'So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”' Mark 10:8-9
I’ve been prayerful and thoughtful for some time about the passage we have before us this morning.
One of the good things about ‘preaching series’ is you can’t pick and choose your texts but are forced to preach the whole counsel of God.
Knowing that this passage was approaching, I’ve been thinking about you all. I’ve been thinking about how these words of Jesus might land on you this morning.
I imagine there are some here today who have been divorced in the past. Maybe that was and remains very painful for you. I’m preaching today with that assumption.
I expect there will be a range of views in the room on divorce. I’m preaching with that assumption too.
I know everyone in the room has a view on divorce. When it’s right. Ifit’s right, ever.
I hope every believer in the room has a view about divorce that is based on the bible. Supported by the bible.
And I accept that not every view that is based on the bible will be the same.
I’m concerned that somebody might feel a stigma associated with their divorce. And yet I want everyone to go away today refreshed by Jesus.
I rejoice that Jesus both sets the agenda and forgives sins. Not onlysets the agenda.
I pray that everyone in the room will hear Jesus speaking to them this morning, and not me. It doesn’t matter what I think. It matters everything what Jesus thinks.
So, I want to begin by praying because that seems appropriate, and then we’ll see what the Lord has to say to us about divorce.
As we begin chapter 10, Jesus and the disciples are starting to move south. None of the gospel writers give us much detail about the route. But Mark tells us in verse 1 that Jesus left Capernaum and went into the region of Judea crossing the Jordan.
The region of Judea was separated geographically from Galilee by the region of Samaria. And it seems, based on what Mark says, that Jesus went east from Capernaum and then travelled through the Jordan valley on the east side of the river Jordan before crossing over, opposite the region of Judea and into that region. Thus, they by-passed the region of Samaria, as many Jews in those days did.
And upon arrival, the crowds came to him as usual. And just like normal, he taught them.
Jesus and the disciples are now a lot closer to Jerusalem, and so it’s not surprising that Pharisees show up.
And we know what they’re like. We know that they are keen to catch Jesus in his words and thereby to undermine his authority. But Jesus’ authority is supreme.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that in chapter 9, Jesus was on the mount of transfiguration.
Let’s not forget that God gave him his seal of approval and told the disciples, and us, to listen to him.
Don’t forget that there were echoes of the giving of the law and the establishing of the covenant with the people of Israel on Mount Sinai inthe transfiguration event.
And don’t lose sight of the fact that Moses and Elijah had appeared with Jesus on the mountain, but that they had disappeared as God arrived in the cloud.
All that indicates to us that Jesus is more worthy to be listened to than Moses.
That Jesus is going to create a new covenant in his blood that is better than the old one.
And that Jesus is going to be a new and better lawgiver than Moses was.
So, we are called to listen to Jesus attentively now, as he teaches out of that transfiguration context.
These Pharisees want to catch Jesus out by pitting him against Moses. They think that if they can show that Jesus undermines Moses, then they can show that Jesus is not a trustworthy teacher.
And the question they use to test him, is this question about divorce. ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ It’s a straightforward question.
And Moses did speak to it himself. In the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy there are 20 chapters (between 6 and 26) devoted to recounting the laws and decrees God gave Moses for the people on the mountain.
Those 20 chapters start and end with these words: ‘These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess’.
So, it’s not like the laws Moses gave to the Israelites were his ideas. They were God’s laws and God’s commands, and they were meant to be followed.
In that 20 chapter unit of law, there are these verses about divorce: ‘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’.
This is the command the Pharisees had in mind when they presented Jesus with the question: ‘is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’
And Jesus knew it. You can tell that from verses 3 and 4 where Jesus asks what Moses commanded. And the Pharisees give Jesus a summary of what I just read to you.
Jesus doesn’t contest that Moses commanded that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce. Nor does he contest the summary of the command the Pharisees present to him.
Jesus seems to accept that what they are saying is true. So, I don’t think we’re contending here with pharisaical distortion.
Jesus asked what Moses commanded. The Pharisees told him. And Jesus now responds on that basis. Not on the basis that what the Pharisees said was inaccurate. It wasn’t!
Now I accept that Matthew’s gospel account has some apparent exceptions - some clauses - in Jesus’ response. I also accept that the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 appears to make an exception also.
However, there are no exceptions mentioned here in Mark’s account which is something we all have to contend with in our understanding of God’s view on divorce.
It’s not my aim to deal with exceptions this morning though. InsteadI’ve written an article at godourrefuge which represents my view about the exception clauses.
The article is my view. It’s not representative of Riverside or the eldership at Riverside per se - and I’ve made that clear at the beginning of the article.
So, if you’d like to know a view (I’m not saying the view) on the exception clauses in Matthew’s gospel and 1 Corinthians 7 then you can read my view at godourrefuge this afternoon – if you want to. And if you don’t that’s fine.
The principle, I think, when it comes to ambiguous texts that supply multiple interpretations is that conscience and conviction based on a clear and supported interpretation can be held without sin.
And I believe that is the case with respect to the exception clauses.
I know there may be some who have been divorced based on those exception clauses and they have a clear conscience about that – I think that’s right, even if I disagree about the interpretation.
Where we have to be clear is that divorce for reasons beyond the exception clauses is sinful. And there could be people here this morning who feel tender about that sin. My message to you is, Jesus is ready to forgive all our sins and to remove all our guilt. Including the sin of divorce for unbiblical reasons.
I will say this one thing about the exception clauses this morning though, it is because of the less clear nature of those other passages, in light of the clarity of this passage in Mark, that uncertainty exists and differing views about divorce prevail.
If we had only this text on divorce, I don’t think there would be much debate. However, this morning I want to stick to what is clear from the passage we have in front of us for the purposes of this message.
So, my question is: what things can we clearly know about Jesus’ view of divorce from what Mark records for us here? And I see 4 obvious things.
Number 1 – Moses’ law was a kindness because of the Israelite’s characteristic unbelief.
Jesus responds to the Pharisees in verse 5 by saying, ‘it was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote this law’.
Jesus is clearly saying that, had the hearts of the Israelites not been characteristically hard, God would not have given this law to Moses for the people.
‘Hard-hearted’ consistently means unbelieving in the bible. The heart that is hard is the heart that is unbelieving. And unbelief is what went on to define the people of Israel. Israel became known as a nation that constantly broke covenant with their God.
In the length and breadth of the history of Israel they are repeatedlydescribed as being an unfaithful people; a people who commit adulterywith other gods; a people who do not keep their promises and do not doas they pledged in the first place.
And in the end, the main reason God rejects them as a nation is because of their unblushing failures to uphold their covenant promises to him.
It seems that Jesus is saying that God knew what kind of a people they would be, and he put a law in the mix that accounted for their characteristic faithlessness.
He knew that just as they would be unfaithful in their relationship with God who brought them out of slavery in Egypt, so they would be unfaithful to their spouses in the context of their covenant marriages too.
One of the consequences of that would be that lots of women would find themselves in the vulnerable position of being cut off by their husbands with no prospect of being able to be married again.
And since the survival of a woman in that context often relied on marriage, it was unthinkable to be cut off from a spouse with no prospect of remarriage.
So, God provided for those most vulnerable women with a concessionary provision that allowed for a divorce certificate, enabling a woman to find a new husband and so be provided for.
But Jesus clearly says, it was because of the hardness of their hearts that God introduced that concession.
The second clear thing in this passage is that, in contrast to the law that God gave the Israelites, it was not like that from the beginning. In other words, the law of Moses on divorce was an innovation, it was not the pattern set out from the beginning.
Jesus makes this clear in verses 6-8 by quoting Genesis twice and then by drawing a conclusion of his own. The two quotes are these: ‘God made them male and female’ (Jesus evidently had a binary understanding of the biological sexes). And since God made them that way, ‘a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife’. And the consequence of that is, ‘the two will become one flesh’.
That’s what God did in the beginning. And it’s a different pattern to the law he gave Moses on Mount Sinai.
What will Jesus’ conclusion be then? Which one of these things will take priority? What Moses said because of the hardness of the Israelites hearts? Or the pattern God laid down at the beginning?
Jesus says, at the end of verse 8: ‘So they are no longer two but one flesh’ and he makes his verdict abundantly well-defined in verse 9, ‘Therefore [in light of them being one flesh] what God has joined together, let no one separate’. This is Jesus’ determination and answer to the Pharisee’s question.
And here are the implications? First, God’s creation pattern takes precedence and applies now. Second, Moses’ command falls to the ground. Third, the application is: don’t try to separate what God has explicitly joined together.
And fourth, the words ‘let no one’ separate means this applies across the board.
I think that is all pretty obvious from a plain reading of Jesus’ words here.
The third thing that is obvious here – and this is by implication, but I don’t think it’s hard to see - is that Jesus, by rejecting the old covenant law and embracing the creation pattern, and as a new covenant-maker and new lawgiver, is showing that the character of the New Covenant is one of faithfulness and promise keeping and not of adultery and unbelief.
Moses gave the divorce command because of the unfaithfulness of the Old Covenant people who were unbelievers. But Jesus repeals that law and goes back to the faithful pattern of creation to establish an ethic of faithfulness, and heartfelt love, and commitment which is going to characterise the New Covenant people of God.
The ‘no divorce’ ethic that Jesus advocates for here, with these Pharisees, indicts the Pharisees in their faithless unbelief and hard heartedness. And it demonstrates the heart of the New Covenant that Jesus has come to make in his own blood.
At the heart of that covenant is faithfulness, because God is characterised by faithfulness.
Jeremiah puts it like this when he anticipates the New Covenant coming in the future, he says: ‘[This New Covenant] will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt because they broke my covenant, though I was a husbandto them, declares the Lord’.
Can you hear the marital overtones of God’s faithfulness to the people, and their unfaithfulness? He was a faithful husband to them; they were an adulterous people to him.
Jeremiah continues, ‘This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time [the new covenant], declares the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’.
This implies that when the New Covenant is created by Jesus, the new people of God will be characterised by faithfulness - they will be ‘his people’.
And this is what God is looking for in his people. He’s looking for covenant commitment; for promise keeping; for faithfulness; for rejection of adultery.
Jesus’ emphasis on ‘no divorce’ then, reflects the character of that new covenant people he had come into the world to make. And it stands in opposition to the character of the old covenant people he came to replace.
The old testament prophet Malachi anticipated this when he, in spite of Moses’ law on divorce, prophesied like this: ‘Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another? Judah has been unfaithful…You weep and wail because God no longer looks with favour on your offerings…you ask why?
It is because the Lord is witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant…
The man who hates and divorces his wife, says the Lord, the God of Israel, does violence to the one he should protect, says the Lord Almighty’.
That last verse can be translated with even more force: ‘“I hate divorce”, says the Lord, the God of Israel, “because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence”’.
The way that God’s people treat divorce reflects what they think about the covenant God has made with them and his faithfulness.
I think this is why in Ephesians 5, the Apostle Paul quotes the same creation text that Jesus does here in Mark 10 and concludes that the union God makes is a ‘profound mystery’. And then he immediately says, ‘but I’m talking about Christ and the church’.
Paul sees the prophets making the link between covenant keeping faithfulness and marriage, he sees Jesus making that link too, and then he makes that link himself.
Faithful marriage testifies to the truth about Jesus’ faithful commitment to his church and what their commitment to him should look like too.
We are not of the Old Covenant that was characterised by faithless unbelievers. We are of the New Covenant and Christ has sent his Spirit into our hearts that makes us covenant-keeping sons and daughters. And I think Jesus is saying we must reflect that faithfulness in our marriages.
The fourth, and final thing, that is plain from Jesus’ teaching here in Mark 10 - and it’s the same for both men and women – is: if either party divorces their spouse and marries another, they commit adultery. Verses 11 and 12 make that pretty plain.
Therefore, it is clear enough from what Jesus says that it is not God’s will for his people to divorce each other. And it is not his will for a divorced person to marry again.
Divorce seeks to separate that which God has joined together. And remarriage, after divorce, creates an adulterous situation because, no one can separate what God has joined together.
A piece of paper issued by the courts of Britain changes nothing in the courts of heaven. And so, adultery is always the outcome of a marriage that ends in any other way than death.
Jesus wants his people to be harmless as doves when it comes to divorce. He wants them to be authentic.
The disciples thought that Jesus was too high and holy to be bothered with the likes of little children in verse 13, but Jesus was indignant with them for that. Why?
Because the kingdom of God belongs to people who have the kind of harmless attitude that little children have. That’s why he took the little child in his arms and blessed it in verse 16.
It’s with that kind of childish innocence that we’ve got to start when we come to our marriages. Marriage is sacred, and protected, and speaks about God’s faithfulness.
So don’t be so crafty - like the world - that you would be tempted to copy the world and tell the world that the God you worship, and the Christ you love, are ok with unfaithfulness.
Rather have a soft child-like heart that seeks unity, humility, and faithful love over self-interest in marriage. That’s I think what Jesus has in mind.
Divorce was for the hard hearted and you are not hard hearted, you are Christian!
I know that Jesus’ teaching here will raise some questions in our minds about our own marriages and perhaps about divorces with new marriages that may have already happened.
For what is in the past, Jesus is the answer. There is no guilt or stigma for anybody who has been divorced and hasn’t remarried. Or for anybody who has divorced and has remarried, where sin is confessed or conscience - based on biblical principles - is clear. Just like for all our past sins - Jesus and his cross is our abiding place.
For what is yet future, Jesus has laid down a New Covenant ethic that he expects his people to live by. I don’t get the sense, from anything that Jesus says here, that his teaching on divorce is optional - ‘What God has joined together let no one separate’ and ‘Anyone who divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery’ – these are not ambiguous statements from the mouth of Jesus. And they are not optional statements either. They are absolute statements, and they apply to us as followers of Jesus.
So, what does Jesus expect us to do if we are not happy in our marriage? Does he even care? He does care. He expects us to remain faithful to the covenant commitment that we made to our spouse.
And if that means long term unhappiness then I think that is one of the things he has in mind when he said in chapter 8, ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me’.
Following Jesus is not the easiest path – the easiest path leads to destruction.
Following Jesus will not result is the most earthly happiness – the most earthly happiness is prosperity gospel and it leads to hell also.
Following Jesus means faithfulness now, even though it costs us, and everlasting happiness when we enter his presence forever.
I think Jesus would say to anybody who thinks they are too unhappy to continue in their marriage that their joy can be full even in an unhappy marriage, when their eyes are fixed on him.
In the parable of the bags of gold, Jesus said to those faithful servants, ‘”Well done good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share in your master’s happiness!”’
Jesus then is calling for a higher view of marriage than the one we see in the world we live in. He calls for a view of marriage that honours God’s intent for marriage - with faithfulness as its root and fidelity as its fruit.
He challenges us to make sure that our marriages testify to the truth about God’s faithfulness, and Jesus’ faithfulness to his church.
And for those who have experienced the pain of divorce, there is hope in the healing grace of our Lord Jesus who knows our frailties and is ready to forgive and ready to mend.
This clarification was given by the author during the worship service on Sunday 17th November.
I’d like to take a few moments, at this point in our time of worship, to speak briefly about my last sermon from the gospel of Mark.
I always knew that the verses on divorce in Mark’s gospel would be sensitive – they are, after all, so challenging.
And with that in mind, I set out to try to preach a message that would show how the indivisible marriage bond is a reflection of the beauty and majesty of the new covenant that God has brokered in the blood of his own dear son, Jesus.
At the end of the message, it seemed to me right to try to share some more practical application.
Knowing that there are so many diverse circumstances that affect marriages and so many scenarios that can threaten the marital bond, I deliberately tried to keep the application broad and principled.
There is a spectrum - a thousand reasons wide - why spouses may choose to pursue divorce, ranging from disturbingly benign to life-threateningly wicked.
Knowing that I couldn’t speak to all those situations, it seemed wise to me to keep the implications of what Jesus says in Mark 10 general, and reflective of his instruction.
That led me to ask the question in the message: ‘what does Jesus expect us to do if we are not happy in our marriage?’
And to conclude that, based on his teaching in Mark 10, he expects us to remain faithful to the covenant commitment that we made to our spouse.
I said this: ‘Jesus then is calling for a higher view of marriage than the one we see in the world we live in. He calls for a view of marriage that honours God’s intent for marriage – with faithfulness at its root and fidelity as its fruit’.
I was of course aware - and this is the reason I am making this statement now – I was aware, at the time that I was preaching, that there were some unsettled hearts in the room.
And since that Sunday morning, a small number of people have come forward with questions and concerns about what I said. Others have been affirming and expressed that they have found it helpful.
I am grateful for both forms of feedback. I believe that ministers of God’s Word are tasked with a responsibility to teach what is in line with sound doctrine (Titus 1:9). And that we will have to give an account for how we cared for God’s people (Hebrews 13:17).
So, I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that, as one who will give an account for you, I realise that my remarks at the end of my last message were incomplete.
They failed to address the love, care, protection and pastoral work that I as an elder at Riverside would absolutely seek to provide to a person (husband or wife) who found themselves the victim of an abusive marital situation.
That failure on my part, led some people to fear about what might happen if someone were caught in a terrible situation like that.
I believe that is a fair concern and one I should have foreseen and addressed. For that oversight, I am sorry.
Let me try to address it briefly now, so as to try to put minds and hearts at rest.
I do believe that the eldership at Riverside (including myself) would, in a situation like that, seek to do all in their power to ensure that any victim of domestic abuse was put out of harm’s way and was provided for in every way possible and necessary to ensure their welfare.
And that we would confront the perpetrator with their sin, inform the appropriate legal authorities, and undertake church discipline in line with the command of scripture.
I, like every other true and faithful follower of Christ, hate abuse. And to look the other way, or be uncompassionate, or unprotective in the face of it would clearly be dishonouring to Christ.
In short, any lingering doubts that might have arisen from my message about the safety and protection of a victim of an abusive marriage I hope can be put to rest.
My heart would be for them and my pastoral action would be for them, as I believe Jesus’ would be, even though his teaching on divorce is narrow.
As someone has said, there are two ways to love people, and they are not mutually exclusive - both are requisite.
The first is empathy and deep compassion. The second is truth. And there is no priority in those two ways of loving. I believe we have to do both simultaneously.