Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: June 25, 2006
A REVIEW OF “A STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES
CONCERNING MARRIAGE & DIVORCE” (Part 2)
Ben Justice
A Study of Matthew 5:31-32
These verses state, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him
give her a writing of divorcement: (32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Note how Jesus began: “It hath been said.” What has been said? Jesus stated,
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” This is
an allusion to Deut. 24:1 — “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it
come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some
uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand,
and send her out of his house.” This is what Moses said. However, Jesus used
the contrasting conjunction “but.” He said, “But I say unto you,” in contrast to
what Moses had said. Jesus went beyond the Mosaical law to give his law.
Language couldn’t be plainer. Jesus gave one exception for divorce and that one
exception is “fornication.” If fornication is not the cause of the divorce, then
when the woman married again, she would be guilty of adultery. Likewise,
whoever married her would be guilty of adultery, because, in reality, he would be
taking another man’s wife.
The brother who wrote this study on marriage and divorce stated,
Jesus specifically states in Matthew 5:17-19 he was not here to destroy the
Law, and he condemned anyone who would teach against the Law, therefore he
can NOT be guilty of forbidding marriage for either the man or the woman after a
divorce which was sanctioned by the Law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. (emphasis,
his).
His argument is basically this: Jesus did not forbid marriage for either the man
or the woman after a divorce in v. 32. And, why not? This brother reasons that
since Deut. 24:1-4 does not forbid marriage after a divorce, and since Jesus
stated he not teach against the Law in Matt. 5:17-18, he, therefore, did not forbid
a marriage after a divorce. What this brother fails to see is the plain language of
Jesus. Jesus did not carry over the teachings of Deut. 24:1-4. He clearly made a
contrast between what Deut. 24:1-4 taught and what he taught. Of course,
Jesus did not teach against the Law. However, there would come a time when
the Law of Moses would be taken out of the way. In Matt. 5:18, Jesus said, “. . .
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” When all
would be fulfilled, the law would then pass away, but not until. Jesus has
fulfilled all things (Luke 24:44). Therefore, the law has passed away. Throughout
Jesus ministry he often taught things that would be characteristic of his law
under the Christian dispensation. Throughout Matt. 5, Jesus consistently spoke
of what the Law of Moses said, and then he would draw a contrast by declaring,
“But I say unto you.” The pattern is basically this: “Ye have heard that it was said,”
. . . “But I say unto you” (see v. 21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44). Note
the following additional examples:
1.) In Matt. 18:15ff, Jesus taught about the disciplinary action to be taken by
the church upon erring members. This teaching is nowhere found in the Law of
Moses. It was new teaching to be observed in the Christian dispensation.
2.) In Matt. 26:26-29, Jesus commanded the apostles to observe the Lord’s
Supper. This is nowhere found in the Law of Moses. The Lord was setting forth
teaching that be applicable in the kingdom.
3.) In John 4:21, Jesus explained to the woman at the well that the hour is
coming when people would not worship God at Jerusalem or Mount Gerizim.
Under the Law of Moses, Jerusalem was the place to worship, but Jesus was
setting forth new teaching concerning worship.
What Jesus said in Matt. 5:32 was not a restatement of Deut. 24:1-4. Rather, it
was new revelation.
This brother said that Jesus does not forbid marriage for either the man or the
woman after a divorce. My friends, that is exactly what Jesus did! By
implication, Jesus forbade divorce and remarriage for reasons other than
fornication. This brother’s conclusion directly contradicts the Lord’s words in v.
32. Let’s compare the two side-by-side.
BILL HALEY
Jesus "can NOT be
guilty of forbidding
marriage for either the
man or the woman after
a divorce . . ."
|
JESUS
"Whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving
for the cause of
fornication, causeth
her to commit
adultery: and
whosoever shall
marry her that is
divorced committeth
adultery."
|
A Study of Matthew 19:3-9
This brother spends considerable more time on these passages. There is
certainly more information in these passages than in Matt. 5:31-32. Matt. 19:3-9
reads as follows,
“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a
man to put away his wife for every cause? (4) And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more
twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder. (7) They said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away? (8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it
was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Brother Haley makes the exact same arguments with reference to these
passages as he does with Matt. 5:31-32. He states,
Jesus could NOT be guilty of forbidding divorce, or marriage after a divorce which
was sanctioned by the Law, otherwise he would have been guilty of violating
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which is not consistent with His statement in Matthew 5:
17-19. (emphasis, his).
Again, this brother fails to understand that Jesus was not reinstating or
redefining Deut. 24:1ff, but was giving a new law. Jesus’ law on marriage,
divorce, and remarriage would be applicable in the Christian dispensation. The
Old Law, including Deut. 24:1ff, has been taken out of the way (cf. Col. 2:14).
This brother states, “Jesus defines the term ‘unseemly thing’ used in
Deuteronomy 24:1 to mean fornication.” Again, he states, “The ‘uncleanness’
spoken of in Deuteronomy 24:1 should be interpreted to mean fornication.”
(emphasis, all his). Next week, we will examine why these statements are wrong.