← Back to sermon library

Please turn in your Bibles to 
Matthew, chapter five, as we continue our study in the gospel. According to Matthew, we find 
ourselves in the Sermon on the Mount. Specifically this morning, 
we're going to be considering verses thirty one and thirty 
two. I'll just pick up reading in 
Matthew, chapter five, beginning at verse 17. Do not think that 
I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come 
to destroy, but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, 
till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by 
no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore 
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men 
so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever 
does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom 
of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds 
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no 
means enter the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said 
to those of old, you shall not murder and whoever murders will 
be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever 
is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of 
the judgment. Whoever says to his brother Raka 
shall be in danger of the council. Whoever says you fool shall be 
in danger of hellfire. Therefore, if you bring your 
gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something 
against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go 
your way. First be reconciled to your brother 
and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary 
quickly while you are on the way with him. Lest your adversary 
deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer 
and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you 
will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. 
You have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not 
commit adultery. But I say to you that whoever 
looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery 
with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you 
to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you, for it is more profitable 
for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body 
to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes 
you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you, for it is more profitable 
for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body 
to be cast into hell. Furthermore, it has been said, 
whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of 
divorce. But I say to you that whoever 
divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes 
her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a woman who 
is divorced commits adultery. Amen. Well, as we have had cause 
to observe in this particular section of Jesus' Sermon on the 
Mount, The Lord is calling his people to a righteousness that 
exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees. 
When we consider biblical law, though, we need to remember the 
threefold use of the law. The first is the civil or political 
use. It is there to restrain evil 
and wickedness. The second is pedagogical or 
a child tutor. The law shows us our need for 
the Lord Jesus Christ. And that third use is the normative. The law defines for us how, as 
justified by faith in Christ believers, we are to live. So, as we come to this section 
this morning, we need to be reminded we're not saved by law. We are saved by grace alone. 
through faith alone, in Christ alone. We need to be mindful 
of Paul's words in 1 Timothy 1, verses 8 and 9. We know that 
the law is good if one uses it lawfully, which implies unlawful 
use of the law. An unlawful use is obedience 
in order to be saved. In other words, you're here this 
morning and you've struggled with divorce or remarriage or 
adultery. The answer isn't that there is 
no hope for you? The answer is there's hope in 
Christ alone. Through His precious blood, we 
have pardoned for sin and we have the imputation of righteousness. We need to make sure that we 
keep this fresh in our minds, that what Jesus is highlighting 
here, I think specifically, is the normative use for His people 
and as well that pedagogical use. It ought always cast us 
back upon the mercy of our God. in the Lord Jesus Christ. Well, 
let us pray. Father, we thank you for the 
Scripture. We thank you for this Sermon on the Mount. And we pray 
now that you would fill each one of us with your Holy Spirit. 
We consider a topic that is relevant. We consider a particular issue 
of biblical law that needs our attention. We just pray that 
you would guide us and direct us and give us the grace, Father, 
to be balanced, to be first and foremost accurate, to bring glory 
and honor to you in the way that we think and in the way that 
we conduct ourselves. We ask that you would forgive 
us now for all of our sins. We read your righteous requirements, 
God. We can only see how holy you 
are, how wondrous you are, and how far short we fall. We thank 
you for the blood of Jesus. We thank you for the mercy of 
Jesus. Father, as justified by faith in Christ, believers, grant 
us the grace to love your law. to know the sanctifying purposes 
and the sanctifying influence of your holy word and will. And 
we pray this for your glory and for the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. Amen. Well, there's a lot of 
data to cover this morning. I didn't want to engage in a 
topical series on the subject or topic of divorce, but it is 
very relevant. It is very prevalent. And I think 
it's very important for us to think biblically in this most 
important matter. Now, more than likely, we won't 
get through all of the material this morning. If that happens, 
God willing, we'll take up the rest of it this evening. Not 
one to promote myself on the internet, but in the interest 
of continuity. I would recommend that if you're 
not able to be here tonight, click on live at freegrace.ca 
to hear the remaining portion, or later on in the week you can 
go to Sermon Audio or to our website to find part two of what 
you hear this morning. Again, not so I'm promoting myself, 
but so that it gets a fair hearing and a fair treatment. I want to give a summary explanation 
at this particular juncture before we embark on our exegetical study. God gave marriage as a creation 
ordinance in the Garden of Eden. I don't think any of us would 
object to that. His original intention was that 
marriage was to be one man with one woman until death separated 
them. Men aren't supposed to marry 
men. Women aren't supposed to marry women. Men aren't supposed 
to marry beasts. Men aren't supposed to take a 
plurality of wives. It is to be one man, one woman 
until death shall separate them. As we know, sin entered the world 
and God provided legislation to protect people. Divorce is 
like that. There are other instances where, 
in the original intention of God, there was something that 
was never entertained. But at the introduction of sin, 
God provides legislation to regulate and to bring order in the midst 
of confusion and chaos. Take the instance of killing. 
In the original intent of God, He never made man to kill each 
other. But because of sin, God then legislates, God then redresses 
the situation by further legislation and makes killing authorized 
in three specific instances. The reason I set up this parallel 
is because we oftentimes forget this when we come to this matter 
of divorce and remarriage. We see similarities in slavery. God never intended in the original 
creation for us to enslave one another. But when sin entered 
the world and slavery became prevalent, God speaks to the 
issue to afford protection to innocent parties. Another instance 
is warfare. God never intended, in Genesis 
1 and 2, for men to go into battle against one another. But because 
sin entered the world, it made it necessary for God to speak 
to that issue. Hence, we have laws concerning 
and regulating warfare with reference to His creation. Divorce and 
remarriage are to be understood in the same manner. Now, I realize 
there are varied opinions, varied understandings of what goes on 
with reference to divorce and remarriage. I believe there are 
good and godly and solid men that take a position different 
than what I'm going to preach to you this morning and possibly 
this evening, if we don't get everything in. I want to just 
read a statement so you know where I am heading. This comes 
from the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 24 on of marriage 
and divorce. Our London Baptist Confession 
of 1689 mirrors or reflects or says the same thing in paragraphs 
1 to 4. For whatever reason, the London 
Baptist Confession does not include paragraphs 5 and 6. I personally 
think that is a mistake. I think that the London Baptist 
Confession should include paragraphs 5 and 6. Paragraph 5 of Chapter 
24 reads this way, adultery or fornication committed after a 
contract being detected before marriage giveth just occasion 
to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. 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. Paragraph six reads, although 
the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments 
unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage, 
yet not nothing but adultery or such willful desertion as 
can no way be remedied by the church or magistrate is cause 
sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage. wherein a public 
and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed, and the person's 
concern in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their 
own case." In other words, the confession of faith allows for 
divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery and of willful 
desertion. Now, this morning, because of 
our task in Matthew 5, we're only going to consider porneia, 
or sexual immorality. And where we hope to go in this 
study, again, I want to be a bit more didactic or teachy in this 
session, because we are confronted with this issue on a very daily 
basis. We're going to do two things. 
It's going to take a while, but we're going to do two things. 
First, we're going to look at the issue. Secondly, we're going 
to look at the instruction. Actually, three things. Thirdly, 
we're going to make some implications. So three I's with reference to 
our study in Matthew 5, 31 and 32. The issue, the instruction, 
and then some implications. We can't make every implication 
because we're fallible and we can't foresee every situation 
that does concern us. So the issue. Two things we want 
to consider here. Two things with reference to 
the issue, the unlawful divorce leading to adultery and then 
the contrast that is set up between Jesus and the Pharisees. So those two things are going 
to occupy us for a few minutes. Unlawful divorce leading to adultery 
and then the contrast. Jesus says he uses that formula. Furthermore, it has been said 
whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of 
divorce. But I say to you, Remember, we 
are not to suppose that Jesus is elevating the law or Jesus 
is giving a newer and a higher law. Jesus is rather expounding 
the particular intention of the law as given by God through his 
servant Moses. In fact, Deuteronomy 24 is the 
backdrop for this passage. And later, when we get to the 
instruction, we'll consider Deuteronomy 24 in more detail. But first of all, notice that 
Jesus, in connection with the seventh commandment, says this 
statement. He's already said that adultery 
in the heart or lost in the heart is to break the seventh commandment. There is a bit of a contrast 
set up, but there is a flow as well. Notice in verse thirty 
one. Furthermore, it has been said we might also take this. We might look at this as being 
some extended application or implications with reference to 
the seventh commandment. The Old Testament not only depicted 
lost in the heart as being a violation of that word, But it also depicted 
unlawful divorce as a violation of that seventh word as well. In other words, not only when 
I look upon a woman the lust in my heart, have I broken the 
commandment, do not commit adultery. But if I divorce my wife in an 
unbiblical and in an ungodly and in an unlawful way, I am 
breaking the seventh commandment. I am violating that holy word. You shall not commit adultery. That's the issue. The Old Testament, 
in the language of D.A. Carson, says, points toward insisting 
not only that lust is the moral equivalent of adultery, but that 
divorce is as well. This arises out of the fact that 
the divorced woman will, in most circumstances, remarry. Obviously, if she doesn't remarry, 
if she doesn't have sexual congress with someone, it's not adultery. 
But in most instances, and you'll see this as we work our way through 
the study, divorce assumes remarriage. It did so in Deuteronomy 24 and 
it does so here. Notice what Jesus says, verse 
31. I'm sorry, verse 32. But I say 
to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except 
sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery. We're going 
to take that except clause in a few minutes. We're going to 
compare Matthew 19 after we look at Deuteronomy 24. Matthew 19 
expands on what Jesus says here in Matthew 5 31 and 32. So we'll 
look at what has been called the exception clause subsequent 
to our comment now. The exception clause is indicated 
in this statement, except for Pornia. We'll define that more 
fully as we move along. But the thing that we need to 
observe right now, contextually, textually, with reference to 
the seventh commandment, I say to you that whoever divorces 
his wife for any reason except Pornia causes her to commit adultery. In other words, if a man sends 
his wife away, For just any reason whatsoever, if it's not Cornelia, 
then he causes her to go out and commit adultery. Again, the 
assumption is she's going to be remarried. And at that particular 
juncture, because she's not been lawfully divorced, she becomes 
an adulteress. Now, if it's sexual immorality 
on her part, he doesn't cause her to be an adulteress. She 
already is an adulteress. This is Jesus' statement. I say 
to you, verse 32, that whoever divorces his wife for any reason 
except porneia causes her to commit adultery. In other words, 
if it is an unlawful divorce, he sends his wife away. She then 
engages in remarriage. That's an adulterous situation. But then he goes on to say, verse 
32, and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. Now brethren, I think we must 
read it in light of what's preceded it. We must read it in light 
of Deuteronomy 24 in its proper handling. Look at what Jesus 
says. If, or whoever divorces his wife 
for any reason except porneia, causes her to commit adultery, 
and whoever marries a woman who is divorced, we have to supply 
their unlawfully. We have to. The context demands 
it. A comparison with Deuteronomy 
24 necessitates it. It is not a universalized statement. It is not an unqualified statement. Jesus is highlighting the reality 
that an unlawful divorce creates an environment of adultery. In 
other words, if I send away my wife for any reason other than 
porneia, And she then goes out and gets remarried. I've caused 
her to be an adulteress. If I send her away due to her 
porneia, I haven't caused her to be an adulteress. She's already 
an adulteress. That will certainly alter her 
ability with reference to remarry, but that's a different topic. 
Verse 32 must be read in this universe. Whoever marries a woman 
who is divorced commits adultery. If we don't understand that in 
Deuteronomy 24, or we don't understand it in light of verse 32a, we've 
got a woman who's hung out to dry. We've got a woman without 
protection from the law of God. If she has received her certificate 
of divorce, that authorizes remarriage, provided it was biblically contracted 
or lawfully contracted. So we cannot read this as a universalized 
or unqualified statement. The end of verse 32, whoever 
marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. No, it is whoever 
marries a woman who is divorced unlawfully, unbiblically commits 
adultery. Does everybody get that? Make sure everybody follows. 
Sometimes common sense goes out the window in studies like these. 
Again, I'm not suggesting that those who differ lack common 
sense. I know it probably sounded like that. Please forgive me. This is how Calvin understood 
it. 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. Spurgeon says the same thing. 
J.C. Ryle says the same thing. The 
Westminster Divines understood the same thing. John Owen, the 
same thing. Modern commentators, the same 
thing. What's in view here, specifically 
in Matthew 5, 31 and 32, is an extension or an implication or 
an application of a violation of the Seventh Commandment. A 
violation of the Seventh Commandment is unlawful divorce and remarriage. It is not a violation of the 
Seventh Commandment, necessarily, for a lawful divorce and remarriage. This becomes very important that 
we understand this. Now, let's look at the contrast. What's the contrast here? Why 
does Jesus say, furthermore it has been said, whoever divorces 
his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce, but I say to you, 
That's that contrast that we've seen, isn't it, thus far in our 
study in the Sermon on the Mount. You've heard that it was said 
to those of old, but I say to you, well, what's Jesus contrasting 
here? Jesus is contrasting what the 
Pharisees focused on. I'm saying Pharisees generically. That doesn't mean each and every 
Pharisee, but it means collectively. as his opponents, this is their 
emphasis. It's upon that bill of divorcement. You'll see this later in Matthew 
19 when they ask Jesus, is it lawful for a man to divorce his 
wife for any reason? As long as we've got the procedure 
down, as long as he has signed off on this bill of divorcement, 
it doesn't really matter what the root cause was. You see, 
the Pharisees were fastidious in maintaining the details with 
reference to the procedure involved. As long as that bill of divorcement 
is in place, then it really doesn't matter why he sends his wife 
away. But you see the beauty and the 
ingenuity of our Lord Jesus. He treats the root. He treats 
the cause. He goes after the situation. He is telling them that there 
is one alone reason why this Ordinance of marriage should 
be ruptured or severed. You need to think more about 
that. You need to take more consciousness to that fact and to that reality 
rather than do the procedures fit. Now that is not suggesting 
that the Bill of Divorcement wasn't necessary. You see that 
in Deuteronomy 24 in just a few minutes. The Bill of Divorcement 
was absolutely necessary. It must not be neglected. But 
Jesus treats the issue. Jesus treats the substance. Jesus 
goes for the juggler. I say to you that if anyone divorces 
his wife for any reason except for now, he causes her to be 
an adulteress and anyone who marries an unlawfully divorced 
woman commits adultery. She's gone right to the crux 
of the issue. But on that bill of divorce, John Murray says 
this. 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. You see, the Pharisees got it 
wrong. We'll see that again in more 
detail in Matthew 19. They took Deuteronomy 24 and 
misread it. The beauty of the Sermon on the 
Mount is that Jesus holds up Deuteronomy 24 and says, Moses 
didn't get anything wrong. God spake through Moses. You 
need to listen to him. It's y'all that have messed it 
up. Sound like Micah. He now says y'all. Eight weeks 
in Texas and a bit of time in Mississippi. He sounds like a 
country boy. He's probably hearing this right now. No, I don't. 
gets picked on for sounding like a Canadian in the US Air Force. 
We pick on him for sounding like a Southerner. They misread the text. You'll be surprised, I think, 
if you haven't looked into this when we get to Deuteronomy 24. 
But suffice it to say for right now, 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. 
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. 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. God provided this for her protection. See, God actually cares about 
the innocent. You say, well, they're all sinners. 
You've heard that before. In the case of a divorce, well, 
everybody involved is a sinner. Yeah, well, there is one who 
didn't go out and commit adultery. In that instance, they're innocent. 
Like what Gordon Clark says, what people fail to realize is 
that the one who rends asunder a marriage is not the judge who 
awards divorce. It is not the innocent party 
who is suited out. It is the adulterer who, through 
violation of covenant, brought a rupture to what God intended 
at creation. What do we do? We treat the innocently 
divorced as pariahs or as second-class citizens. How can that be when 
God gives redress to an instance in his holy law? How can it be? God is for the 
innocent. In this context, it's helpful 
to know something about the prevailing opinions that were rampant in 
first century Israel. I mean, it's easy for us to look 
around and say, well, we live in a divorced crazed generation, 
don't we? We live in a divorce-ridden generation, 
don't we? Deuteronomy 24, Moses isn't commanding 
to write a bill of divorce. Moses is simply saying this is 
being done because of the existence of divorce. The first century 
was a divorce-ridden culture. You had two rabbis in particular 
that interpreted Deuteronomy 24. One was named Hillel. And Hillel basically taught that 
a man could send his wife away for just about any reason. In 
fact, the two big ones that are cited in the commentaries about 
Hillel. If she messed up your dinner, 
or if you preferred someone over her. That was the school of Hillel. Ladies, make sure you don't burn 
supper. If Hillel is your rabbi. The other was the more hardline 
or more conservative position of Shammai. Shammai thought that 
only unchastity was the legal ground for suing out divorce. Now I ask you, which position 
do you think prevailed in Jesus' generation? I think the Pharisees and the 
disciples both evidence a context of Hillel. In Matthew 19, verse 
3, the Pharisees ask Jesus, is it lawful for a man to divorce 
his wife for just any reason? King James says for every cause. NIV, any and every reason. ESV, for any cause. New American Standard, for any 
reason at all. Sounds like Hillel, doesn't it? 
Sounds like the mindset of Rabbi Hillel. She burns your dinner. You find someone that's more 
attractive, you can write her a bill of divorce and send her 
on her way. I think the disciples, perhaps, 
were affected by this mindset as well. Remember in Matthew 
19, after shutting down the Pharisees, what did the disciples then say? If such is the case of the man 
with his wife, it is better not to marry. It's better not to. I've got 
to put up with burned dinners. I've got to put up with a woman 
who doesn't look as good as I'd like for her to. I submit that 
the interpretation of Hillel was the pervasive one, that Shammai 
probably had very few adherents. And if someone says, well, Jesus 
aligning himself with Shammai would not demonstrate a righteousness 
which exceeds the scribes and the Pharisees, we're not to suppose 
that every single Pharisee always got everything wrong. Shammai 
was a better exegete and understood that indecent thing of Deuteronomy 
24 better than Hillel. Jesus says very clearly, I say 
to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except 
porneia causes her to commit adultery and whoever marries 
a woman who is divorced commits adultery. The Pharisees were 
concerned with procedure, not the lawful ground. The Lord Jesus 
was concerned with the lawful ground without neglecting procedure. The righteousness that Jesus 
emphasized was that given by God through his servant Moses 
in Deuteronomy 24. And it's to that passage we now 
turn as we enter into Jesus' instruction in Matthew 5. Remember Jesus' emphasis in Matthew 
5, 17 to 20. Do not think that I came to abolish. 
Do not think that I came to do away with. Do not think that 
I came to abrogate. Do not think that I came to destroy. I didn't come to do that with 
the law and the prophets, but rather I came to fulfill them, 
to confirm them, to establish them, to show them in their beauty, 
to demonstrate them in their glory. Deuteronomy 24, as all 
commentators admit, stands behind Christ's treatment of this issue 
of divorce and remarriage. Go back to Deuteronomy 24. We'll 
read verses 1 to 4. 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 or some indecent 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... Here's what's commanded in Deuteronomy 
24. She can't remarry the first husband. That's the command. Right? The prothesis is the if-clause 
in this arrangement. If these things happen, the hypothesis 
is the then-clause. Then, this is the prescription. Divorces assume Remarriage is 
assumed. The Bill of Divorcement is assumed. What Moses is highlighting is 
that if a woman departs from her first husband and goes and 
marries a second, she is not allowed to come back to the first. That's what verse four says. 
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. There is an if clause, verses 
1 to 3. The New King James, the ESV, 
the NIV, New American Standard make this very clear. Unfortunately, 
the Old King James obscures this point. Puts the then-clause further 
up. Puts the then-clause modifying 
the Bill of Divorcement, but that's not where it goes. Verses 
1 to 3 are the assumption of our text. Verse 4 is the command, 
the prohibition, the restriction. If all these things take place, 
then her former husband, verse 4, who divorced her, must not 
take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled. The 
specific point in Deuteronomy 24 is that if a man lawfully 
divorces his wife and then she lawfully remarries. I'm going to lead you through 
this. I want you to see this because I think our understanding of 
Deuteronomy 24 colors our understanding of Matthew 5.32. If we assume 
her remarriage upon lawful divorce is adultery, it colors how we 
interpret the last clause of verse 32 in Matthew 5. This text 
does not say that the remarriage She is lawfully divorced and 
remarries. This text does not call that 
adultery. You need to see this. This is 
important. If we assume that that remarriage is adultery, 
we'll take 532 and universalize it. Whoever marries a divorced 
woman commits adultery. And the people will say, well, 
in Deuteronomy 24, that remarriage after the first divorce was adultery. No, it wasn't. It couldn't have 
been. What was the penalty for adultery 
in the Pentateuch? Execution. It'd be a strange 
thing indeed if a couple presented themselves to me to be married. 
And I said, have you been divorced? And one or both said, yes, we 
have. And then I said, if you enter 
into this union, it will be adultery. Well, we understand the ramifications, 
Pastor. Well, all right. As soon as we 
say I do, I'm going to call the magistrate because now you're 
worthy for execution. The remarriage after lawful divorce 
was not adultery. You have to see it. This is the 
point where in a misrepresentation here, colors are understanding 
of Jesus words. Jesus is not upholding that misinterpretation. He's upholding the true interpretation. So while the particular command 
is that she can't return to husband number one, We can make several 
implications from Deuteronomy 24 verses 1 to 4. Divorce had 
been going on. Notice what Moses doesn't say. 
Nobody ever divorce. Everybody just shut up, be happy 
with what you've got. Again, it is to be one man, one 
woman until death separate us. But sin ruptures, sin mutilates. Sin distorts, and God protects 
the innocent. If we don't understand that, 
as I said in Matthew 5.32, we have a woman completely without 
protection, completely without redress, completely without recourse. Biblical law doesn't function 
that way. Biblical law prescribes things for the protection of 
the innocent. We can also understand that God 
commanded that the Bill of Divorce be used. The Pharisees weren't 
wrong there. You've heard that it was said, whoever divorces 
his wife, let him write her a certificate of divorce. That's legit. We 
don't neglect that. That's going to be a piece of 
paper in her hand that's going to provide protection to her. 
Right? She seeks remarriage and she 
doesn't have that piece of paper. She's going to be executed. She's 
going to die. To be stoned to death, to assume 
that the lawfully divorced wife's remarriage was adultery is unthinkable 
in Deuteronomy 24, in light of Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 
22, where execution for adultery is stipulated. Now, I think there 
were probably exceptions to that rule, execution for adultery, 
because I think the indecent thing that Moses commands is 
parallel to Jesus' porneia. The porneia and the indecent 
thing both include adultery. You say, well, if adultery was 
always a capital offense, why wouldn't it have been punished 
with death in this context? There's an interesting account 
in Numbers 5, where a man has a suspicion. He has some jealousy 
about his wife's fidelity, and the priest conducts a particular 
ceremony. If she's guilty, he says that 
her belly will rise and her thigh will rot. He doesn't say you'll 
be delivered over to the magistrate to be executed, probably because 
of the absence of witnesses. However, there will be penal 
sanction inflicted directly by God upon you. Are we to assume 
that the hapless fellow who is married to this woman, who has 
suspected her of unfaithfulness, has brought her to the priest, 
and then has watched her belly swell and her thigh rot, does 
not have recourse to write a bill of divorcement? There is an instance 
where there could have been adultery committed and a bill of divorcement 
ensuing. The requirement of the bill of 
divorce And the restriction upon the woman from returning to the 
first husband does this. It discourages hasty and frivolous 
divorce. So you see, by the time we get 
to the first century and the Pharisees sound like Hillel, 
is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause? They've 
misread Moses. Moses through legislation, Moses 
through requiring this divorce certificate, and Moses discouraging 
the return of the wife to the first husband discourages an 
undisciplined, a careless, a sensual, a carnal, and a selfish man from 
in a fit of rage sending his wife away. and then receiving 
her unto himself again. The legislation was put into 
place because of the hardness of our hearts, and it did not 
permit divorce for any reason. The legislation was beautiful 
in and of itself. It was the perversion of that 
legislation by the scribes and the Pharisees. We're going to make it. You're 
all good students. There's other instances I've 
heard, and again, not to disdain, not to abuse, not to put down. 
But I've heard the argument that it is always unlawful to sue 
out divorce. That simply does not take into 
account the biblical data. There's an instance that confronts 
those two religious reformers in the fifth century B.C., two 
men we know as Ezra and Nehemiah. The people of Israel were marrying 
with the pagans of the land. Ezra mandates, Ezra legislates, 
Ezra calls for divorce on a corporate scale. We're not going to get into all 
the particulars there. I'm just simply saying, for someone 
to say it is never right to sue out divorce, it does not take 
into consideration Ezra and Nehemiah. As well, it does not take into 
consideration God's conduct with Israel. God divorces Israel. He says as much in Jeremiah chapter 
3. He says as much in Isaiah 50. He alludes to this in Hosea 2 
and in the prophet Ezekiel as well. They had been unfaithful. They had been adulterous. They 
had been fornicators. They had been spiritually compromised. And what God does is He divorces 
them. So to say we can never lawfully 
sue out divorce calls into question the very fidelity of God most 
high. And interestingly enough, God 
does remarry. We are the blessed benefactors 
of that remarriage. May I suggest that's how the 
book of Revelation plays out? The great harlot is brought into 
the scene. God divorces her. God cuts her 
off. God puts her away. And then there's 
the marriage supper of the lamb, wherein the church is brought 
into vital union and communion with Christ Jesus, our Lord. 
Just to summarize, there are laws that if sin hadn't entered 
the world, we'd never need. ever. We wouldn't need legislation 
concerning capital punishment. We wouldn't need legislation 
concerning slavery. We wouldn't need legislation 
concerning warfare or divorce and remarriage, because God's 
original intent is one man and one wife until death separates 
them. Imagine, in light of Malachi 
2.16, For the Lord God of Israel says 
that he hates divorce. He does. He despises it. In your mind, you're spinning 
it right now saying, hey, there is an exception clause. Hey, 
there is a reason. Hey, there is a way I can get 
out of this dead end marriage. God hates divorce. God loathes 
it. God despises it. If we ask the 
question, does God hate killing? We'd have to answer yes. Wouldn't 
we? Doesn't he? And yet, because 
of the entrance of sin, God has provided vehicles through legislation 
to protect innocent parties and to set things are right in the 
midst of man's chaotic sin. We would never argue with a man 
whose daughter was murdered. We would never condemn him for 
calling upon his attorney to seek the death penalty. We wouldn't penalize that man, 
unless we're humanist to the core and we reject the biblical 
teaching on the death penalty. We would never spite that man 
for seeking recourse from the law. And yet, we'll treat the 
innocent party in a divorce like a leper, the second-class citizen, 
like somehow they're substandard. Would you do that with a slave 
who appealed for his freedom? The law prescribed it? Would 
you do that in the case of a soldier who, in a just and necessary 
war, went and fought valiantly for his country? Would you condemn 
him? You spit on him. Would you refuse 
him and reject him or would you say you in the midst of a sinful 
world have undertaken a calling that God has allowed and permitted 
and given for the regulation of society. With reference to the instruction, 
let's move quickly and finally to Matthew 19. Matthew 19, we've 
already covered some of this ground. This will be a refresher, 
reminder, the issue, the crux, verse 3. Pharisees also came 
to him testing him. They're not seeking a Bible study 
on the lawful reason or reasons for divorce. They want to pit 
him against Moses. They want to make him look like 
a lawbreaker. Perhaps they want to capitalize 
on his forgiving spirit. Perhaps they want to show him 
as the rebel against the law of God that he has depicted himself 
to be. They're not coming seeking information. 
They have come to test him. Note the issue. Note the question. Note what they ask. For any reason. This highlights the fact that 
what's in view here involves the reason for divorce. OK. Keep that in mind. You're going to read Mark's gospel. 
You're going to read Luke's gospel. And you're not going to see the 
exception clause. You're going to say, why is that? 
Because in Mark and Luke, they don't ask this question. I know that sounds trite. I know 
that sounds simple. But search Mark and search Luke. You will not find this question 
in this context. Notice Jesus' answer. The original 
intent of God at creation. This was rabbinic. The further 
back you went, the more authority you possessed. They've got Deuteronomy 
24 in their minds. They've been schooled under Hillel. 
They're asking the question, is it lawful to divorce for any 
reason? Deuteronomy 24, Hillel. Jesus goes beyond Deuteronomy 
24 to Genesis 1 and 2. That's what he is showing here. 
That's what he is demonstrating the integrity, the sanctity, 
the beauty, the glory, the excellency of marriage. That's how he answers 
verse four, and he answered and said to them, have you not read 
that you 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 
that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what 
God has joined together, let not man separate. That's our 
foundational principle. That's how we started this morning, 
isn't it? God made marriage to be one man 
and one wife until death separate them. We don't minimize that. 
We don't belittle that. We don't berate that. We don't 
try to skirt that. So when Jesus comes to deal with 
this issue of divorce, he bypasses the Mosaic legislation for a 
moment to show the original intention at creation. Somebody with me? How do they counter? They said 
to him, this indicates misreading of Deuteronomy 24, they said 
to him, why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce 
and to put her away? I hope you were listening. What 
was the command in Deuteronomy 24? The command was simple. If she's been lawfully divorced, 
she has been remarried, Her second husband dies or divorces her. She is forbidden to return to 
the first man. Moses didn't command everybody 
to get divorced. Moses didn't legislate everybody 
getting divorced. I mentioned God's divorce of 
Israel. It took a while. He exercised 
long suffering. He forgave them much. He forgave 
them instant after instance, after instance, after instance. 
You're certainly lawfully permitted to exercise forgiveness and grace 
and mercy. But if you sue for divorce, you're 
not to be treated as a pariah. You're not to be treated as a 
leper. You're not to parade yourself 
and say, well, I forgave my spouse of adultery, so everybody else 
ought to. There is one law giver, and he 
is mandated in his word, that when porneia occurs, the innocent 
party may sue out for divorce. They say, 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, notice, permitted you to divorce 
your wives. Again, I know I've used this 
analogy. I know I've used this parallel. Moses didn't want you 
to kill people at the beginning. But because of the hardness of 
your hearts and you engage in brutality, he put a civil magistrate 
in place to execute criminal offenders. The original intent 
was not so, but the entrance of sin into this world of God 
necessitated legislation. Right? To me, it just seems like 
a no-brainer. Why is it different? Capital 
punishment. We're going to say it's okay 
for a country, a Congress, a legislative body to authorize a violent attack 
upon a civil polity. And then we're going to scoff 
at some woman who's married to a serial adulterer and sues out 
divorce. Seems to me an instant is swallowing 
the camel, straining at the net. Authorize the civil magistrate 
to execute criminal offenders. And yet an innocent party in 
a marriage seeks redress from the law, and they're less, they're 
inferior. We need to check our hearts, 
brethren. We need to check our hearts. because of the hardness of your 
hearts. But from the beginning, it was 
not so. Make no mistake about it. God's original intent at 
creation was one man, one woman until death. But because of sin, 
because of the hardness of your hearts. Because you engaged in 
tornado, you engaged in the indecent thing because you sought out 
wickedness and vile mess and and and carnality because of 
the existence of that. God has spoken to his servant 
Moses to legislate and prescribe in such a way that innocent parties 
can be protected. You see, it's the goodness of God, 
the kindness of God. The mercy of God. You know, it's 
unfortunate because sometimes commentators and people who even 
agree with the view I'm espousing, take this permission again as 
somehow substandard. He permitted it. He permits it 
with a scowl, not happy with you. How could he not be happy 
with someone who does what his law says? How can he not be happy 
with somebody who, if God provides redress, uses it? How can he 
not be happy with the man who appeals to the attorney to seek 
the death penalty in the brutalized murder of his daughter? How can 
we fault that? We've got the problems, brother, 
not biblical law. May I suggest that humanism and 
our influence by humanism has caused some prejudice as we approach 
God's holy, good, righteous law? God spoke through Moses and it 
is therefore God himself who permits this, who gives warrant 
for this, who gives this in his law. Notice, verse 9, the exception 
clause. And I say to you, whoever divorces 
his wife, here it is again, except for Pornea, and marries another, 
commits adultery. And whoever marries her, who 
is divorced, commits adultery. There are several ways to try 
and evade the clear teaching of this passage. First thing, 
what does Pornea mean? I suggest that Jesus is using 
an equivalent of what the indecent thing meant in Deuteronomy 24. 
Basically, it means prostitution, unchastity, fornication, or every 
kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. He's not just specifying adultery. Jesus knows Greek. He uses porneia. The Greek word for adultery is 
boikeia. He uses it in the same context. 
Pornea is a broader offense. It's certainly adultery is included 
in that. But pornea is a broader offense 
or a broader category. Some say that this means incest. It can only apply to incest. Well, it certainly includes incest, 
but it's broader than just incest. It's unlawful sexual activity 
of every kind. Some suggest that the explanation 
here, or the exception clause, applies only to Joseph and his 
betrothal to Mary. You see, in Matthew chapter 1, 
it tells us that Joseph was concerned with putting away Mary. Some 
suggest that the exception clause only appears in Matthew, so that 
we can cover Joseph. Well, it certainly includes betrothal, 
but it's broader. And may I suggest practically, 
if someone misses Matthew 1.18, Matthew 1.20, Matthew 1.24, It is doubtful that they're going 
to connect the exception clause in Matthew 5 to Joseph. Get me? If the exception clause in Matthew 
5 is to look backward to protect Joseph in his integrity as a 
righteous man, it's to misread Matthew chapter 1. Isn't it? You're going to come 
out of Matthew one, even after the angel explains things to 
Joseph, even after the angel says, this is of God. She is 
found a child by the Holy Spirit. Joseph understood it. Matthew 
one, twenty four. He understood the angelic explanation. 
He didn't put her away. I suggest that the exception 
clause appears in Matthew five because it foreshadows Matthew 
19. There's going to be a discussion about any reasons for divorce. Matthew 5 includes the exception 
clause as a foretaste or a foreshadow of what Jesus will say in Matthew 
chapter 19. Some say that they say that this 
buttresses the absence of the exception clause in Mark and 
Luke. No exception clause in Mark and Luke because it doesn't 
tell us about the interesting details of Joseph and Mary. Many 
commentators say it was assumed that in the case of divorce, 
or in the case of porneia, there would be divorce. The first century 
assumption. Mark and Luke didn't have to 
write it. But as I've already suggested 
before, Mark's audience doesn't ask Jesus, is it lawful to divorce 
for any reason? If you ask the simple question, 
is it lawful to divorce, the simple answer is no. Right? Is it lawful to kill someone? 
No. Is it lawful to kill men for 
any reason? No. There's three particular 
reasons why we can kill others. Not we can kill others. The magistrate, 
just war, self-defense. You see, he answers a simple 
question with a simple answer. Is it lawful to divorce? No. 
The original intent of God in Genesis chapter two shows us 
God doesn't want you to divorce. Matthew's Pharisees say, is it 
lawful to divorce for any reason? No, the original intent was that 
you don't get divorced. Well, why does Moses permit it? 
Or why does Moses command it? Because of the hardness of your 
hearts. And it's this exception. It's this one ground. It's this 
one particular. Except for pornea. That's why. We say, well, we 
can't bank our lives and our health and our prosperity on 
just Matthew's testimony. We do that in the tank. Mark 
and Luke don't record the baptismal formula of the triune God, but 
we certainly have no problem going to Matthew and baptizing 
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 
Its presence in Matthew shows it's valid. And it's consistent with Deuteronomy 
24, which is Jesus' overarching concern in Matthew 5. Do not 
think that I came to abolish the law and the prophets. Do 
not think that I came to abrogate. Do not think that I came to destroy 
them. I didn't come to destroy, but 
I came rather to fulfill. I came rather to obey them in 
my own life, in my own ministry, so that you could have an imputed 
righteousness, but I also came to affirm and confirm and establish 
them as the normative practice for my people. I hope that all made perfect 
sense. We have seen the issue. We have seen instruction. Now, 
there's more instruction. I'm not suggesting this was an 
exhaustive study, even though you may be exhausted right now. 
This was not an exhaustive study. What are some implications? We 
need to understand God's original intent of marriage. We ought 
not to enter in willy nilly. We ought not to enter in because 
he or she is gorgeous. We ought not to enter in simply 
because we want the blessings and privileges associated with 
marriage. We enter in when we're ready 
to deal with the responsibilities of until death does us part. I quote again from the Westminster 
Confession, chapter 24, paragraph 3. Our London Baptist Confession 
does not include papists. I don't think that's because 
our London Baptist brothers said it was OK to marry papists. For 
whatever reason, it isn't there. So I want to read Westminster 
Confession 24-3. It is lawful for all sorts of 
people to marry. This isn't just for Christians. 
It's for creatures. Right? There is a stipulation. 
If you're a Christian, you can only marry a Christian. But God 
gave this as a creation ordinance. It is lawful for all sorts of 
people to marry who are able, with judgment, to give their 
consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the 
Lord. And therefore, such as profess 
the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists 
or other idolaters. Neither should such as are godly 
be unequally yoked by marrying with such as are notoriously 
wicked in their life or maintain damnable heresies. Do not take 
this lightly. Do not enter into it rashly. Do not think in your head, hey, 
I want to be of the school of Hillel and I can get divorced 
for just any cause. No, biblical law was always restrictive. The two provisions of the two 
stipulations that Moses gives in Deuteronomy 24, by implication, 
show us that hasty and frivolousness are not warranted in this matter 
of rending asunder what God has joined together. We do live in 
a divorce crazed generation, and we need to maintain biblical 
fidelity. We need to honor the one flesh 
union. We are guilty. We confess it. 
We forsake it. We seek mercy in the blood of 
Jesus. And we say to the Lord God most 
high, give me of your spirit. Give me a conviction with reference 
to your law so that I may love this woman or I may love this 
man until death does us part. We need to remember, secondly, 
the provision in the law. The provision in the law. I quoted 
briefly from Gordon Clark previously. I want to read this in full now. 
And I think this is perceptive. It's in his commentary on the 
Westminster Confession. Divorce is a national scandal. Nobody's denying that. Nobody's 
suggesting otherwise. It was lost in the first century 
A.D. It was lost in the second millennium 
B.C. He says that 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 decrees. 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. It is to 
take that one flesh union and to mutilate it. It is to butcher 
it. It is to dismember it. It is 
to bring rupture. It is to bring division. It is 
to bring destruction. It is the guilty party who breaks 
the marriage covenant. Not the innocent party suing 
out for divorce. Not the judge who grants it. 
The original intent of God must be foremost in our minds. The 
provision in the law. Thirdly, some practical implications. It's not the unpardonable sin. It's not good news. It's not 
a blessing. There is forgiveness with thee 
that thou may be feared. You find yourself here this morning 
having been divorced, having been remarried. The answer is 
it creates the rupture in the new union. The answer is the 
blood. of Jesus Christ, our blessed 
Lord. Sometimes, brethren, the church 
can be unkind and untoward toward those who have been divorced 
and are remarried. God have mercy on us. Teach us 
your holy law, Father, so that we do not impugn evil upon someone 
who has simply made recourse to your blessed law. It's not 
the unpardonable sin. A second implication. We as God's 
people ought to set the example in this area. That divorce and 
its numbers are so high amongst professing evangelicals and reformed 
is sickening. From the beginning it was not 
so. We love our reformed theology. It's still packed beyond the 
16th century. Let's go back beyond Deuteronomy 
24. Let's go back to Genesis 2. Praise God for our wives. Praise God for our husbands. 
Praise God for their presence in our lives. And commit in covenant 
to treat them with the respect and the dignity that they deserve. Let marriage have sanctity among 
the people of God. We shouldn't parallel the world 
in this. We shouldn't be like the world in this. We shouldn't 
allow these sorts of things to get in our midst. Purge the unclean from among 
you. Deal with it. Start bearing with 
your spouse. Start forebearing with your spouse. Stop coveting other men's spouses 
because they don't do what your wife does. Honor her. Honor him. Glorify God. Study Ephesians 5 together. Husbands, 
love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself 
for her. Wives, submit to your own husbands 
as unto the Lord. You see the reciprocal benefit 
in that passage. If a man loves his wife the way 
he should, she'll submit the way she should. When she submits 
the way she should, he loves her the way he should. It's a 
beautiful cycle. probably absent in a lot of our 
marriages, but one we need, by the grace of God, to enact. Let's 
set the example in fidelity. Let's set the example in the 
sanctity of marriage. Let's encourage one another with 
these things. And children and young people, 
do not enter into this rashly. Do not do it. Time is not your 
enemy. I mean, if you're 18 and you're 
not married, there's hope for you. If you're 25 and you're not married, 
there's hope for you. If you're 40 and you're not married, 
there's hope for you. Don't despair. Don't rush into 
it. Don't bypass rationality. Think. Ponder. Contemplate. Listen to our Reformed brethren. 
Don't enter into a covenant with an infidel. Don't enter into 
a covenant with a papist. Don't enter into a covenant with 
somebody whose life is not consistent and is not adorning the doctrine 
of the gospel. It doesn't matter what other 
benefits and attendant circumstances there might be. As a Christian 
man or a Christian woman, that thing you ought to look for the 
most is Christ. like nets in that young woman 
or man whom you are wanting to pursue. And then finally, the 
gospel can't end apart from the gospel. God spoke to a world 
of sinners. God comes to us through his law 
to provide protection for those who are wronged in a particular 
circumstance or situation. God has come to us in His Gospel 
to forgive, to cleanse, to wash, to purify, to justify. If you are here this morning, 
do not pride yourself that you've never been divorced, you've never 
been remarried, and you never intended it. The only place where we are allowed 
to boast is in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. by whom the 
world has been crucified to me and I to the world. The answer 
for you this morning is not go out and live a long, prosperous, 
happy marriage. The answer is to come to the 
Lord Jesus Christ to receive the pardon of sin, the imputation 
of righteousness. And if you're married, then go 
live a long, happy, merry life. It's the gospel. It's Jesus. 
It's Christ. He casts us back. into the position 
of debtors to grace, debtors to mercy, and those who God saves. Well, let us pray. Our Father, 
we have covered a lot of material this morning, and I pray that 
we would have these things in our hearts and minds, that we 
would think clearly on matters of biblical law, matters of ethics, 
We know that the church, in many respects, needs so much more 
study in the Old Covenant, in the Old Testament. And I pray 
that you would help us in this, help us as we look to the Sermon 
on the Mount, as we see our Lord's teaching, the one who has said 
so clearly that he didn't come to abolish it. He came rather 
to fulfill it. Certainly, He esteems your law. 
Certainly, He delights in it. And certainly, we as His people 
ought to as well. We just pray now that you would 
go with us. We pray that you would watch over us. We pray 
that you would continue to instruct us in these issues. And we ask 
in Jesus' holy name. Amen.