Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Evening Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/ev/ev19970105.htm

MATTHEW: JESUS AS ISRAEL'S MESSIAH AND HIS MESSIANIC KINGDOM
Part X. Christ's Messianic Kingdom Postponed
L. Christ's Edification Of The Disciples In View Of His Rejection As The King
6. Characteristics Of The Proper Marital Commitments Of Messiah's Followers
(Matthew 19:1-15)
  1. Introduction
    1. A generation ago, churches throughout Christendom taught that divorce and remarriage was wrong. However, today even many Evangelicals hold to divorce and remarriage as acceptable at times.
    2. Well, what are the Biblical issues all about, and why are many changing their views on the matter?
  2. Characteristics Of The Proper Marital Commitments Of Messiah's Followers, Matthew 19:1-15.
    1. Evangelicals who defend divorce and remarriage rely upon Matt. 19:9 and 1 Cor. 7:15 as follows:
      1. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus prohibited divorce and remarriage "except it be for fornication." This "exception clause" is believed to support a believer's initiating divorce when the partner is adulterous.
      2. In 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul says if an unbelieving partner divorces a believer, the believer "is not under bondage." This phrase is used to imply that one is free after divorce from the unsaved to marry another.
    2. However, proper exegesis of these passages allow for no initiation of divorce and remarriage by believers:
      1. Matthew 19:9's context shows Jesus was not advocating divorce for our day:
        1. Were Jesus to have meant regular adultery by the Matt. 19:9 "exception clause," there would be a problem with Biblical infallibility as the comparable account in Mark 10:11-12 omits such a clause!
        2. We can explain the difference between Mark and Matthew due to context: (a) Mark was written for the Gentile (cf. Bib. Know. Com., N.T., p. 101) where Matthew was for the Jew (Ibid., p. 16). (b) Now, three uniquely Jewish situations arose that were called "fornication" or porneia as used in Mtt. 19:9 (Ibid., p. 63): ((1)) marriage infidelity during a Jewish betrothal before the couple came together physically, a matter requiring a bill of divorce to end the betrothal, cf. Mtt. 1:18-20; ((2)) union between Jews under the Law in violation of the Levitical degrees which demanded a bill of divorce and ((3)) union between Jews and Gentiles under the Law that required a bill of divorce, cf. Ezra 9-10, cf. Hendricks, Chr. Couns. for Contemp. Probs., p. 112-113. (c) The only logical way to adhere to Scriptural infallibility in considering both Mark and Matthew accounts of divorce is to say that since Matthew was for the Jew, Jes us had to include the "exception clause" to make sense of the Law and Jewish betrothal customs to the Jew, and the reason Mark had to omit it was to make sense to Roman readers who did not understand these Jewish issues requiring a bill of divorce.
        3. However, since the "exception clause" doesn't apply to our customs or dispensation, for all practical purposes, we should ignore the Mtt. 19:9 "exception clause", not allowing divorce and remarriage !
        4. Besides, Mtt. 19:4-6 shows Jesus promoting becoming "one flesh" in marriage to allude to Gen. 2:24 makes for an indissoluble union; when the disciples react to His Mtt. 19:9 statement that His view is so conservative that it is safer not taking a chance on marriage, Jesus notes that making one's self a eunuch to avoid sexual sin is h onorable. These contextual matters allow for NO regular divorce.
      2. We study 1 Corinthians 7:15's context to note that Paul did not advocate divorce for our day, either:
        1. Verse 16 shows Paul stating that the believer might somehow save his original, unsaved partner! If this is the case, he is not promoting a remarriage to another party, but a salvaging of the first union!
        2. In verse 11, Paul already unconditionally forbade divorce and said that if it occurred, one was either to remain unwed or be reconciled to the original partner. To permit one to remarry a believer after the unbeliever departs from ver se 15 is to violate verse 11!
        3. Thus, the "not under bondage" clause means one is not bound to try to keep the original union in tact, but is not sinning in letting the unbeliever divorce him. It is hoped in doing this that relationships can be helped so that if the unbeliever wants reconciliation, the marriage can be saved!
Lesson: When male and female humans were first created, and brought together so that they became "one flesh," it was a union that GOD had formed, Gen. 2:19-24. Since GOD formed it, man has no right to DISSOLVE it and RESTRUCTURE so me other union lest he be insubordinate to his Creator! There is no divorce and no remarriage allowed after divorce to another party in our era!