Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” They said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” (Matthew 19:3-12 NASB)
The Pharisees are at it again. Another attempt to ensnare the Lord by embroiling him in an internal debate, this time on the hotly contested topic of divorce. For in the matter of divorce the Pharisees themselves are divided. Although held in high regard, the broad landscape of marriage amongst the Jewish people was a complicated affair, often arranged and with but modest regard for the preferences of the women involved. Although the prophet Malachi (2:16) had conveyed God’s hatred of divorce, marital dissolution still took place.
There were two schools of Pharisaic thought regarding divorce, with the difference between the two being what constituted the “something objectionable” that met the standard for divorce according to Mosaic Law. To the school of Shammai it meant fornication… and nothing else. Adultery was the sole objection recognized.
In strident opposition was the school of Hillel which interpreted “something objectionable” in the widest possible terms. So much as a spoiled dinner or finding another woman whom a husband liked better was valid enough reason for a divorce.
It was into this heated debate between the two opposing factions that the Pharisees sought to test Jesus. And it is in the Lord’s reply that we find realms of truth offering a blaze of heavenly light to our hearts and minds. Like his disciples, some of us may shrink back at first from the intensity, but it is much needed and welcome light nonetheless…
Jesus begins by taking his audience (and us) back to Genesis, to the story of the creation of the human race and to God’s ideal for humanity and for marriage. There are but two genders—male and female he reminds them—and it is the joining of one male with one female that constitutes the marriage his Father ordained, the two separate individuals with their respective personalities combining to figuratively become “one flesh” in God’s eyes in that they are inseparable. Through the mystery and wonder of marriage, God joins them together and no human is to separate them.
How fantastically sobering and deliciously wondrous! Worth all the pondering moments we can muster…
We quickly see that what Jesus declares as true about gender and marriage is at terrific odds with contemporary culture with its claims of gender fluidity and practice of same-sex marriage. But many a claim and practice lies outside God’s design only to wallow spoiling in fouled wastelands to the harm of his ensnared, yet beloved ones.
Unwilling to give up the chase, the Pharisees counter with an appeal to Moses’s admonishment for a husband to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her on her way. It’s as if they are saying to Jesus, “Hey, wait a minute. Doesn’t the Bible sanction divorce? We’ve even got a handy proof-text to back us up. See, it’s right here in Deuteronomy 24, plain as day. Read it for yourself!”
Ay, they spoke the truth, insomuch that it was a fact. Moses did consent to divorce. But a fact can be the thinnest of veneers and must have far more substance to become one of God’s life-giving truths.
Jesus’ reply cuts to the core: Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
Divorce is a matter of the heart—as are all choices both moral and immoral. And it is a hard heart, says Jesus, that seeks to tear apart what God has joined together. Moses’ allowance of divorce is a concession to the fact of hard-heartedness, nothing more. From the very beginning of time God did not intend for divorce to take place. True, Matthew’s account goes on to relate Jesus saying that marital unfaithfulness in the form of sexual immorality (adultery) constitutes the sole valid grounds for divorce whereas neither Mark nor Luke echo this provision in their gospels.
It would be cowardly of me to omit the fact of divorce in my own life. And more than once. I’ve found myself on both sides of the fence; as someone pursuing a divorce as well as the one being divorced. No matter the specific situation I have come to recognize the truth of Jesus’ statement that, in the end, divorce springs from the hardness of our hearts. At some point in an unhappy marriage we declare ourselves to have had enough and we want out. Sure we tell ourselves, our spouse (or we ourselves) may indeed have a dramatic change of heart at some point in the future. Repentance may come. But we aren’t going to hang around and see. Life is too short to risk an unhappy outcome. We quit.
Jesus’ astonished disciples echo this all-too-common stance: If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry. If marriage is a one-way street with no emergency exits, we don’t want any part of it.
It’s an understandable yet curious response. After all, isn’t there a contented marriage to be had amongst the Master’s disciples? A follower or two ready to give a rousing “Amen!” to the foundational principle of inseparability? Or do all of us tend to enter marriage with the notion that, if worse comes to worse, there is a way out? How the divorce rate would plummet if it were otherwise! If we were utterly convinced that if we glanced back over our shoulder we would find all exits welded shut! Even better, if we had no inclination to glance backwards at all.
As his next statement so tellingly reveals, Jesus knows us: Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. It is a stark recognition of the reality of human frailty.
So what was Jesus was referring to when he said that, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given?” Was it not the disciples’ exclamation that it was better not to marry?
Not everyone can enter into the sort of marriage God intended from the beginning, abandoning every notion of withdrawing no matter what, accepting—nay, eagerly embracing!—God’s promise to make of the two individuals one flesh. Such a marriage requires an absolute reliance on God’s provision in every aspect of one’s life.
Yet our Lord is ever practical. He knows that such an extreme position as that of celibacy runs against the grain of his Father’s design for men and women with but few exceptions, which he lists by means of figurative principle. Although by way of illustration he confines himself to the male gender, the truths contained apply to both men and women.
A eunuch (gk eunouchos) was a “bed keeper,” an emasculated male who watched over the harem of an oriental monarch. Given his condition he was no threat to the sexual integrity of those females in his charge. Through his illustration Jesus acknowledges the natural human sex drive, an urging that would not be rendered null should the disciples’ suggestion of never marrying be adopted. Only those meeting the conditions he points out would find abstinence possible.
First are those who find themselves naturally incapacitated, born either with physical limitations associated with their sex organs, or from hormonal or some other natural influence from the moment of birth, who experience no sexual desire. These individuals might find it possible to go through life forgoing marriage.
Next are those persons who have been sexually incapacitated through human intervention. These too might qualify to pass on marriage.
The last of our Lord’s examples switches from a lack of capability to a decision of the will. Those who, for the sake of the gospel, choose to forego marriage in order to devote themselves, absent of the intrinsic demands of marriage, to the “kingdom of heaven,” Paul perhaps being such an example.
These three types of individuals—those born lacking the capacity for sexual relations, those made incapable of sexual activity, and those with the strength of will to choose a life of abstinence for the kingdom’s sake—are best suited for living a life of singleness Jesus says.
It is a remarkable statement but one which candidly recognizes and gives credence to the powerful influence of the human sex drive. It makes one reflect anew on Paul’s claim that if individuals “…do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (1 Cor 7:9)
Perhaps our obsession with the romantic component of relationships needs to be tempered by a higher appreciation of the non-sexual aspects of intimacy. After all, isn’t marriage at its foundation a covenant of companionship? Such a paradigm change might have a profound positive impact on marriage and its corrosive shadow, divorce.
© Michael Kimball June, 2022 (This writing may be freely shared in its entirety without prior permission from the author.)
Jump in!