Jesus Teaches on Marriage

Did Jesus indirectly endorse same-sex marriage by his silence on it? I teach briefly and realistically on sex in this post, so immature readers should not click on it. Parallel passages in Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospel are looked into here.

All translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click on biblegateway.com.

This post has now been reformatted and updated here:

Jesus Teaches on Marriage in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark

If you do not read Greek, scroll past it on the bottom half of the table. I include it so Greek readers can check my work.

Let’s begin.

Jesus Teaches on Marriage

Matthew 19:3-8

Mark 10:2-9

³ Then some Pharisees approached him, testing him and saying, “It is permitted for a man to divorce his wife for every cause?” ⁴ In reply, he said, “Haven’t you read that

from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’? [Gen. 1:27; 5:2]

⁵And he said,

‘For this reason a man will leave father and mother and will join together with his wife, and they will be one flesh’? [Gen. 2:24]

⁶ So then they are no longer two, but instead one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no person separate.”

⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?”

⁸ He said to them, “Moses, because of your hard heart, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not like that.

² The Pharisees approached and asked him, in order to test him, whether it was legal for a husband to divorce his wife. ³ In reply, he said to them, “What did Moses command you?” ⁴They said, “Moses allowed a person ‘to write a certificate of divorce and to divorce.’ [Deut. 24:1, 3] ⁵ But Jesus said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote this command for you,

⁶ But from the beginning of creation ‘he made them male and female.’ [Gen. 1:27; 5:2] ⁷ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife. ⁸ And the two shall be one flesh, so then they are no longer two but instead one flesh. ⁹ Therefore what God has joined together let not a person split apart.’” [Gen. 2:23-24]

³ Καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Φαρισαῖοι πειράζοντες αὐτὸν καὶ λέγοντες· εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀπολῦσαι τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν; ⁴ ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ κτίσας ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς

ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς ; ⁵ καὶ εἶπεν· ἕνεκα τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν

⁶ ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.

⁷ Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι [αὐτήν]; ⁸ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι Μωϋσῆς πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν ἀπολῦσαι τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν, ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως.

² Καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνδρὶ γυναῖκα ἀπολῦσαι, πειράζοντες αὐτόν. ³ ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τί ὑμῖν ἐνετείλατο Μωϋσῆς; ⁴ οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· ἐπέτρεψεν Μωϋσῆς βιβλίον ἀποστασίου γράψαι καὶ ἀπολῦσαι. ⁵ ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην.

⁶ ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς· ⁷ ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα [καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ], ⁸καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν· ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ. ⁹ ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω

Comments:

The Pharisees approached Jesus about divorce. This opens up a dialogue. What was the Pharisees’ view?

in Craig Keener’s commentary on Matthew, he notes that they were very loose about it, to the point of scandal. So righteousness was followed only when it suited them. Or were they following a looser interpretation of a passage in Deuteronomy?

See this link to learn more about them:

Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts

Two more cultural facts before we go on. Shammai was a Jewish scholar or sage of the first century (c. 50 BC to 30 AD), and he strictly interpreted a marriage law, quoted just below. Hillel was also an older Jewish scholar or sage of the first century (d. 10 AD). He taught a more liberal view of divorce. A man could divorce his wife for any cause. Both were interpreting Deuteronomy 24:1-4, here:

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, ²and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, ³and 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, ⁴then 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. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deut. 24:1-4, NIV)

“Displeasing”:and “indecent.” How did they define the terms? Broadly or narrowly? Any cause of just a few causes for divorce? Which side would Jesus take? How would he interpret that passage? Or maybe he would leap over it and go back to Genesis 1-2.

Commentary on Matthew

3-6:

I like what commentator R. T. France says of biblical ethics and divorce:

The ethics of the kingdom of heaven, as we have seen them illustrated in 5:21-48, seek not primarily how evil may be contained and alleviated, but how the best may be discerned and followed. It would make a huge and beneficial difference to modern debates on divorce if this priority were observed, so that the focus fell not on what grounds for divorce may be permitted (as in the Pharisee’s question), but on how marriage may best be lived up to the Creator’s purpose for it. There will, no doubt, always be a need for trouble-shooting legislation and pastoral help when things have gone wrong, but if that is where our ethical discussion begins, the battle is lost before it is joined. Those who start from Deut. 24:1-4 will have as their basic presupposition that divorce is to be expected, the question being only how it is to be regulated. Those who start from Gen. 1-2 will see any separation of what God has joined together as always an evil; circumstances may prove it to be the lesser evil, but that can never make it less than an infringement of the primary purpose of God for marriage. (p. 714)

Perfect. Instead of beginning with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and looking to get away with as much as we can, let’s follow Jesus’s counsel and go back to God’s original intention in Genesis 1-2 maintain a healthy marriage. God himself ordained it.

Even in the (sad) context of divorce, these verses embody a great statement and affirmation of heterosexual and monogamous marriage, which is especially relevant to the world today, where it is trendy to see two women or two men “get married.” However, Jesus says that originally God’s plan for marriage was one man and one woman, and they alone can have a union that makes them one flesh. Two women cannot, nor can two men. The physical union between male and female touches the core of the soul, and two women and two men cannot have this. Yes, they can have a certain level of intimacy because they can sexually stimulate each other, either at the same time or by taking turns, but only a man and a woman can have penile-clitoral sex, which is the most intimate and, yes, most pleasurable. So there is a hierarchy of sexual relations, and this is at the top. Same-sex couples cannot match or achieve it. God ordained through natural processes that there should be this hierarchy.

This pleasure is God’s gift to humanity by virtue of how he anatomically made them. Why? He intends them to have children or to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Yes, it is true that sometimes a couple chooses not to have children, and God gave them freewill to go in this direction. But it may not be the best for them or humanity in general, and let’s trust they are listening to God and not to their own egoism; however, for most couples God wants them to be fruitful and multiply.

And yes, it is true that sometimes a couple cannot have children because something has gone wrong with the reproductive side of things. We can pray for God’s healing, either supernaturally or by treatment. But if they cannot have them naturally even after prayer or treatment, then we should not let these extreme cases set biblical norms. As the saying goes: extreme cases make bad policy. The good news is that this couple can adopt and give a wonderful home to needy children.

Now what about not dividing or splitting what God has joined together? Don’t go near a marriage and seduce one of the partners to commit adultery. And you, married partner, don’t you dare allow yourself to be seduced.

Matt. 5:28 and Adultery in the Heart

For v. 6, Osborne writes: “Jesus draws the natural conclusion from the Genesis quotes. By centering only on the Deut 24 passage, the Pharisees have missed the true teaching of the Torah. The purpose of creation is the God-given union of ‘male and female.’”

7-9:

First, let me say that v. 9 has a dispute about manuscripts. The clause in brackets don’t appear in some manuscripts. I don’t want to discuss this complicated issue here, but I include the clause because I like a fuller biblical text.

In v. 7, the Pharisees use the verb “command,” but Moses did not command divorce; he permitted it.

Thus in Matthew (in contrast to Mark), the Pharisees even exploit Moses’ concession as a command …. Jesus, by contrast, uses Scripture differently (cf. 12:7), here probably seeking to protect an innocent Jewish wife from her husband wrongfully divorcing her … Other Jewish teachers also recognized that by making divorce more difficult they would protect the woman ….. (Keener, pp. 465-66)

Osborne on v. 8:

The “indecency” clause of Deut 24:1 is the key; divorce is always the result of a series of sins that a couple commits against each other. It is effected by going against God’s will time after time. It is the better of two terrible options—continuing acts of “indecency” against each other, or breaking the marriage vow. The fact is that divorce had attained epidemic proportions in the first century (as today!), and Jesus had to address the serious problem.

Moving on to another observation, I like how Jesus restricted the law of Moses, when it was sloppily, loosely interpreted. He issued a reinterpretation of the text on the basis of the original Edenic model. We need to read Deuteronomy 24:1 and his comments in vv. 7-9 in the light of their hard hearts. He sided with Shammai (up to a point).

We saw in my comments on Deuteronomy 24:1 in the introduction and in vv. 3-6, which says that Moses allowed a certificate of dismissal in order to divorce, that the issue was divorce for all causes or any cause, which Jesus restricted to sexual immorality or sexual misconduct. He restricted it because easy divorce for “any cause” harmed the woman and marriage itself.

Now let’s imagine a woman who was recently divorced for any cause during the time of Jesus. Her husband did not like the way she prepared the food. It is easy to imagine quarrels about silly things. Now she is divorced and goes back to her father’s house, a social embarrassment. On the way home, a man hears about the divorce. He sees her walking back to her father’s house with her bride price. Legally the other man could send his first wife out of the house with a certificate of dismissal and marry the second woman who was recently divorced.

Apparently, in Jesus’s eyes, marriage had become much too cheap and sordid. He intended to put a stop to it. Siding with more with Shammai (up to a point), Jesus was tightening things up in order to help the woman who was unjustly turned out of her first husband’s house. In an easy divorce society, which Hillel’s views promoted, marrying and remarrying could potentially become a wife-swapping scheme, in pursuit of the latest and most attractive woman. “I like her! I’m bored with my wife now. She’s old! I know what I’ll do! I’ll write up a certificate of divorce on flimsy grounds, tell my current wife to go home, and marry this new woman who strikes my fancy!” Abandonment in a context of frivolous divorce permits remarriage.

Jesus’s goal is to protect women, not impose kingdom oppression on them, since Jewish law allowed only the man to initiate the divorce and thereby possibly victimize the woman.

One final point in this section. Jesus saw the law of Moses as a falling off or a compromise from God’s ideal in Genesis 1-2. For us Christians today, the law of Moses is an incomplete section of Scripture. Yes, we keep the moral law (e.g. the Ten Commandments, except the Sabbath, which is optional, and Lev. 18 and its sexual prohibitions, and other places), but we recognize that other passages are culturally irrelevant today and to the church (e.g. slavery and warfare verses).

Ten Commandments: God’s Great Compromise with Humanity’s Big Failure

Unlawful Sexual Relations in Leviticus 18 from a NT Perspective

What Does the New Covenant Retain from the Old?

Commentary on Mark

3-9:

My commentary here is short because I covered the bases in my commentary on Matthew.

“divorce”: this verb could be translated as “put away” and even “release” or “set free.” But in this context, “divorce” is intended.

Jesus answered their question with a question. They summarized the passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

Jesus gave himself permission to explain the true meaning of Moses’ permission to write a certificate of divorce. This shows a high Christology. You or I would not be so bold as to permit ourselves to do this. Hold on! Many Progressive Christians are doing just that. This reveals how arrogant they are. They are rewriting the Bible to suit and satisfy their own postmodern needs and sexual drives.

Four-part series on how one should not practice lawlessness, particularly church leaders:

Warning to Evolving, Progressive Churches: Danger Signs

Warning to Evolving, Progressive Churches: Authority of Scripture

Warning to Evolving, Progressive Churches: Marriage and Sex

Warning to Evolving, Progressive Churches: Judgment Is Coming

In vv. 4-5, in Judaism at the time, remarriage was permitted after the divorce, for both the man and woman. Jesus is about to tighten this up, though my comments at Matthew 5:31-32 expands this idea of seemingly not allowing remarriage.

Matthew 5 (scroll down to vv. 31-32)

How would Jesus answer the Pharisees’ question? He endorsed the Edenic model of one man and one woman, and they should stay together, because they made a covenant before God. He joined them together. The Pharisees replied by asking why Moses permitted the certificate of divorce. He said that Moses accommodated their hardness of heart, but at the beginning it was not so (Matt. 19:7-8). Then Jesus revealed that divorce is allowed only for sexual misconduct.

Conclusion

The reason Jesus never discussed same-sex marriage is simple. It was a non-issue in his culture. On moral law in the Torah, he would have concluded that it is still valid, particularly the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18: He loved and followed the Torah in most instances (the Levitical animal sacrifices are another matter).

Unlawful Sexual Relations in Leviticus 18 from a NT Perspective

Now let’s turn to the affirmation of true marriage.

Here is an illustration of the marriage covenant, which Jesus teaches in both Matthew’s and Mark’s versions:

This illustration shows that God oversees the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. God ordains the covenant, as Jesus said, referring to the original couple in vv. 3-6. So marriage is not limited to two persons (man and woman) but between three persons (God, man, and woman). However, if a man divorces his wife for an unbiblical reason, this does not mean that he necessarily breaks his standing in the New Covenant (he may still be saved), but he does break his covenant with his wife, a covenant that God set up. So divorce, even for a biblical reason, must be done with utmost caution and with the kingdom community’s guidance or pastoral guidance.

Bottom line: Marriage is a covenant not only between the man and the woman, but between God, the man, and the woman. Involve God in your marriage. If you do not, then sin may enter and destroy the covenant, and civilly legal divorce may ensue.

The above triangle says that the closer the couple draws near to God, going upward, the closer they draw towards each other.

Bible Basics about Covenants

Word Study on Covenant

Go to church, get counseling, and pray! Divorce—breaking the three-person covenant—is the last resort!

Also see: Matthew 5 (scroll down to vv. 31-32), where the topic of divorce is also taught.

Matthew 5

Please see the next link, where I discuss Matt. 5:31-32 and where I bring Paul’s counsel into the discussion (1 Cor. 7:15).

Brief Overview of Divorce and Remarriage in New Testament

The Biblical Norm for Marriage

Jesus Teaches His Disciples about Eunuchs

BIBLIOGRAPHY

To see the bibliographical data, click on these two links and scroll down to the very bottom.