Divorce and Legislating Morality (Matthew 9:1-12)
At this point in Matthew’s Gospel, we begin the journey to Jerusalem and the cross. Along the way, Jesus continues to teach, so it is hard to say where the discourse stops and the more narrative section begins. It is a bit of an overlap.
The religious leaders attempt to trap Jesus into bad teaching by broaching a controversial and hotly contested subject of the day: what were the acceptable grounds for divorce?
Jesus does not go to the Law for His argument, but right to the beginning of time with the creation account. (Incidentally, here Jesus affirms that all of the Pentateuch and not just the Law is God’s word, by saying that God said what is contained in Genesis.) Jesus says that there are no “acceptable” grounds for divorce. What God establishes (the union of marriage) should not be broken.
They push further by saying that Moses commanded a certificate of divorce be given. (When you look at the Law, the only law prescribing any sort of divorce action is in Deuteronomy 24:1, and that is hardly a law for divorce, but rather a circumstantial prescription in the event a divorce occurs, and more about remarriage than the divorce itself!) Jesus counters that Moses did not command, or prescribe, but allowed—due to the sinful nature of man.
This is an understandable precaution. When I was a teen in Chile—a catholic country—divorce was illegal. This did not keep marriages from breaking up but did make a mess of the aftermath! There is a huge problem—and a compounded one at that—with legislating morality. And that is what Jesus is talking about here. God’s way is the best way—the only acceptable one. But in a world dominated by sin, you need to deal with people as sinners who will do bad things. Divorce is always a tragedy and a consequence of sin but pretending that the sin doesn’t exist only makes things worse.
And what about the caveat in verse 9 “except for sexual immorality”? There are two ways to read this. Either it means that sexual immorality is one clause where divorce is granted, because one partner has broken the vow, or it means that adultery is not a result of the divorce because it is instead the cause and has already occurred.
Those who ascribe to the later view would not accept remarriage at all, for any remarriage would be adultery. The fact that Jesus lays open the possibility of “marries again” might seem to favor the former view.
In any case, divorce in verse 9 is only an option and not required. And in light of “what God has joined,” there are many cases where reconciliation and restoration are the preferred outcome.
The religious leaders attempt to trap Jesus into bad teaching by broaching a controversial and hotly contested subject of the day: what were the acceptable grounds for divorce?
Jesus does not go to the Law for His argument, but right to the beginning of time with the creation account. (Incidentally, here Jesus affirms that all of the Pentateuch and not just the Law is God’s word, by saying that God said what is contained in Genesis.) Jesus says that there are no “acceptable” grounds for divorce. What God establishes (the union of marriage) should not be broken.
They push further by saying that Moses commanded a certificate of divorce be given. (When you look at the Law, the only law prescribing any sort of divorce action is in Deuteronomy 24:1, and that is hardly a law for divorce, but rather a circumstantial prescription in the event a divorce occurs, and more about remarriage than the divorce itself!) Jesus counters that Moses did not command, or prescribe, but allowed—due to the sinful nature of man.
This is an understandable precaution. When I was a teen in Chile—a catholic country—divorce was illegal. This did not keep marriages from breaking up but did make a mess of the aftermath! There is a huge problem—and a compounded one at that—with legislating morality. And that is what Jesus is talking about here. God’s way is the best way—the only acceptable one. But in a world dominated by sin, you need to deal with people as sinners who will do bad things. Divorce is always a tragedy and a consequence of sin but pretending that the sin doesn’t exist only makes things worse.
And what about the caveat in verse 9 “except for sexual immorality”? There are two ways to read this. Either it means that sexual immorality is one clause where divorce is granted, because one partner has broken the vow, or it means that adultery is not a result of the divorce because it is instead the cause and has already occurred.
Those who ascribe to the later view would not accept remarriage at all, for any remarriage would be adultery. The fact that Jesus lays open the possibility of “marries again” might seem to favor the former view.
In any case, divorce in verse 9 is only an option and not required. And in light of “what God has joined,” there are many cases where reconciliation and restoration are the preferred outcome.
Comments
Post a Comment