Divorce Pt.2	The principle behind the law Lk.16:18		10-28-2001
	
What does the OT teach about divorce? 
•		Marriage was designed by God to be a permanent union.
•	Divorce came into being nonetheless, and it constitutes an actual dissolution of a marriage.
•	Divorced people were in the same category as widows.
•	There are some very specific cases in which OT Jews were told they were not permitted to get divorced for the rest of their lives.
•	Divorce seems to be permitted in the case of indecency, but in the case of a second marriage ending, the first husband was not to remarry the woman.
	The Prophets
•		Generally speaking, divorce is a heinous sin.  If you dump your spouse because you can’t get along, or are interested in someone else, or are just tired of him – that’s is a vile sin that will bring the wrath of God.
•	If we followed God’s example, we would forgive, and forgive and forgive.  We would be patient beyond reason.  We would be longsuffering beyond what seems humanly possible. 
•	However there is something uniquely evil about adultery, and we must allow for the possibility that there can be a limit to how long someone must remain with an unfaithful spouse.
	The very first time we read about divorce in the NT is in Mt.1:18-19  This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 
	If God’s intention is that a marriage be a permanent union, and He takes the breaking of vows very seriously and says, “I hate divorce,” how do we explain the fact that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Joseph is called righteous because of his intention to divorce?
	Several suggestions have been offered.  
1.	It wasn’t really a divorce, because Joseph and Mary were only engaged, but not yet husband and wife.
	This is the most common view, and the worst view.  It is flatly contradicted by Scripture.  
	Jewish marriages had three stages.  There was an engagement period, followed by a betrothal period, followed by the normal marriage union.  (Mounce)
	Remember – in God’s eyes the marriage begins at the point of the vows, and the betrothal was brought about by a formal, contractual legally binding agreement.  
	Ez.16:8 uses the language of the ancient Jewish betrothal procedure when it describes God’s betrothal to Israel: I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. 
	If two people go before the justice of the peace, make the vows, become legally married, and then wait a year before they have a church ceremony, they are married during that year – even if they don’t live together or consummate the marriage physically.
	In Bible times, that was the custom.  And they called that first year of marriage the betrothal period.  
	Here’s how it worked: a man would make an arraignment with a woman or her father in which he and the woman would be pledged to be married.  From the moment of that pledge, they were husband and wife.
	They did not live together or sleep together until after the wedding ceremony, but they were married.  The wedding ceremony took place 9 to 12 months later (unless the woman was a widow, then it was 3 months). (Jay Adams 14)   Other than not living together, there was no difference at all between that and any other marriage.
	In fact, if one of the parties changed their mind, and they decided to split up, the only way to do so was to get a divorce.
	There is no dispute at all that that was the ancient custom, and throughout Scripture the betrothal period was also recognized by God as a marriage
	Dt.22 is a chapter that prescribes penalties for sexual sins.  And we find from that chapter that the penalty for adultery is much more severe than that for fornication.
	Both were sin.  But adultery is more serious, obviously, because it is a double sin.  Not only does it involve the same sexual immorality as fornication, but it also adds a betrayal of a spouse and a desecration of a marriage on top of it.
	Dt.22:22  If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. 
	28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. 
	So the penalties are significantly different if it’s a married woman or a single woman.  If you sleep with a married woman, the penalty was death.  If you sleep with an unmarried woman, the penalty is a fine.
	The question is, what if the girl is in that betrothal period?  The wedding has not taken place, she is still a virgin, but the official pledge has been legally made?  
	Will it be a fine, or the death penalty, or something in-between?
	This chapter gives the death penalty for adultery, and a fine for sleeping with a woman who is unmarried.  But what about if the woman is betrothed?
	That situation is addressed in vv.23,24  If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death
	Why the same penalty for adultery? …because he violated another man's wife. 
	She is a virgin, the wedding ceremony has not taken place, and yet she is considered by God to be not a fiancée but a wife.  
	We see the same thing in the NT. 
Mt.1:19
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 
	He couldn’t just break off the engagement, because it wasn’t an engagement.  It was a marriage.  That’s why in v.19, even though this is the time when they are merely pledged to one another, he is called her husband.  
	************************
Note: This is a wonderful picture of the sovereign control of God over human customs in history.  
	Why on earth do you think it happened that in ancient Israel there was a custom that married people didn’t sleep together for the first year?  Since they were bound together for life anyway, what is the point of that?
	I can’t think of any sociological reason.  But I think it’s fascinating that in His providence God arraigned for that to be the strict custom, in order to set the stage for the virgin birth.  
	If they had been sleeping together, obviously there could be no virgin birth.  But this way, Mary could conceive as a virgin, but also have a husband at the time so she didn’t have to go through that as a single mother.
************************
	So option #1 is not an option.  Mary and Joseph were legally married.  They were husband and wife.  They had made a formal, legally binding covenant before God.
2.		Joseph was called righteous not because of the divorce, but because he was quite about it. 
	I don’t have any argument against that statement.  There is no question that that is Matthew’s point.  
	Joseph’s refusal to make the divorce public tells us a lot about Joseph’s character.  
	First of all, in a case like this the man was entitled not only to get the bride price back, but to keep the dowry as well.  All Joseph would have to do to get all that would be to go through the normal channels.
	Also, without going through a formal trial, the natural assumption of everyone would be that Joseph got her pregnant.
	By keeping it private, Joseph was bringing upon himself tremendous shame and tremendous financial cost – all to protect the reputation of a girl he probably didn’t know all that well, and had every reason to believe was a fornicator, who had brought the greatest possible shame and dishonor upon him.  (Keener commentary)
	So the fact that he was going to keep it quiet is indeed the point.
	However, the fact remains that he was going to divorce her, and it’s hard to see how that could be regarded as a sin in this context.
	Are we really going to believe that Joseph was committing a grave sin – a sin Jesus called adultery, a sin that God vehemently hates, and yet he is called righteous just because he committed that sin in a civil manner?
3.		“Righteous” can mean “Law-abiding.”  Joseph was going to divorce her, because he was a law-abiding man.  
The OT Law required that if a woman ended up pregnant during the betrothal period, she and the father of the baby were to be put to death.  By this time, that standard had been relaxed.  Evidently Rome didn’t allow executions for that purpose (Keener comm).
	The law of the land was clear.  In a case like that, a man was required to divorce his wife and he was forbidden to ever marry her, and the man who got her pregnant was forbidden to ever marry her.
	In the Mishnah we read that the law demanded divorce if there was adultery or pre-marital unchastely.  
	We have 2nd Cent. documents that show that Rabbis agreed that if your wife followed the bathing customs of Rome and bathed with men, or if she appeared in public with torn clothing, the law required you to divorce her.   
	You didn’t have a choice in the matter.
	And the Romans had the same law.  From the time of Augustus, if your wife committed adultery, and you did not divorce her, you were charged with a crime!  You would be charged with lenocinium (pimping).
	We see the same thing in Greek law of the time.  (Keener comm)
	Edershime -  All agreed that moral blame made divorce a duty, [a Yebam. 63 b; Gitt. 90 a, b.] and that in such cases a woman should not be taken back. [b Gitt. iv. 7.] 
	You may have heard of the debate between Hillel and Shammai – one was the popular liberal view that was very permissive, and the other was a hard line conservative, restrictive view.  
	But even in the hard line view divorce was required in the case of sexual sin.
	So there is no question that legally Joseph did not have the option of giving Mary a second chance even if he wanted to.  To do so would violate both custom and Greek, Roman and Jewish law.
	So it’s true that he was following the law.  
	I’m not persuaded, however, that that’s all Matthew is saying here. 
	The word righteous appears 14 times in Matthew and it never means law-abiding.  In all but one of those uses, it refers to a person, and when it refers to a person it always means “spiritually righteous.”  - in Mt. it has the general sense of “proper conduct before God” (Blomberg)
	If that divorce would have been sin, what does it matter what the civil law says?  If the law of the land requires something that is sinful, a righteous man will disobey the law of the land.  
	If the state of Colorado told me I had to divorce Tracy, I wouldn’t divorce her.
	It’s hard to imagine Matthew referring to Joseph as a righteous man for following a law that was a sin.
	I just don’t see any way around the fact that if God calls Joseph righteous for the manner in which he was going about getting a divorce, then the divorce couldn’t have been sinful.
	In fact, those who have studied Mt. have found that Matthew followed a common ancient biographical custom of illustrating ethical teachings with the characters used.  And Joseph and Mary are highlighted as examples of virtue.  (Lk. focuses more on Mary and Mt. on Joseph).
	I have warned you in the past about the danger interpreting the actions of Bible characters as examples when they are not given for that purpose.  However, in this case we know that Joseph’s actions were intended to be a righteous example because the text comes right out and calls them righteous.
	So in a case like Joseph’s, divorce was not sinful.  In a case like that, a man could divorce his wife and be completely righteous.   
	And it may be worth noting that for all Joseph knew, this was only a one-time encounter, and still he was justified.
	You might be thinking, “OK.  Maybe Joseph wasn’t wrong to plan to divorce, but wasn’t that technically still in the OT period?  Perhaps there is a stricter standard in the NT.”
	Jesus’ Teaching 
	Jesus discussed divorce on three occasions: once very briefly as an illustration of another point He was making (Lk.16:18), a second time in slightly more detail in the Sermon on the Mount, and a third time in still more detail in a debate with the Pharisees on the subject.  That third event is recorded in Both Mt.19 and in Mk.10.
	In Lk.16 Jesus doesn’t say a lot about divorce, but the context speaks volumes.  Jesus used His teaching on divorce not as an example of how His ethics were advanced beyond OT ethics, but that they were OT ethics.
	Lk.16:16-18
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 
Obviously this is a new era.  But does that mean the Law is finished?
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.  
The Law is still completely in force. 
	Here’s an example:
18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
	So the short answer is no - Jesus’ teaching on divorce was not new.  It was not an alteration of the OT law.  It was not a change, an improvement, an amendment, etc.
	Jesus’ teaching on divorce was not a change in ethics; it was the example He used of how there was no change in ethics.  
	In our study of the OT, we found that generally speaking, divorce is a heinous sin.  If you dump your spouse because you can’t get along, or are interested in someone else, or are just tired of him – that’s is a vile sin that will bring the wrath of God.
	That’s basically what Jesus is saying here, using dramatic language to drive home the point.
	We see exactly the same point in the Sermon on the Mount – in the same context, the continuity of the OT law.
	Matthew 5:31-32
	The point here is just the same as in Lk.16.  Look at the context:
	Mt 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. 
	Jesus: “I’m not overturning or adding anything to the law.  All I’m doing is teaching the correct way to interpret the law.  The Pharisees’ approach to will never get anyone to heaven, because they ignore the principles.  
	Examples:
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 
	The Pharisees’ approach to interpreting the 6th commandment is to just avoid killing people.  
	But abstaining from killing people is just one example of an application of the principle.  
	God’s desire is that we abide by the principle.  The Pharisees completely ignored the principle.  
	In fact, one of the rabbinic rules was: “That if you spit at someone, but the spit doesn’t reach the person, you are not guilty.”
	They wanted to be governed by rules only, because principles invade too far into your heart.
	So Jesus says, “Let Me show you the correct way to interpret this law.  Let Me show you the principle:”
	22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca,' is answerable to the Council, and anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
	The principle is to eliminate the animosity that is behind murder.  If you don’t murder, but you still have that hatred in your heart, you have violated the principle.  
	How do you know if you have that sin in your heart?  One great indicator is to watch the way you feel and what comes out of your mouth.  Are you spewing out abusive, harsh language toward people you don’t like?  Chances are you have violated the principle.
	Did Jesus violate this principle?  Of course not.
	Mt.12:18-20
"Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight.. 19He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. 
	Jesus was calm and dignified.  He didn’t rail and scream and shout down His opponents in the streets.  His words were gentle and gracious.  He was humble and gentle in heart (Mt.11:29).
	When Paul was trying to lovingly rebuke the Corinthians, he said he was doing so by the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2Co 10:1)
	Jesus never once in His life violated this very important principle of ethics.
	But He did call people fools.
	If we do what the Pharisees did, ignore the principle and just freeze Jesus’ words into a rigid rule, then we would have to say that He did violate it.
	Mt 23
13  you hypocrites! 
15 you hypocrites!  …you are (son of hell). 
16 blind guides! 
17 You blind fools! 
19 You blind men!
23 you hypocrites!
24 You blind guides!
25 you hypocrites! 
26 Blind Pharisee!
27 you hypocrites! …whitewashed tombs
29 you hypocrites! 
33 You snakes! You brood of vipers!
	Jesus resorts to name-calling 15 times in a single chapter!
	If we interpret Mt.5:22 as a rigid “no fool rule,” then Jesus broke it.  
	Someone might say, “Rebuking false teachers is an exception to the rule.”  That’s one way to look at it. 
	But I think a better way to look at it is to realize that it’s not a rule about verbiage.  It’s a principle governing sinful hatred in the heart.  And Jesus’ heart was innocent and guiltless even when He rebuked false teachers.
	What is wrong is not uttering the word “fool.”  What’s wrong is selfish anger or vengeful spirit. 
	So it’s not that Mt.23 was an exception to the no fool rule, but Mt.23 was an example of a harsh rebuke that didn’t violate the “no sinful anger” principle.
	Oaths
	33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all…
	No oaths, and no exception clause.  
	Does that mean we are never allowed to swear an oath?  Are we never allowed to utter the words, “God is my witness…”
	Is this suppose to be a rigid “no oath” rule, or a general “be an honest person” principle?
	Ps.15:4 says a blameless man is someone who keeps his oath 
	Oaths were commanded in the OT.  
Num 5:19  Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say…
	Paul use oaths
Gal 1:20  I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
Php.1:8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
Ro.1:9 God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you  in my prayers
2 Cor 1:23  I call God as my witness that it was in order to spare you that I did not return 
1 Thes.2:5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed--God is our witness.
	Jesus testified under oath
Matt 26:63-64 The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. 
	Even God the Father has sworn oaths
	Ps 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek."
	Heb.6:13-20  When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants." 15 And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised. 16 Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17 Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
	So the message of the OT is that we are to be trustworthy, and one expression of that principle is that you should keep your oaths.
	How did the Jews interpret that?  As usual, they turned it into a bunch of external policies and in doing so violated the principle.
	Matt 23:16-18  "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
18 You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
	It got to the point where the purpose of the oath was to deceive (by the creation of loopholes).  
	The principle was to be honest, and their rules enabled them to be dishonest.  Do you see how they missed the principle?
	They were like kids who make a promise they don’t intend to keep because their fingers were crossed, or people in the business world where a contract is considered well written if it deceives (if it sounds like it is binding but is not).  
	The less trustworthy people are, the more they use oaths (“I swear…”).  
	37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; 
	In other words – pay attention to the principle and be honest.
	So Jesus’ purpose goes far beyond just outlawing oaths.  That would be to reduce the principle to a rule.  You could never take an oath and still be dishonest.  
	So are there exceptions?  If you think of it as a rule or policy, then yes.  There are legitimate uses of an oath.
-		In court to insure truth from liars
-	To make a statement of intent especially solemn, as in a wedding ceremony.
-	To help someone believe, like God’s oath.
-	Vows can be useful to strengthen one’s own resolve
	But instead of calling those exceptions to the policy of no oaths, how about we just take Jesus’ command for what it is – a principle?  Those aren’t exceptions to the principle.  They are just areas in which the principle doesn’t apply.  
	Mt.5:27
"You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.'  28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 
	The principle here is obvious and unmistakable: don’t look in order to lust.  To do so is adulterous.
	This verse becomes significant in our decision about what kind of stigma ought to attach to divorce.  
	Some teach that a sinful divorce and remarriage is an ongoing sin.  The couple are living in a constant state of adultery.
	I was in a church where the policy had been that no divorced person could ever sit on the piano bench – regardless of the condition of the person’s heart.
	My question is, in what way is the adultery in v.32 different than the adultery of v.28?  Those of us who have lusted in our hearts in the past, and then repented, generally think of that sin as a thing of the past.
	There is no remaining stigma.  We don’t have rules that say if you have ever lusted you can’t play the piano or be a pastor for that matter.
	Why is it that we take the adultery of v.32 so seriously, but not the adultery of v.28?  They are presented in the same context.  Both are figurative to some degree (not literal adultery).  
	So why are we so much more strict about permanently punishing the ones who commit adultery through a sinful divorce, and not the ones who commit adultery through looking in order to lust?
	Is it because the v.28 adultery takes place in the heart, whereas the v.32 adultery involves a physical action?  Is that our standard?  That sins of the heart are no big deal, but breaking external rules is serious?
	Welcome to Pharisee Bible interpretation 101.
	Up to this point in the sermon on the Mount most people do just fine in realizing that these statements are to be interpreted as general wisdom principles rather than detailed, specific case law.
	But then when we come to the divorce verse, suddenly everyone wants to interpret it as specific case law.
	The point of these standards is not for the church to write up a list of dos and don’ts.  The whole thing is designed to be an indictment of sinful heart attitudes, and a call to repentance.  
	Think of how wide of the mark we are when we take these verses and focus all our attention on marital status rather than heart attitudes.  Any time you take a principle and turn it into a policy, you end up with legalism.
	The result is you have people who have violated this principle – who have abandoned their spouses in various ways, broken their vows in various ways, but remained married.  And they are unrepentant, and haven’t even acknowledged their sin.
	And then those people are pointing their fingers at some divorced person who has repented of his sin, and who is not guilty of unfaithfulness at this moment!
	And the first group is allowed to be deacons and pastors and anything else, but the second group is relegated to second class status.
	Much of the confusion over the divorce statement in Mt.5 will be cleared up if we just interpret it the same way we interpret the rest of the Sermon.
	When Jesus gave illustrations of OT law, He usually did so in a way that would indict the people who were in violation of the principle behind that OT law.
	“You know the OT law against murder?  It’s still in force today.  To this day you are still not permitted to hate your brother.”
“You know the OT law against adultery?  It’s still in force today.  To this day you are still not permitted to lust in your heart.”
“You know the OT law against lying?  It’s still in force today.  To this day you are still not permitted to use supposedly non-binding oaths.” 
	These are not designed as external policies, but as a spotlight that pinpoints the sinfulness in my heart that is in violation of the principles.
	Sure, maybe you haven’t physically put someone to death, slept around or told a bald-faced lie, but you are still guilty of violating the principles, because you have hated, you are interested in another woman, and you make oaths you don’t intend to keep.
	TT Lk.16:18
If all you do is read v.18 in isolation, it sounds like an absolute prohibition (and many have interpreted it that way).
	But think about the context.  If this is a new, absolute prohibition on divorce, in what sense is Jesus demonstrating continuity with the law?
	If the OT permitted divorce in certain cases, and Jesus instituted a change by prohibiting divorce in all cases, why would He use that change as an example of the fact that He is not changing the Law?
	In that case Lk.16:18 would be a direct contradiction to v.17.
	Both here and in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses His teaching about divorce as an illustration of continuity with OT law, not an alteration of it.
	“But it still sounds so absolute”
	We know that elsewhere Jesus gave an exception, but what if we didn’t know that?  
	There is no exception stated in this text.  Suppose the original readers of Luke didn’t have Matthew.  Is there any way they could have known that there could be exceptions to this seemingly absolute statement?
	If so, what is to prevent us from turning all absolute statements into statements that have exceptions?  What’s to keep us from saying, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”?  That’s generally true, but there are exceptions – like if you find someone especially attractive.“
	We are not at liberty to take any absolute statement in the Bible and attach exceptions to it.  
	To do that you must have a compelling argument from the context that it was intended to be a general principle.
	The compelling argument here is that the context is that Jesus in interpreting OT law, which clearly permitted divorce in certain circumstances.  If He interpreted it to mean divorce was never permitted, He would be in conflict with Himself, because in Mt.19:8 He stated plainly that Moses permitted divorce.
	The problem was the Jews took that limited permission as an excuse to violate God’s intention and the principle that generally speaking marriage was intended to be permanent, and that the marriage vows were binding.  So they divorced for whatever reason they wanted.
	So Jesus tries to get them back on the track of the spirit of the Mosaic law by telling them that in general, the exceptions not withstanding, divorce is a violation of a marriage, and for that reason is in the category of adultery. 
	So obviously it wouldn’t suit His purpose to draw attention to the cases in which divorce would be allowed – that’s why no exceptions are mentioned here.
	The statement of a general standard does not preclude the possibility of exceptions.
	When you see a speed limit sign, that is a hard and fast law, yet there are exceptions.  Everyone knows there are exceptions, but we don’t expect the sign to say, “55mph except for emergency vehicles…”  
	Even though those exceptions exist, we still recognize 55 as the speed limit, and that law is not mitigated in any way for me because of the fact that there are exceptions, and we don’t attach our own exceptioins.
	That’s an earthly example.  There are scriptural examples too.  
	Mk.8:11-13
The Pharisees …asked him for a sign from heaven. 12He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it." 
	Is that absolute, or is there an exception?  Would a sign be given?
In Matthew’s account of the same event we read:
Mt.12:38-40
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you." 
39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
	There was an exception, and Matthew points it out.  Mark didn’t mention it.
	Mt.13:58
And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. 
Does that mean no miracles whatsoever, or could there be an exception?
	Marks’s account of the same event:
Mk.6:5
He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 
	Mt.16:5
When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
Did the disciples remember to bring any bread, or is this absolute?
Mk.8:14
The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat.
	When Jesus said something and included an exception, and one writer records the entire comment while another writer includes only the general statement, that is not a contradiction.
	Also, another way we know that Jesus’ remark here was not intended to be a completely comprehensive rule that addressed every possible situation is Paul’s words in 1 Co.7.  When he addresses the basic issue he does so by saying, “This is what the Lord said.” 
	Then on more specific issues he says, “I’m saying this, not the Lord.”  That’s not to say it has any less authority.  It’s still divinely inspired.  He’s just saying “This is an area where Jesus didn’t comment.”
	So we know from that that Jesus’ comments did not directly address every conceivable scenario.  
	So the only interpretation that would fit this context, as well as Jesus teaching style in general, is to take this as a general principle, not a blanket rule.
	So let’s see if we can avoid the error of the Pharisees, and instead of turning Jesus’ words into a mere rule, let’s see if we can pinpoint exactly what the principle is.
	Jesus is saying that generally speaking, the divorces they were getting constituted adultery.  
	Technically, adultery is when you sleep with someone else while you are married.  So technically, getting remarried after a divorce is not literal adultery, and yet Jesus says it is a violation of the 7th commandment.  It is spiritual adultery.
Can you think of another time when Jesus referred to something as being adulterous even though it doesn’t fit the technical, literal definition of adultery?
It was in the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus said If you look at a woman in order to lust after her, you have committed adultery with her in your heart.
Jesus’ point was while you haven’t technically, physically committed adultery, you are guilty of that sin because you have violated the principle behind the adultery command.  You have failed to remain faithful to your wife.
	The vast majority of the time, the reason a person divorces his wife (or a woman her husband) is because he has lost interest in her, and want to replace her with someone else.
	Perhaps there already is someone else he is interested in, or maybe there is no one in the picture yet, but he just doesn’t want his wife anymore, and wants the option of being with someone else.
	And that is adultery.  It’s unfaithfulness.
	According to WBC: “Anyone who divorces his wife for the purpose of marrying his girlfriend commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman who has brought about a divorce in order to marry him commits adultery.”  Green seems to agree
	You may be miserable in your marriage.  You may be unhappy, unfulfilled.  Your husband may be a slob.  Your wife may have lost all appeal.  Your spouse may be impossible to get along with… but if you divorce for that reason – because you have lost interest or you desire to be in another relationship, that is adulterous.  
	And since that’s the case in almost all divorces, then we can see why Jesus would make the general statement that divorce & remarriage is adultery, even though there may be exceptional cases.
	So if you divorce so that you can marry someone else, that’s adultery.  And if you have committed that sin, you need to remain single or be reconciled.  If you marry someone else, that is more adultery.
	“But what about grace?  Where is forgiveness?”  
	Never forget – grace is not permission to lower God’s standard.  Grace is the God-given ability to meet His standard.  Don’t ever think that God gives us grace to sin.
	So before we get too far off on the trail of calculating all possible exceptions or non-exceptions, lets do what Jesus wanted us to do and focus our full attention on the principle.
	The principle is don’t divorce (lit “send away”) your wife.  Don’t send her away.  If you do, you are in sin.
	Some of you may have sent your wife away, and you didn’t even give her a certificate of divorce.  
	You still live in the same house.  She still cooks for you and cleans your house and takes care of your kids.  She sleeps in your bed.  But you sent her out of your life a long time ago.
	Some of you ladies may have sent your husband away.  He is still in the house, you still live off his paycheck, but you have sent him out of the bedroom, or out of your emotional life.
	The principle is not just to maintain the official legal marital status of “married.”  The principle is Don’t send your spouse away.
	The most liberal Pharisees even agreed that it was despicable thing to send your wife away without giving her a certificate of divorce, because then she could never remarry.
	Have you sent your spouse away without a certificate of divorce?  So she is stuck living with you, but locked out of your emotional life?  So he’s stuck living with you, but locked out of your heart?
	I’m not suggesting you get a divorce.  Divorcing over that would be sinful and adulterous, but to just push your spouse away without divorcing is even worse.
	The standard for marriage is clear – for the two to become one flesh, united with an indivisible, intimacy and oneness in every area of life.  When we fall short of that, we sin against our marriage.
	Are you cool toward your spouse?  Are there areas of your life that are not shared with your spouse, where your spouse is not welcome?  
	If so, re-read Mal. when God says “I stand as a witness between you and the wife of your youth.  I was standing there when you made the vows – those vows that were binding on earth and in heaven.”
	That’s the passage where God said He would not accept the worship of His people, because they had broken those vows and forsaken the wife of their youth.
	Let’s set our sites on this standard.  If you are estranged, go home and reconcile.  Fulfill your vows.  Be faithful.  Don’t let your interests wander.  Go home a dig out your wedding vows and renew them over lunch.
	
Benediction:   1 Co.1:4-9  I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 for in him you have been enriched in every way--in all your speaking and in all your knowledge--6 because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. 7 therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 he will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.