OPENING
SETENCE: There is an old nursery rhyme called “Humpty Dumpty.”
INTRODUCTION: Of course we all know it. We can quote it better than most Bible verses.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men. Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
I would like to suggest that we are all very much like Humpty Dumpty sitting precariously on a wall we call self-esteem. Let me explain. One of the illustrations I often use in marriage counseling is that our self-esteem is like an egg. The shell is fragile and easy to crack and if it is damaged enough it will ooze messy yoke all over. When we start a relation that leads to marriage our shell (self-esteem) is protected and strengthened by the other person. They are safe in that they affirm you, care for you and are very sensitive sense of well-being. We know that harsh words, even if true, will hurt the other person and damage the relationship so we avoid them- at least at that stage.
When the courting period is over it is not uncommon for that to change. As our flaws are exposed we do just as Adam and Even did in evading responsibility and passing blame. That fragile shell we call sell esteem finds itself being threatened. Now, instead of the other person being a source of protecting that shell they become a threat. Their accusations, whether they are true or false, are like darts that chip away at our fragile shell.
TRANSITION
SENTENCE: In time the dart throwing becomes so intense and painful the persons in the marriage believe they have only one option left- divorce.
TRANSITION: Divorce is their attempt to remove themselves from the line of fire. They fear if they don’t their fragile shell will completely shatter leading them to become like Humpty Dumpty- broken and irreparable. Yet, is divorce really the best or only option?
SAY WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY: This morning we will look at the question, “What does Jesus teach us about the permanence of marriage?” We will learn that divorce is not an option, except for adultery. His position was a radical idea even for His day and one that even his own disciples questioned. He does not even try to soften His position to make it more acceptable.
TEXT: Matthew 19:1-2
THEME: The marriage covenant is to be a permanent bond that is joined by God Himself.
What does Jesus teach us about the permanence of marriage?
I. Jesus position on divorce and remarriage was more radical than even the Pharisees (1-6)
A. Jesus was being entrapped to take a position on the two schools of thought on divorce.
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
We are told in this passage that the Pharisees were trying to test or entrap Jesus on what was an ongoing debate in Jewish circles. I am guessing that they saw that He hobnobbed with sinners and maybe assumed He would take a soft position on divorce to accommodate his wayward followers. If so, they will be proven wrong.
To understand the trap, we need to understand the two competing schools of Jewish tradition known as the house of Hillel and the house of Shammai. These “houses” represented groups of rabbis who studied the Torah. They wholly depended on memory to transmit complex arguments so a rabbi named Judah HaNasi wrote down the oral tradition of the law in the late second century AD. It became known as the Mishnah. It can safely be assumed its teachings were consistent with Jewish rabbinical teaching in the days of Jesus and St. Paul.
1. Shammai- Divorce only for the case of any indecency or unchastity. His position was an interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 which says, “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.” His focus was grounded in the phrase “something indecent about her”- he limited the word to sexual indecency.
2. Hillel- Divorce for almost any reason if the man is dissatisfied- even if she spoiled a dish for him. R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, “And it shall be that if she find no favor in his eyes.” He focused on the words “no favor”.
The debate between the schools of Shammai and Hillel seems to have been won by the school of Hillel. Divorce for any reason the man determined was the practice in Israel- not that divorce was all that common. But, when it happened all a man needed to do to divorce his wife was to give her a signed and dated writ of divorce with the appropriate signatures of witnesses that said, “Lo, thou art free to marry any man.” Reasons for the divorce were not necessary. This was the debate into which the Pharisees tried to drag Jesus:
B. Jesus avoids both schools of debate and returns to the origins of marriage. He did not fall into the trap. He knew neither one was the right position so He avoids the Deuteronomy passage and presents a position grounded in God’s original intent. He reminds us that God joins a man and woman together permanently for their good.
ILLUSTRATE: This belief in the desirability, goodness and permanence of marriage was once universal, but that is no longer true. A recent report by the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project concluded the following: “Less than a third of the [high school senior] girls and only slightly more than a third of the boys seem to believe . . . that marriage is more beneficial to individuals than the alternatives.”
Perhaps the main reason that young adults are wary of marriage is their perception that most couples are unhappy in their marriages. Typical is a Yahoo! Forum in which a twenty-four-year-old male announced his decision to never marry. He reported that as he had shared his decision over the past few months to his married friends, everyone laughed and acted jealous. They all said to him that he was smart. He concluded that at least 70 percent of married people must be unhappy in their relationships. A young woman in a response to his post gave her own assessment of her “Everyone I know who’s gotten married quickly— and failed to live together [first]— has gotten divorced.”
The problem with these beliefs and assumptions, however, is that every one of them is almost completely wrong. The evidence is overwhelming that married people live happier, more productive lives. So what changed? Legal scholar John Witte, Jr., says that the earlier “ideal of marriage as a permanent contractual union designed for the sake of mutual love, procreation, and protection is slowly giving way to a new reality of marriage as a ‘terminal sexual contract’ designed for the gratification of the individual parties.” Marriage used to be a public institution for the common good, and now it is a private arrangement for the satisfaction of the individuals. Marriage used to be about us, but now it is about me.
APPLY: This new view of marriage is what makes Jesus’ position so hard to fathom in our culture. If sex it about me and my happiness, then terminating it is my choice alone- forget God and the fact that He is the one who joins us together. In this new view my happiness supersedes all other commitments. It is no wonder marriage is in such a bad state of affairs.
THEME: The marriage covenant is to be a permanent bond that is joined by God Himself.
What does Jesus teach us about the permanence of marriage?
II. Jesus argues that what God has joined no man should separate. (7-9)
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
A. Divorce was provided because of the hardness of our hearts. Simply put, divorce is never God’s ideal. Divorce is something God hates but He knows our selfish prideful hearts are prone to harden- so He permits divorce primarily to protect the woman.
This is consistent with Malachi 2: 15-16, “So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth. 16 “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.
B. Divorce is allowed only for clear acts of sexual immorality. It should be noted this exemption is cited only in the Matthew passage. In comparison, in Mark 10:1-12 we see Peters account of this exchange. It does not mention the exclusion of adultery. It may be because Jesus was trying change the focus of the issues from, “What grounds can we find to justify divorce” to “what will it take to keep this relationship together”.
As we read this, it brings up all kinds of questions. Questions I do not have clear answers too. Questions such as, “What about cases of child abuse, physical/ emotional spousal abuse, selfishness to the point of not even providing adequate food and clothing, sexual abuse this includes everything from bizarre perversions to denying sex to one’s spouse, etc. All these can become so destructive (even life threatening) and something has to be done. But, according to Jesus divorce does not seem to be one of the options. There are many things short of divorce a spouse can do. Jesus does not mean we must have unconditional acceptance of everything they do-he understands the hardened selfish hearts of man. He is saying that divorce creates a huge unraveling of the marriage covenant that was affirmed by God.
Jesus clearly recognizes that when we minimize the importance of that bond it cause great damage- individually and societally. He recognizes that the breakdown of the marriage is the breakdown of the home which presents a new, more complex and difficult, set of problems. In that light there is no such thing as a good divorce.
ILLUSTRATE: As David Blanenhorn has said, “Yes, a few divorcing couples may be wise or lucky enough transact a "good divorce" in which they continue to "co-parent" their children after they separate. But the vast majority of divorcing couples are not so wise or lucky. For most divorcing couples, the marriage ends in bitterness, guilt, and pain. A small civilization has died. The children stay with the mother. The man moves out and tries to move on. When he does so, he may suffer enormously, He may have the best of intentions about not divorcing his children. But-despite-these feelings, most of these men lose the essence of their fatherhood. They drift away from their children almost as surely as they move away from their former homes and drift away from their former wives. This is sad. But it is the pattern.”
He calls them the “Visiting Father”.” He is a shadow dad, a displaced man trying not to become an ex-father. He is a father who has left the premises. He still stops by, but he does not stay. He is on the outside looking in. No longer the man of the house, he has been largely de-fathered. As a visitor, he is part father, part stranger. Physical distance, combined with estrangement from his children's mother, has radically diminished his paternity. Now a weekend and holiday dad, a treat father, a telephone father, he is frequently filled with resentment and remorse. He mourns the Loss of his fatherhood much as one would mourn the loss of health. He wants to be a good father, but in ways that matter most, he cannot be. He cannot raise his children. He can only visit them.”
The cultural category of Visiting Father represents a large and grow¬ing number of men. They outnumber unemployed men. They outnumbered unemployed married fathers by a ratio of up to 7 to 1. They outnumber both the stay-at-home dads and the dads-with-sole-custody who have become staples of media discourse on family change. They dramatically affect the lives of millions of women and children. Their emergence as a mass male trend has been quite sudden.
APPLY: My point is this. In our quest to free ourselves from one set of problems we have created an even greater monster. As David Popenoe has said, “The push for self-fulfillment, when carried to the extreme, leads not to personal freedom and happiness but to social breakdown and individual anguish.” And that, I believe is where we find ourselves today. We live in a broken world with broken people and we have to stop living with this silly naïve belief that we should be happy and fulfilled at all times. I think this is the point of Jesus’ position.
THEME: The marriage covenant is to be a permanent bond that is joined by God Himself.
What does Jesus teach us about the permanence of marriage?
III. His position is so radical even his disciples were surprised. (10-12)
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
We are not the only ones who might be shocked by Jesus’s position. If it seems radical in our day, it was no less so in the day of Jesus where divorce was a rarity. It was not just the Pharisees who would have responded with surprise even His disciples couldn’t quite accept it.
A. They argued, “If that is the case it is better not to marry.” They were in essence saying, “When you marry a person you don’t always know exactly what you are getting. You may find out you unwittingly married a lemon and if what Jesus says is true then you are stuck with him/her for life.” That being the case, then why take the chance.”
B. He recognizes their surprise but reaffirms his position. In His response to them Jesus is essentially saying, “Yeah! You are right and not everyone can accept it. In light of the risk remaining single may be the preferred option but with that comes the expectation of abstinence- eunuchs by choice for the sake of the kingdom.
C. Obedience to this command is only possible if we make God’s kingdom first.
Apart from the saving work of faith and the empowering of the Holy Spirit marriages can become unraveled at great pain and cost to all involved. If marriage were simply about personal happiness or staying in love few marriages would survive.
ILLUSTRATE: John Piper says it this way, “Staying married, therefore, is not mainly about staying in love. It is about keeping covenant. “Till death do us part” or “As long as we both shall live” is a sacred covenant promise—the same kind Jesus made with his bride when he died for her. Therefore, what makes divorce and remarriage so horrific in God’s eyes is not merely that it involves covenant-breaking to the spouse, but that it involves misrepresenting Christ and his covenant. Christ will never leave his wife. Ever. There may be times of painful distance and tragic backsliding on our part. But Christ keeps his covenant forever. Marriage is a display of that!.
APPLY: Marriage among Christians is mainly meant to tell the truth about the gospel—that Christ died for his church who loves him and never breaks his covenant with his bride. In essence, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You are permitted to divorce.’ But I say to you, ‘I have come to conquer the hardness of your heart. I have come to die for your sins. I have come to count you as righteous. I have come to show you the drama that marriage was meant to represent in my sacrificial, covenant-keeping love for my sinful bride. I have come to give you the power to stay married, or to stay single, so that either way you keep your promises and show what my covenant is like and how sacred is the covenant bond of marriage.’”
THEME: The marriage covenant is to be a permanent bond that is joined by God Himself.
SAY WHAT YOU HAVE SAID: This morning we looked at the question, “What does Jesus teach us about the permanence of marriage?” We learned that even in His own day Jesus’s position on divorce was a radical idea that even his own disciples questioned. He does not try to soften His position to make it more acceptable but challenges us to put the kingdom of God first.
APPLY TO SPECIFIC AUDIENCE:
1. If you make marriage simply about personal happiness you will often find yourself disappointed. You are married to a broken selfish person like yourself and maybe more- it is merely a matter of the degree of brokenness. Broken people produce broken relationships that can only be mended by humility and self-sacrifice.
2. The highest meaning and the most ultimate purpose of marriage is to put the covenant relationship of Christ and his church on display. That is why marriage exists. If you are married, that is why you are married. If you hope to be, that should be your dream.
3. Divorce creates a set of problems that usually exceed the complexity and difficulty of the problems you hoped to solve by divorcing. You take your problems with you because part of the problem is within yourself. Rarely is divorce the better option in spite of our feelings.
TIE INTO OPENING SENTENCE: We are all very much like Humpty Dumpty sitting precariously on a wall that we can fall from at any time. Our self-esteem is like a fragile shell that will break and we or no one else can put us back together again. Divorce does fix that problem.
HAYMAKER: I do not approach this topic from a purely idealistic perspective. I have struggled through the divorce issue many times. It started for me as a high school student. Some know my story. My father died when I was seven years old and my mother moved our family of four kids from Virginia to California. She was single for four years until she met George, a widowed man at church with three kids of his own. Not long after he proposed and they got married- it did not take long to realize this was a disaster.
I now know that George was narcissist and psychotic. Then I only knew he was cruel and abusive. While he never physically abused my sisters kids I caught him several times beating his own in the garage and watching them flee in terror when I entered. Even though I was a good student, well behaved and, a good athlete he would frequently demean me calling me lazy, useless and good for nothing. At first, I tried aggressively to meet his inconsistent, unobtainable standards but always came up short. It was not until one of his long tirades that I had an “AHA moment” and realized the problem was more than just me. I realized that George was a sick, self-centered man. I was not angry or defiant but I realized I could not look too Him for my self-esteem or let him define who I was. In a sense, George did something for me I needed desperately. I needed to be broken- like Humpty Dumpty. I needed to realize my self-esteem could not come from George’s approval, my achievements or my ability to control what was happening around me. It had to come from the Christ who loved me and sacrificed Himself on the cross on my behalf. I would never have come to that point had George not been a part of my life. In that sense, I learned more from George my most valuable lesson in life- Christ rebuilds broken shells. It was like an army boot camp where they break you down before rebuilding you. The emotional intensity is all part of the process.
I believe that is often what God is doing for us in marriage. He wants the emotional intensity that you are going through to break your shell and to teach that you must build you identity in someone other than you spouse or the well-being of your marriage. Jesus calls us to take up our cross, to die with Him, so that God can raise us up with Him to new life.
