomy 22. They don't need a specific text 
to clear Joseph. Joseph was within his legal rights 
according to Deuteronomy 22 to put Mary away. According to Deuteronomy 22, 
Mary should have been, or not should have been, could have 
been stoned to death for her horta. Deuteronomy 22, it's the 
instance where a man takes a woman and he finds out that she is 
not a virgin. So he presents the evidence. 
If he's found to be lying, he gets in big trouble. If she's 
found to be lying, she gets in big trouble. There's no need 
to exonerate Joseph when the entirety of God's love already 
exonerates. I believe this is a case of special 
bleeding. We do not want the exception 
clause. It messes with an otherwise good theory, and when we take 
that exception clause, we say it only applies to Joseph. Then 
you've got to deal with your profligate husband. You've got 
to deal with the abuse. You've got to deal with that 
whore you're married to. And I'm sorry, but you know it's not 
just a man thing. It's not just men that engage 
in wickedness. Women engage in wickedness too. 
God has provided redress in His law. And to keep that from persons. Brethren, in my mind, is a form 
of antinomianism. It is to reject God's law. And 
then it's a form of legalism to heap up burdens upon persons 
that they themselves can't even carry. In conclusion, I should 
suggest or I should say rather that the Bible, while it primarily 
treats the subject of husbands divorcing their wives, what is 
said applies to wives divorcing their husbands. It's intriguing 
in Mark's account. When he condemns the practice, 
he nevertheless says, and if a woman divorces her husband, 
it's not just husbands that were divorcing wives. It's not the 
case that women do not have equal protection under the law. It's 
not the case that a woman does not have redress legislated by 
God for her particular condition and situation. So please understand 
that. In the first place, the lawful 
grounds for divorce and remarriage The Bible assumes in the passages 
that we have seen that when a lawful divorce is contracted, there 
will be the opportunity for remarriage. But the two particular places 
that speak to the reasons for this, or the grounds, is what 
Jesus says in terms of the exception clause, porneia. Paul speaks 
to what is called desertion. Desertion by a party or by a 
spouse. I would argue here that spousal 
abuse is a form of desertion. These brothers will tell us the 
Bible doesn't say they can divorce for abuse. Are you kidding me? A man will kill his wife, but 
she can't seek out divorce? A man beats his wife or bloodies 
her? Well, sister, you just got to 
stay the course. If that's not an act of desertion, 
not only is the man deserted his place as the rightful leader 
and lover of his wife, but he's assumed the position of Satan. 
He is seeking to murder her by his activities. Paul provides 
legislation that Jesus doesn't speak to. We do not denigrate 
Paul's words. We do not put Paul's subordinate 
to Jesus. It is porneia and it is desertion. And abuse is desertion. Abuse is desertion. I will never 
send a woman who is getting beat up by her husband back to her 
husband. I may say, Kim, Mike, dawn, I may send them to the 
husband, not to beat him up, but to exhort him, to encourage 
him." Gordon Clark makes this statement 
as commentary on the Westminster Confession. Divorce is a national 
scandal, yet in reaction to the widespread immorality in this 
country, one should not conclude that divorce is never permissible. 
The Romanists prohibit divorce, and they sometimes quote the 
good verse, whom God has joined together, let not man put asunder. 
This is a good verse, and we wish Romanists would use scripture 
on other occasions also, instead of relying on tradition and papal 
degrees. But the Roman interpretation 
of the verse is misplaced. The person who breaks a marriage 
is not the judge who grants the divorce, nor the innocent party 
who sought it, The person who has torn the marriage asunder 
is the party who has committed adultery. That's important. In the second place, just some 
practical implications. First, the original intent of 
God in the garden is paradigmatic, or the pattern, and it is authoritative. Do not let the permissions regulate 
your conduct. We're going to see that the disciples 
do this very thing in verse 10. If this is the case, then it's 
better not to get married. How are they viewing it? I want to 
get married as long as there's an escape hatch. I want to get 
married as long as there's an exit gate. I want to get married 
as long as there's this Pallelian list or document of reasons why 
I can put away my wife. Marriage is serious business. 
Young people and children understand this. One man, one woman, together, 
one flesh, until death does you part. You don't enter into it 
with all these exceptions and all these ideas. If those things 
happen, certainly they apply in terms of a sinful situation. 
But don't willingly and knowingly contract a marriage with somebody 
that you are not sure fears God, obeys Scripture, wants to do 
what the Lord says. You are not to enter into this 
willy-nilly. You are not to enter into a marriage 
with an I do until it doesn't suit me. You need to seek God's 
original intent and let that be paradigmatic. Let that be 
authoritative. Let that dictate for you the 
way that you will conduct yourself in this ethical realm. We need 
to understand, secondly, the issues concerning divorce and 
remarriage are difficult. Do not let emotion dictate but 
God's law. We can all become experts at 
God's law if we think there's a loophole. Well, you know, my 
wife repeatedly burns my dinner. I'm going to invoke the fact 
that she's deserted me. She's deserted me. Now, she may 
just be a terrible cook, and that will never change. You need 
to deal with it until death does you part. We all become of the 
school of Hillel when we're searching out for the loopholes. Pornay 
is broad. Oh, I happen to notice my husband 
and my wife actually looked at another woman. That's sexual 
immorality. I'm suing for divorce. Cool your 
jets. There is a sense where in a marriage 
situation, it is never perfect. You know what you have to put 
up with with your spouse? She or he has to put up with 
that with you. Do not become of the school of 
Hillel and try to put everything under the rubric of desertion 
or porneia because you're not happy in your marriage. Maybe 
you need to repent. Maybe you need to leave. Maybe 
you need to be a better husband or wife. don't necessarily conclude 
that's the way out. These are difficult issues. These 
are, you know, things that require much prayer and much counsel 
and fasting and deliberation over the particulars in the scriptures 
to make sure that we are not violating God's law and entering 
into a sinful position. Then I want to mention, finally, 
three additional problems with Pastor Bauckham's sermon on the 
permanence view of marriage. Again, 61,000 downloads. The first thing that I want to 
draw our attention to, and these are practical, these are practical 
implications, he speaks of the potential issue of two married 
couples who choose two different paths. In other words, he portrays 
the situation, in our church, we'll always counsel you, never 
to divorce. We'll work with you, we'll stay with you, we'll help 
you, we don't ever want you to divorce. It says, what possibility, what 
could it be like if in a church we had two couples? One, sin 
occurs. Two, sin occurs. One, forgiveness 
is granted. Two, divorce occurs. We couldn't 
let that happen, could we? Why not? Who are you? God? Do you see 
anything different between couple number one, where there may have 
been some porneia, but the guy or the girl gets help, he's genuinely 
repentant, and the husband or the wife forgives them and continues 
the marriage, versus couple number two, where husband number two 
uses his wife as a punching bag, where he poses a real threat 
to her? I certainly wouldn't have any 
problem whatsoever saying, good on you to forgive, good on you 
to invoke God's law on divorce. Why can't we have different outcomes? The Holy Spirit doesn't work 
according to our straitjackets. A second problem with his particular 
application is in saying that you're the problem. This has 
great rhetorical punch. It really lands the blow. It 
really settles things, but it's just not accurate. You know, 
that is true, what I've said. Marriage is imperfect. People 
bug each other. There's problems, there are issues. 
He says you ought to approach the problem this way. You're 
the problem. Now, that's terrible because 
it minimizes the guilt of the guilty. And it minimizes or excludes 
the innocence of the innocent. We can lay that on anybody. We're 
always the problem. We've always contributed. There's 
always sin. But to do that to a person that 
is in an abusive situation, you're the problem? She's laying there 
in a bloodied mass because she's married to Satan. You're gonna 
blame her? For a woman who's good to her 
man? A woman who loves her man? And that man goes out and engages 
in porneia? She's the problem? No, he's the 
problem. Brethren, this is not cool. And then the permanence view 
as represented by Pastor Botham and Pastor Piper in a position 
paper on the permanence view. I don't think he calls it that. 
I think it's on, maybe called that. It's fraught with exegetical 
missteps. That's why we ought to reject 
it. It's an improper handling of Deuteronomy 24. fails to even 
reckon with Leviticus 21, fails to reckon with Ezra, fails to 
reckon with Jeremiah 3.8. Imagine taking that tack, that 
you're the problem in divorce. Is God the problem in the divorce 
of Israel in Jeremiah 3.8? I certainly don't want to say 
that. I certainly don't want to say, you're the problem, God, 
because of this divorce. I mean, I'm just hoping the brother 
didn't think this through. I don't think he's malicious 
and evil and, you know, with his machinations trying to, you 
know, deal with the biblical. I just think it was an oversight. 
I hope it was an oversight to say that someone is always the 
problem or you're the problem. That is to say that God was at 
fault when it came to the divorce of Israel. It is fraught with 
exegetical missteps. We cannot accept a position that 
does not deal with the text of Scripture as God gave it. I realize there will be abuses. 
I realize the school of Hillel is still with us. I realize that 
men see anything under porneia and desertion. I realize there 
will be an abuse. But brethren, we cannot tailor 
the message of God's Word to the abuse of a situation. We 
preach the truth. We rest and trust in the power 
of the Spirit and we hope and pray that it finds its mark and 
that people will do what God has told them to do. Now, this 
has been a long message about a subject that many of you probably 
are a little interested in. Let me end by saying, I affirm 
with Pastor Bauckham and with Pastor Piper wholeheartedly, 
with the entirety of the Permanence View guys, I affirm with them 
wholeheartedly Paul's point in Ephesians 5. The marriage relationship 
typifies, paints, points to, figures, and demonstrates the 
relationship between Christ and His Church. For married people 
out there, do what God says. Be faithful. Resist porneia. Do not desert your spouse. Be 
diligent. If you are the Christ figure 
in that marriage, love her and lead her. If you are the church 
image in that figure, submit to your own husbands as unto 
the Lord. Brethren, we need to adorn the 
gospel of free and sovereign grace in the way that we live. 
And if you are an unbeliever, I want you to focus upon the 
reality that Christ is a Savior. Christ is the Lord. Christ is 
the one who came into this world, sinners to save. He came to die, 
He came to rise, and He came ultimately to save His people 
from their sins. You may not have understood the 
exception clause, you may not have understood the porneia, 
you may not have understood, though I think all of us understand 
porneia, you may not have understood the exposition of Deuteronomy 
24, but this one thing you mustn't forget. Jesus died and Jesus 
rose again so that all who look to Him in faith will have everlasting 
life. Take that and go in blessed peace. Let us pray. Our Father, these 
are weighty matters, weighty subjects. For my own part, I 
tremble preaching applications of ethical principles. I just 
pray that anything unrighteous, anything inaccurate that was 
said would be quickly forgotten. I pray that things that are accurate, 
things that rightly expounded the Word of God would be thought 
through and prayed upon. I pray that as husbands and wives 
at the Free Grace Baptist Church, we would be faithful to those 
vows we took, that we would be faithful to the roles that you 
have given us in this marriage covenant. God, for any and all 
who are here outside of Christ, may you reach down in mercy and 
in grace and save them. What a glorious testimony of 
the sovereignty of God if someone were able to say, I got converted 
listening to a sermon on divorce. Father, we know that you are 
able and powerful, and I pray that you bring that conviction 
for sin and bring that realization that Christ alone saves. Go with 
us now, we pray, in Jesus' holy name, amen.