What God Has Joined, Let No Man Separate
Inventions and Decrees
Such is the fulness of the Christian doctrine, that there is still more to be learned; and such our forgetfulness, that we need to be reminded of what we do know.
I. Marriage Divided (vv. 1-4)
The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, “Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.” And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, “Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.” R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, “And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes.” (m. Git. 9:10)
They come at the law asking, “What does it allow me to do?” or, to put it more bluntly, “What can I get away with?” This preoccupation with legal subtleties ultimately neglects God’s will, which is primarily concerned with love for the neighbor (12:31).
The Pharisees reflect the view that marriage is a disposable contractual arrangement. Twice they inquire about possible grounds of its dissolution (10:2, 4). Their attitude reminds us of a person who has just been granted a bank loan and then asks under what conditions he might be absolved from repaying it.
Possession of this certificate provided the woman with the legal proof that the marriage had ended and made it possible for her to marry someone else. In this sense the certificate offered the woman legal protection against the claims of her former husband and the possibility of starting a new life.
II. Marriage Intended (vv. 5-9)
Jesus’ judgment regarding hard-heartedness presupposes the abiding validity and obligation of the original divine institution of marriage, and the force of his pronouncement here, and in the following verses, is to obliterate the Mosaic tolerance.
The reason God allowed divorce was that the hearts of the men of Israel were “hard.” This was a divine concession to human weakness, a concession to man’s sinfulness, but it cannot be taken as approval. It was reluctant permission at best.
God himself was joined them together; he has not only, as Creator, fitted them to be comforts and helps meet for each other, but he has, in wisdom and goodness, appointed them who are thus joined together, to live together in love till death parts them. Marriage is not an invention of men, but a divine institution, and therefore is to be religiously observed, and the more, because it is a figure of the mystical inseparable union between Christ and his church.
III. Marriage Elevated (vv. 10-12)
III. Marriage Elevated (vv. 10-12)
Jesus’ judgment regarding hard-heartedness presupposes the abiding validity and obligation of the original divine institution of marriage, and the force of his pronouncement here, and in the following verses, is to obliterate the Mosaic tolerance.
The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, “Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.” And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, “Because he hath found in her indecency in anything.” R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, “And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes.” (m. Git. 9:10)
The Pharisees reflect the view that marriage is a disposable contractual arrangement. Twice they inquire about possible grounds of its dissolution (10:2, 4). Their attitude reminds us of a person who has just been granted a bank loan and then asks under what conditions he might be absolved from repaying it.
The reason God allowed divorce was that the hearts of the men of Israel were “hard.” This was a divine concession to human weakness, a concession to man’s sinfulness, but it cannot be taken as approval. It was reluctant permission at best.
Such is the fulness of the Christian doctrine, that there is still more to be learned; and such our forgetfulness, that we need to be reminded of what we do know.
God himself was joined them together; he has not only, as Creator, fitted them to be comforts and helps meet for each other, but he has, in wisdom and goodness, appointed them who are thus joined together, to live together in love till death parts them. Marriage is not an invention of men, but a divine institution, and therefore is to be religiously observed, and the more, because it is a figure of the mystical inseparable union between Christ and his church.
They come at the law asking, “What does it allow me to do?” or, to put it more bluntly, “What can I get away with?” This preoccupation with legal subtleties ultimately neglects God’s will, which is primarily concerned with love for the neighbor (12:31).
The Pharisees need to discover what God commands, not what Moses has permitted. The Pharisees’ approach to the law is wrong; their approach to marriage is also wrong. They begin with the end of the marriage relationship and scrutinize the correct procedures for ending it.
Possession of this certificate provided the woman with the legal proof that the marriage had ended and made it possible for her to marry someone else. In this sense the certificate offered the woman legal protection against the claims of her former husband and the possibility of starting a new life.