Sermon Tone Analysis

A history of Marriage

There is a lot here to digest and because of time we cannot fully explore everything here.

I want to point out that Eve was made to be Adam’s ezer kenegedo.

These two words have significance, but point to a deeper relationship than just “suitable helper”

The implications of Genesis 2:

God desired for Adam to have a person to share his life and mission.

At the point of marriage the man and the woman become one.

This is God’s intent.

The fall distorted this relationship and as sin entered the picture so did distortions to this ideal.

Polygamy entered the world as seen in the life of Abraham Gideon, David and Solomon.

Prostitution was an acceptable practice for men.

(Judah and Tamar Genesis 38)

Sometime while the Jews were living in Egypt divorce entered the picture.

Laws given to Moses for the Israelites.

Exodus 21:10–11 (NIV)

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.

If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

These verses are dealing with a slave wife’s rights.

It provided for the care of the woman to ensure she was provided with food, clothing and marital rights (Love and Sexual Activity).

We will also see how this will later be misused to by Jewish men to claim the right to divorce.

Deuteronomy 24:1–4 (NIV)

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man,

and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies,

then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.

That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord.

Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

This became the standard device for divorce.

The Certificate of divorce was created as a protection for women.

Also, note here a difference in how we typically think of divorce and remarriage.

Here it is not permitted for a woman to remarry her first husband.

It is believed that this again was a protection for the wife.

A husband could divorce his wife, she could remarry and have children, gain a dowry from this marriage and the first husband, before the certificate of divorce, could reclaim his wife, her children with the other man and any money or land that had come into her possession.

We will return to this passage when we are exploring Matthew 19.

Let’s review what is implied here in this text:

It does not create divorce in Israel but acknowledges something that is already a cultural practice among the people.

It does not attempt to eliminate an existing cultural practice by forbidding divorce from that point forward.

It not only assumes but provides the clear legal authorization for a divorced woman who has “something objectionable about her” to remarry.

Its only explicit prohibition is against the first husband taking the divorced woman back in case she should be divorced by her second husband or if that husband were to die.

There are so many other passages about marriage, divorce and remarriage in the Old Testament.

I wish we had time to explore them, but I am limited because of my schedule to getting through this tonight.

I wan to bring out some implications, point out by the Author, preacher and Scholar

Rubel Shelly and Old Testament observations:

Rubel Shelly in his book on Divorce and Remarriage about the Old Testament view on Divorce an Remarriage:

marriage exists by the will and purpose of God, and fidelity within marriage is the divine ideal.

Marriage is created when human beings make formal pledges to one another in the form of a berith, a Hebrew term variously understood as a “contract” or “covenant” with mutual benefits and mutual responsibilities.

Divorce occurred in the larger cultural context of biblical actors and events for a variety of causes and often with harsh and cruel consequences, especially for women and children.

Statutes were instituted in Israel whose clear purpose was not only to discourage the thoughtless and quick resort to divorce on the part of males but also to protect females from some of the more egregious forms of abuse ancient cultures tolerated for women.

Remarriage was customary and expected following divorce under the Mosaic Law.

It was specifically authorized for women by the official divorce certificate a man was ordered to give a wife being discharged from his family.

Divorced and remarried persons were not excluded from the covenant community or denied the right to participate in its religious rites.

*Shelly, Rubel.

Divorce & Remarriage: A Redemptive Theology (pp.

66-68).

Leafwood Publishers.

Kindle Edition.

About 150 years before Jesus, men were taking such advantages of wives, divorcing them for any reason that Simeon Ben Shetach put in place the Ketubah, or the marriage contract.

Today, we would call it a prenup.

It spelled out in contract form the rights and responsibilities of the husband to his wife.

Meant to deter divorce, it offered a wife a settlement in regards to a husband discarding her for non-valid reasons.

Ketubah

The content of the ketubah is in essence a two-way contract that formalizes the various requirements by (Jewish law) of a Jewish husband vis-à-vis his wife.

The Jewish husband takes upon himself in the ketubah the obligation that he will provide to his wife three major things: clothing, food and conjugal relations, and also that he will pay her a pre-specified amount of cash in the case of a divorce.

Hillel and Shammai

A few years before Jesus, Hillel and Shammai two Jewish Rabbi’s came on the scene to reform divorce.

The difference between them dealt with how they looked at Deuteronomy 24:1 and the translation of “something indecent about her” It is constructed from two root words we translate as Indecency and Matter.

The Hillelites, the more liberal Rabbi’s, took “matter” to mean “any matter”, and indecency to mean Adultery.

The Shammaites took the two words together and saw reasons for a valid divorce to be adultery or a violation of the three obligations provided by Exodus 21:10-11, to provide food, clothing or Sex.

Both camps believed the following:

The rabbis agreed that the grounds for divorce were childlessness, material neglect (Food and Clothing), emotional neglect (Love or Sex), and unfaithfulness.

Divorce was enacted by the man, though a court could persuade a man to enact a divorce when his wife demonstrated that she had sufficient grounds for a divorce.

Remarriage was generally accepted, but if it followed an invalid divorce, it was treated as adultery.

It is clear that what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5 and how he responds to the Pharisees in Matthew 19, show that Jesus is familiar with their teaching.

We have explored this history so we can get a better picture of Jesus teaching on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage as seen through the gospel of Matthew.

So, let’s turn to Matthew 5:31-32

Remember, I said a few weeks ago that the key to interpreting this portion of the Sermon is to remember two things:

These teaching are about relationships.

They are ground in love.

Jesus begins like in the previous two sections by presenting an accepted teaching among the Jews in his audience.

As we pointed out in Deuteronomy 24, this certificate was meant for the protection of the wife.

Jesus is not trying to destroy or abolish the law but to fulfill it.

Jesus does not care about a certificate of divorce, not because he does not care about protecting women, in fact the only victim Jesus mentions here is the wife that has been divorced by her husband.

Jesus believes if people are truly being obedient to God, there is no need for a certificate of divorce.

We did the background of the Old Testament and current beliefs because I believe it is important to our discussion of this passage.

The word translated as sexual immorality is porneia, which in sometimes translated as sexual activity.

But we also see that even the most conservative Rabbi’s of the day, the Shammaites, translated the Old Testament equivalent to mean not only adultery, but a neglecting of the three basic needs of food, clothing, love and sex.

This became the idea of neglecting two things: the material and the emotional.

So, is Jesus taking a hard stance against those who would practice a “any matter” form of divorce?

Yes, but I believe knowing his audience and knowing the prevailing teachings of the day, he is wanting us to see the importance of taking the marriage contract seriously.

Divorce is not God’s intended plan, but in a sinful world, it happens and it has consequences.

We must also consider whether Jesus is using Porneia as only referring the sexual sin of adultery or its broader meaning we see being used by the Rabbi’s of his day to include material and emotional transgressions as well.

Again, if we understand his teachings here in Matthew 5 to be about relationships and being grounded in love, we must ask the serious questions:

Is God’s desire for women to be bound to a husband who physically abuses them?

Is it God’s desire for women to be bound to a husband who because of addiction places the addiction before them?

Is it God’s desire for women to be bound to a person who verbally abuses them?

What about a person who keep them from being free to worship God?

I think we must see that just as sexual sin destroys the foundation of the marriage, so does other forms of sins and they to can be considered marital unfaithfulness.

So, a few points of clarity here in Matthew 5, Verse 31-32:

Jesus is affirming that God’s intention has never been for husband and wife to divorce.

Jesus is calling out those who are practicing “any matter” divorces and directly calling them out to be adulterers and causing adultery.

Jesus never tells us here or anywhere else that divorce is the unforgivable sin, but does call out “any matter” divorces as sinful.