mh_parser/scraps/Matt_19_3-Matt_19_12.html

<p>We have here the law of Christ in the case of divorce, occasioned, as some other declarations of his will, by a dispute with <i>the Pharisees</i>. So patiently did he endure the contradiction of sinners, that he turned it into instructions to his own disciples! Observe, here</p>
<p class="tab-1">I. The case proposed by the Pharisees (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.3" href="/passage/?search=Matt.19.3">Matt. 19:3</a>); <i>Isa. it lawful for a man to put away his wife</i>? This they asked, tempting him, not desiring to be taught by him. Some time ago, he had, in Galilee, declared his mind in this matter, against that which was the common practice (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.5.31,Matt.5.32" href="/passage/?search=Matt.5.31,Matt.5.32"><span class="bibleref" title="Matt.5.31">Matt. 5:31</span>, <span class="bibleref" title="Matt.5.32">32</span></a>); and if he would, in like manner, declare himself now against divorce, they would make use of it for the prejudicing and incensing of the people of this country against him, who would look with a jealous eye upon one that attempted to cut them short in a liberty they were fond of. They hoped he would lose himself in the affections of the people as much by this as by any of his precepts. Or, the temptation might be designed this: If he should say that divorces were not lawful, they would reflect upon him as an enemy to the law of Moses, which allowed them; if he should say that they were, they would represent his doctrine as not having that perfection in it which was expected in the doctrine of the Messiah; since, though divorces were tolerated, they were looked upon by the stricter sort of people as not of good report. Some think, that, though the law of Moses did permit divorce, yet, in assigning the just causes for it, there was a controversy between the Pharisees among themselves, and they desired to know what Christ said to it. Matrimonial cases have been numerous, and sometimes intricate and perplexed; made so not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often in these cases people resolve, before they ask, what they will do.</p>
<p class="tab-1">Their question is, <i>Whether a man may put away his wife for every cause</i>. That it might be done for some cause, even for that of fornication, was granted; but may it be done, as now it commonly was done, by the looser sort of people, for every cause; for any cause that a man shall think fit to assign, though ever so frivolous; upon every dislike or displeasure? The toleration, in this case, permitted it, <i>in case she found no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her</i>, <a class="bibleref" title="Deut.24.1" href="/passage/?search=Deut.24.1">Deut. 24:1</a>. This they interpreted so largely as to make any disgust, though causeless, the ground of a divorce.</p>
<p class="tab-1">II. Christ’s answer to this question; though it was proposed to tempt him, yet, being a case of conscience, and a weighty one, he gave a full answer to it, not a direct one, but an effectual one; laying down such principles as undeniably prove that such arbitrary divorces as were then in use, which made the matrimonial bond so very precarious, were by no means lawful. Christ himself would not give the rule without a reason, nor lay down his judgment without scripture proof to support it. Now his argument is this; “If husband and wife are by the will and appointment of God joined together in the strictest and closest union, then they are not to be lightly, and upon every occasion, separated; if the know be sacred, it cannot be easily untied.” Now, to prove that there is such a union between man and wife, he urges three things.</p>
<p class="tab-1">1. The creation of Adam and Eve, concerning which he appeals to their own knowledge of the scriptures; <i>Have ye not read</i>? It is some advantage in arguing, to deal with those that own, and have read, the scriptures; <i>Ye have read</i> (but have not considered) <i>that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female</i>, <a class="bibleref" title="Gen.1.27,Gen.5.2" href="/passage/?search=Gen.1.27,Gen.5.2"><span class="bibleref" title="Gen.1.27">Gen. 1:27</span>; <span class="bibleref" title="Gen.5.2">5:2</span></a>. Note, It will be of great use to us often to think of our creation, how and by whom, what and for what, we were created. <i>He made them male and female</i>, one female for one male; so that Adam could not divorce his wife, and take another, for there was no other to take. It likewise intimated an inseparable union between them; Eve was a rib out of Adam’s side, so that he could not put her away, but he must put away a piece of himself, and contradict the manifest indications of her creation. Christ hints briefly at this, but, in appealing to what they had read, he refers them to the original record, where it is observable, that, though the rest of the living creatures were made male and female, yet it is not said so concerning any of them, but only concerning mankind; because between man and woman the conjunction is rational, and intended for nobler purposes than merely the pleasing of sense and the preserving of a seed; and it is therefore more close and firm than that between male and female among the brutes, who were not capable of being such help—meets for one another as Adam and Ever were. Hence the manner of expression is somewhat singular (<a class="bibleref" title="Gen.1.27" href="/passage/?search=Gen.1.27">Gen. 1:27</a>), <i>In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them; him</i> and <i>them</i> are used promiscuously; being one by creation before they were two, when they became one again by marriage-covenant, that oneness could not but be closer and indissoluble.</p>
<p class="tab-1">2. The fundamental law of marriage, which is, that <i>a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife</i>, <a class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.5" href="/passage/?search=Matt.19.5">Matt. 19:5</a>. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parents and children; now, if the filial relation may not easily be violated, much less may the marriage union be broken. May a child desert his parents, or may a parent abandon his children, for any cause, for every cause? No, by no means. Much less may a husband put away his wife, betwixt whom, though not by nature, yet by divine appointment, the relation is nearer, and the bond of union stronger, than between parents and children; for that is in a great measure superseded by marriage, when a man must leave his parents, to cleave to his wife. See here the power of a divine institution, that the result of it is a union stronger than that which results from the highest obligations of nature.</p>
<p class="tab-1">3. The nature of the marriage contract; it is a union of persons; <i>They twain shall be one flesh</i>, so that (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.6" href="/passage/?search=Matt.19.6">Matt. 19:6</a>) <i>they are no more twain, but one flesh</i>. A man’s children are pieces of himself, but his wife is himself. As the conjugal union is closer than that between parents and children, so it is in a manner equivalent to that between one member and another in the natural body. As this is a reason why husbands should love their wives, so it is a reason why they should not put away their wives, for <i>no man ever yet hated his own flesh</i>, or cut it off, <i>but nourishes and cherishes it</i>, and does all he can to preserve it. They two shall be one, therefore there must be but one wife, for God made but one Eve for one Adam, <a class="bibleref" title="Mal.2.15" href="/passage/?search=Mal.2.15">Mal. 2:15</a>.</p>
<p class="tab-1">From hence he infers, <i>What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder</i>. Note, (1.) Husband and wife are of God’s joining together; <b><i>synezeuxen</i></b>—<i>he hath yoked them together</i>, so the word is, and it is very significant. God himself instituted the relation between husband and wife in the state of innocence. Marriage and the sabbath are the most ancient of divine ordinances. Though marriage be not peculiar to the church, but common to the world, yet, being stamped with a divine institution, and here ratified by our Lord Jesus, it ought to be managed <i>after a godly sort, and sanctified by the word of God, and prayer</i>. A conscientious regard to God in this ordinance would have a good influence upon the duty, and consequently upon the comfort, of the relation. (2.) Husband and wife, being joined together by the ordinance of God, are not to be put asunder by any ordinance of man. Let not man put them asunder; not the husband himself, nor any one for him; not the magistrate, God never gave him authority to do it. The God of Israel hath said, that <i>he hateth putting away</i>, <a class="bibleref" title="Mal.2.16" href="/passage/?search=Mal.2.16">Mal. 2:16</a>. It is a general rule that man must not go about to <i>put asunder what God hath joined together</i>.</p>
<p class="tab-1">III. An objection started by the Pharisees against this; an objection not destitute of colour and plausibility (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.7" href="/passage/?search=Matt.19.7">Matt. 19:7</a>); “<i>Why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement</i>, in case a man did put away his wife?” He urged scripture reason against divorce; they allege scripture authority for it. Note, The seeming contradictions that are in the word of God are great stumbling-blocks to men of corrupt minds. It is true, <i>Moses was faithful to him that appointed him</i>, and commanded nothing but <i>what he received from the Lord</i>; but as to the thing itself, what they call a <i>command</i> was only as <i>allowance</i> (<a class="bibleref" title="Deut.24.1" href="/passage/?search=Deut.24.1">Deut. 24:1</a>), and designed rather to restrain the exorbitances of it than to give countenance to the thing itself. The Jewish doctors themselves observe such limitations in that law, that it could not be done without great deliberation. A particular reason must be assigned, the bill of divorce must be written, and, as a judicial act, must have all the solemnities of a deed, executed and enrolled. It must be given into the hands of the wife herself, and (which would oblige men, if they had any consideration in them, to consider) they were expressly forbidden ever to come together again.</p>
<p class="tab-1">IV. Christ’s answer to this objection, in which,</p>
<p class="tab-1">1. He rectifies their mistake concerning the law of Moses; they called it a <i>command</i>, Christ calls it but a <i>permission, a toleration</i>. Carnal hearts will take an ell if but an inch be given them. The law of Moses, in this case, was a political law, which God gave, as the Governor of that people; and it was for reasons of state, that divorces were tolerated. The strictness of the marriage union being the result, not of a natural, but of a positive law, the wisdom of God dispensed with divorces in some cases, without any impeachment of his holiness.</p>
<p class="tab-1">But Christ tells them there was a reason for this toleration, not at all for their credit; <i>It was because of the hardness of your hearts</i>, that you were permitted to <i>put away your wives</i>. Moses complained of the people of Israel in his time, that <i>their hearts were hardened</i> (<a class="bibleref" title="Deut.9.6,Deut.31.27" href="/passage/?search=Deut.9.6,Deut.31.27"><span class="bibleref" title="Deut.9.6">Deut. 9:6</span>; <span class="bibleref" title="Deut.31.27">31:27</span></a>), hardened against God; this is here meant of their being hardened against their relations; they were generally violent and outrageous, which way soever they took, both in their appetites and in their passions; and therefore if they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and perhaps have murdered them. Note, There is not a greater piece of hard-heartedness in the world, than for a man to be harsh and severe with his own wife. The Jews, it seems, were infamous for this, and therefore were allowed to put them away; better divorce them than do worse, than that <i>the altar of the Lord should be covered with tears</i>, <a class="bibleref" title="Mal.2.13" href="/passage/?search=Mal.2.13">Mal. 2:13</a>. A little compliance, to humour a madman, or a man in a frenzy, may prevent a greater mischief. Positive laws may be dispensed with for the preservation of the law of nature, for God <i>will have mercy and not sacrifice</i>; but then those are hard-hearted wretches, who have made it necessary; and none can wish to have the liberty of divorce, without virtually owning the hardness of their hearts. Observe, He saith, It is for the hardness of <i>your</i> hearts, not only theirs who lived then, but all their seed. Note, God not only sees, but foresees, the hardness of men’s hearts; he suited both the ordinances and providences of the Old Testament to the temper of that people, both in terror. Further observe, The law of Moses considered the hardness of men’s hearts, but the gospel of Christ cures it; and his grace <i>takes away the heart of stone, and gives a heart of flesh</i>. By the law was the knowledge of sin, but by the gospel was the conquest of it.</p>
<p class="tab-1">2. He reduces them to the original institution; <i>But from the beginning it was not so</i>. Note, Corruptions that are crept into any ordinance of God must be purged out by having recourse to the primitive institution. If the copy be vicious, it must be examined and corrected by the original. Thus, when St. Paul would redress the grievances in the church of Corinth about the Lord’s supper, he appealed to the appointment (<a class="bibleref" title="1Cor.11.23" href="/passage/?search=1Cor.11.23">1 Cor. 11:23</a>), So and so <i>I received from the Lord</i>. Truth was from the beginning; we must therefore enquire for <i>the good old way</i> (<a class="bibleref" title="Jer.6.16" href="/passage/?search=Jer.6.16">Jer. 6:16</a>), and must reform, mot by later patterns, but by ancient rules.</p>
<p class="tab-1">3. He settles the point by an express law; <i>I say unto you</i> (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.9" href="/passage/?search=Matt.19.9">Matt. 19:9</a>); and it agrees with what he said before (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.5.32" href="/passage/?search=Matt.5.32">Matt. 5:32</a>); there it was said in preaching, here in dispute, but it is the same, for Christ is constant to himself. Now, in both these places,</p>
<p class="tab-1">(1.) He allows divorce, in case of adultery; the reason of the law against divorce being this, <i>They two shall be one flesh</i>. If the wife play the harlot, and make herself one flesh with an adulterer, the reason of the law ceases, and so does the law. By the law of Moses adultery was punished with death, <a class="bibleref" title="Deut.22.22" href="/passage/?search=Deut.22.22">Deut. 22:22</a>. Now our Saviour mitigates the rigour of that, and appoints divorce to be the penalty. Dr. Whitby understands this, not of adultery, but (because our Saviour uses the word <b><i>porneia</i></b>—<i>fornication</i>) of uncleanness committed before marriage, but discovered afterward; because, if it were committed after, it was a capital crime, and there needed no divorce.</p>
<p class="tab-1">(2.) He disallows it in all other cases: <i>Whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery</i>. This is a direct answer to their query, that it is not lawful. In this, as in other things, gospel times are <i>times of reformation</i>, <a class="bibleref" title="Heb.9.10" href="/passage/?search=Heb.9.10">Heb. 9:10</a>. The law of Christ tends to reinstate man in his primitive integrity; the law of love, conjugal love, is no new commandment, but was from the beginning. If we consider what mischiefs to families and states, what confusions and disorders, would follow upon arbitrary divorces, we shall see how much this law of Christ is for our own benefit, and what a friend Christianity is to our secular interests.</p>
<p class="tab-1">The law of Moses allowing divorce for the hardness of men’s hearts, and the law of Christ forbidding it, intimate, that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, that they will not be hard-hearted, like Jews, <i>for God has called us to peace</i>. There will be no occasion for divorces, if we <i>forbear one another, and forgive one another, in love</i>, as those that are, and hope to be, forgiven, and have found God not forward to <i>put us away</i>, <a class="bibleref" title="Isa.50.1" href="/passage/?search=Isa.50.1">Isa. 50:1</a>. No need of divorces, if <i>husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands</i>, and they live together as heirs of the grace of life: and these are the laws of Christ, such as we find not in all the law of Moses.</p>
<p class="tab-1">V. Here is a suggestion of the disciples against this law of Christ (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.10" href="/passage/?search=Matt.19.10">Matt. 19:10</a>); <i>If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is better not to marry</i>. It seems, the disciples themselves were loth to give up the liberty of divorce, thinking it a good expedient for preserving comfort in the married state; and therefore, like sullen children, if they have not what they would have, they will throw away what they have. If they may not be allowed to put away their wives when they please, they will have no wives at all; though, from the beginning, when no divorce was allowed, God said, <i>It is not good for man to be alone, and blessed them</i>, pronounced them blessed who were thus strictly joined together; yet, unless they may have a liberty of divorce, they think it is good for a man not to marry. Note, 1. Corrupt nature is impatient of restraint, and would fain break Christ’s bonds in sunder, and have a liberty for its own lusts. 2. It is a foolish, peevish thing for men to abandon the comforts of this life, because of the crosses that are commonly woven in with them, as if we must needs go out of the world, because we have not every thing to our mind in the world; or must enter into no useful calling or condition, because it is made our duty to abide in it. No, whatever our condition is, we must bring our minds to it, be thankful for its comforts, submissive to its crosses, and, as God has done, <i>set the one over against the other</i>, and make the best of that which is, <a class="bibleref" title="Eccl.7.14" href="/passage/?search=Eccl.7.14">Eccl. 7:14</a>. If the yoke of marriage may not be thrown off at pleasure, it does not follow that <i>therefore</i> we must not come under it; but <i>therefore</i>, when we do come under it, we must resolve to comport with it, by love, and meekness, and patience, which will make divorce the most unnecessary undesirable thing that can be.</p>
<p class="tab-1">VI. Christ’s answer to this suggestion (<a class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.11,Matt.19.12" href="/passage/?search=Matt.19.11,Matt.19.12"><span class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.11">Matt. 19:11</span>, <span class="bibleref" title="Matt.19.12">12</span></a>), in which,</p>
<p class="tab-1">1. He allows it good for some not to marry; <i>He that is able to receive it, let him receive it</i>. Christ allowed what the disciples said, <i>It is good not to marry</i>; not as an objection against the prohibition of divorce, as they intended it, but as giving them a rule (perhaps no less unpleasing to them), that they who have the gift of continence, and are not under any necessity of marrying, do best if they continue single (<a class="bibleref" title="1Cor.7.1" href="/passage/?search=1Cor.7.1">1 Cor. 7:1</a>); for they that are unmarried have opportunity, if they have but a heart, to care more <i>for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord</i> (<a class="bibleref" title="1Cor.7.32-1Cor.7.34" href="/passage/?search=1Cor.7.32-1Cor.7.34">1 Cor. 7:32-34</a>), being less encumbered with the cares of this life, and having a greater vacancy of thought and time to mind better things. The increase of grace is better than the increase of the family, and fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ is to be preferred before any other fellowship.</p>
<p class="tab-1">2. He disallows it, as utterly mischievous, to forbid marriage, because <i>all men cannot receive this saying</i>; indeed few can, and therefore the crosses of the married state must be borne, rather than that men should run themselves into temptation, to avoid them; <i>better marry than burn</i>.</p>
<p class="tab-1">Christ speaks here of a twofold unaptness to marriage.</p>
<p class="tab-1">(1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God; such as those labour under who are born eunuchs, or made so by men, who, being incapable of answering one great end of marriage, ought not to marry. But to that calamity let them oppose the opportunity that there is in the single state of serving God better, to balance it.</p>
<p class="tab-1">(2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who <i>have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake</i>. This is meant of an unaptness for marriage, not in body (which some, through mistake of this scripture, have foolishly and wickedly brought upon themselves), but in mind. Those have thus made themselves eunuchs who have attained a holy indifference to all the delights of the married state, have a fixed resolution, in the strength of God’s grace, wholly to abstain from them; and by fasting, and other instances of mortification, have subdued all desires toward them. These are they that <i>can receive</i> this saying; and yet these are not to bind themselves by a vow that they will never marry, only that, in the mind they are now in, they purpose not to marry.</p>
<p class="tab-1">Now, [1.] This affection to the single state must be given of God; for none can receive it, <i>save they to whom it is given</i>. Note, Continence is a special gift of God to some, and not to others; and when a man, in the single state, finds by experience that he has this gift, he may determine with himself, and (as the apostle speaks, <a class="bibleref" title="1Cor.7.37" href="/passage/?search=1Cor.7.37">1 Cor. 7:37</a>), stand steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, that he will keep himself so. But men, in this case, must take heed lest they boast of a false gift, <a class="bibleref" title="Prov.25.14" href="/passage/?search=Prov.25.14">Prov. 25:14</a>.</p>
<p class="tab-1">[2.] The single state must be chosen for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; in those who resolve never to marry, only that they may save charges, or may gratify a morose selfish humour, or have a greater liberty to serve other lusts and pleasures, it is so far from being a virtue, that it is an ill-natured vice; but when it is for religion’s sake, not as in itself a meritorious act (which papists make it), but only as a means to keep our minds more entire for, and more intent upon, the services of religion, and that, having no families to provide for, we may do the more works of charity, then it is approved and accepted of God. Note, That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and stuck to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to the preparing of us for, and the preserving of us to, the kingdom of heaven.</p>