108. Chapter 49 - Broken Homes Versus Happy Homes

Chapter 49 - Broken Homes Versus Happy Homes Matthew 19:1-15;Mark 10:1-16;Luke 18:15-17 Harmony of Accounts In quick succession the Synoptics present a vivid picture of broken homes and then a deeply moving scene of Jesus taking little children into his arms in a happy, God-fearing home. The broken homes are introduced by the report of a discussion with the Pharisees concerning divorce. Matthew and Mark locate this discussion in Peraea. The fact is conclusive in that they tell of this exchange with the Pharisees just before they record the scene of Jesus in the home of a disciple, where He welcomes little children, and the incident about the rich young ruler. Since Luke, who does not record the discussion about divorce, gives the next two scenes at this time, the three accounts obviously fit together. Luke’s record of new material has filled almost nine chapters, from the transfiguration scene forward, but now the three accounts join as Jesus approaches the capital. Luke will still have some new material to introduce, but John is the one who furnishes the most new information about the events in the upper room.

Polygamy and Divorce

Matthew 19:1, Matthew 19:2 tells of Jesus’ teaching and healing ministry in Peraea and the great multitudes which surrounded Him. His record is in agreement with the account Luke has been giving of this ministry. “And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matthew 19:3). They did not raise the question of the propriety of polygamy. The reasons are obvious: (1) The law of Moses did not condone polygamy. (2) The Jews no longer practiced polygamy. (3) It was not at this time a debatable subject. The bare historical record of the Old Testament reports without comment the practice of polygamy by such leaders as Abraham and Jacob. Isaac’s marriage is presented as a very beautiful example of monogamy. The record brings out the evils of polygamy in the account of the jealously, strife, confusion, and hatred in the home of various men, such as Abraham, Jacob, and particularly Elkanah, the father of Samuel. After the Babylonian captivity the Jews no longer practiced polygamy; Herod the Great with nine wives was an isolated exception. A man could have a succession of wives, but not a plurality of wives at the same time. The objective of the Pharisees in this discussion was to get evidence that Jesus opposed the law of Moses or presumed to change it or claim superiority to it. They had seen what they considered indications of this in His teaching, and they wanted clearer evidence. The Two Schools

There are two schools of thought, each headed by famous rabbis, on opposite sides of the question of divorce. Should divorce be granted freely for any cause, or solely for the cause of adultery? Mark states their question in a general way as concerning the validity of divorce, but Matthew shows the specific turn of the discussion; they were tempting Him (seeking to ensnare Him) over the proposition as to whether divorce should be granted “for every cause.” There was no dispute that the Old Testament permitted divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1); the question was as to how the law was to be applied. The school of Shammai held that the law did not grant freedom of divorce for any other cause than adultery. They reached this position by interpreting that “some unseemly thing” (Deuteronomy 24:1) could only refer to adultery. The school of Hillel defended divorce for any cause and held that this was the plain teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1. The Pharisees did not quote these famous rabbis, nor did Jesus refer to them in His reply. As in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke with authority. His reply shows that both schools were wrong; the school of Shammai was wrong in interpretation, and the school of Hillel was wrong in practice. Jesus boldly set aside the teaching of the Old Testament on the subject. In the Sermon on the Mount He had repeatedly declared, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time...but I say unto you.” Some claim that in these cases Jesus only deepened and reinforced the law, declaring that unrestrained lust in the heart constitutes adultery just as the act, and that hatred and desire and intent to kill in the heart is the same as murder. But Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32 shows that Jesus set aside the law on divorce. The Pharisees, therefore, knew what the answer of Jesus would be as to the propriety of divorce; the crux of their attack was to be His attitude toward the law of Moses.

John the Baptist

Just how intense the discussion over divorce was can be seen from the fact that John the Baptist had gone to his death over this very issue. Whether in the court of Herod Antipas or from a distance John had handled this proposition and condemned Herod for driving off his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, in order that he might live with Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip of Rome. Thus it was not merely a rabbi, Shammai, who had taken this position that divorce was only to be granted for the cause of adultery, but also an inspired prophet, John the Baptist. The answer of Jesus is unique, then, only in the sense of the divine authority with which He spoke and the evidence which He presented. The Divine Plan

“Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4-6). Jesus meets their shrewd plot to place Him in opposition to the Old Testament by citing the historical account of Genesis; God did not make one woman and several men or one man and several women; He created in the beginning one man and one woman, and thus demonstrated His divine plan. Further, Jesus quoted what God said concerning the solemnity of the marriage relation. Thus the whole matter was not one of a theoretical interpretation of a Jewish rabbi or even an avowed position of John the Baptist. God had ruled on the whole issue in the beginning. Jesus’ answer was a general statement that marriage was a once-for-all, lifetime relationship, supremely sacred by its very nature. The corollary to this proposition would be a sharp No to their question of divorce for every cause. Let not man put asunder gave a ringing declaration to answer their question. The Law of Moses

“Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7). Moses had not commanded divorce, but had given a ruling permitting divorce. They were in great difficulty to bring their charge against Him of destroying the Old Testament law because Jesus had just quoted from Genesis the divine plan of God as revealed in the beginning. They could only ask how Moses could have given a different judgment. Mark’s account shows that Jesus asked them to quote the law on the subject (Mark 10:3). This quotation enabled

Jesus to give an independent analysis of the law and the problem apart from any discussion of the prevailing schools of thought. They quoted the law correctly, and the interpretation which the school of Shammai had attempted to place upon the passage was destroyed, for the law made no mention of adultery and set no limits to the grounds for divorce.

Hard Hearts of People

“Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so” (Matthew 19:8). The Greek word means hard in the sense of rough or coarse, rather than unimpressible. In the primitive age when the law was given, freedom of divorce was granted because the rudeness of human nature threatened to destroy marriage and the home altogether. The Old Testament ruling was the best which could be applied at that time. The Bible was a progressive revelation as man became able to receive the fuller, more perfect and complete revelation. God spoke in the prophets to them of old time in divers portions and manners, but unto us at the end of the age in His Son (Hebrews 1:1, Hebrews 1:2). The Old Testament itself had declared that it was to be superseded by a new and superior covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:6-13). Jesus’ declaration shows that the school of Hillel had been correct in interpretation, but Jesus set aside the law by affirming the new and higher standard. Jesus pointed out: (1) God in the beginning created one man and one woman, showing His plan and program for the human race. Any deviation from this falls short of the ideal God had established, and is the result of man’s sin. The change from this ideal in the regulation of the law of Moses was but a temporary expedient. (2) Marriage causes a man and a woman to leave their parents and establish a new home. The very nature of the union forbids polygamy or freedom of divorce. (3) Since God has thus ruled, man has no right to interfere and to separate those so joined by God’s decree.

Scriptural Ground

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Both Matthew and Mark give independent material at this point. Matthew notes the exception “except for fornication.” Mark shows that Jesus also specifically mentioned a wife divorcing her husband, a course which was not unknown in the Roman Empire at that time (Mark 10:12). Such divorces had occurred in Judaea; Salome divorced her husband Costibar (Josephus, Ant. XV: VII:10). The word fornication has the general meaning of sexual sin, and the specific meaning of the sin of unmarried persons as distinguished from adultery, which is the sin of married persons. Here, the term fornication is obviously used in the general sense and refers to the sin of married people. While Mark does not mention this exception, he implies it by giving the same emphatic statement concerning the two becoming one: adultery breaks the marriage tie; Matthew is fuller and clearer on this point. Matthew shows that the ruling on divorce (Matthew 19:9), given in answer to the Pharisees, was spoken before the entire crowd. He then records a conversation with the disciples concerning this teaching. Mark 10:10 shows that this discussion occurred in private after they had gone into the house of some disciple. When Jesus made the first public declaration, the apostles were evidently so confounded by it that they asked Jesus for more information in private. Jesus repeated His solemn declaration that marriage was for life. It was in this declaration that Jesus included the proposition of a wife divorcing her husband. The Old Testament granted no permission to a wife to divorce her husband. But Palestine in the time of Christ had come under the influence of Graeco-Roman civilization, where women had the right to divorce their husbands. His hearers would readily understand His meaning. Jesus was issuing God’s decree to all the world, and it was fitting that He should thus make the ruling complete. The Disciples Reaction

“The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (Matthew 19:10). The disciples were evidently stunned by the severe ruling Jesus had given. They felt that if marriage is such a fixed and irrevocable tie, the chances of a happy marriage are too small and a man should not marry. If nothing but the cause of unfaithfulness is sufficient to warrant divorce, then the union with a woman who was quarrelsome and ill-tempered would become an intolerable condition. This objection seems to indicate that the principle of no divorce except for the cause of unfaithfulness, was not the current conception or practice. The effort of Shammai to interpret the Old Testament in this manner had evidently not been widely accepted. On the other hand, these men had been disciples of John the Baptist and had heard him preach on this subject and had seen him go to his death at the hands of Herodias because of his stand. This should have made them aware of God’s divine plan. They were now brought to face the problem in a clearer way by this discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees, and they were profoundly impressed. Jesus does not say that a person who is being abused and the life imperiled by a drunken mate, must continue to live with this person. The prohibition is not against separation, but against divorce. Divorce is for the purpose of remarriage.

Nothing reveals more clearly what J. Edgar Hoover calls “the subsidence of our moral foundations” than the breakdown of the home, both in the relation of husband and wife and that of parents and children. From its inception Communism has carried on a vicious attack upon marriage. This has found fertile soil in the present corrupt state of modern society. Russia’s bitter experience with roving bands of wild, illegitimate children, robbing, burning, killing, caused the Communist leaders to turn back to seek a re-establishment of the home. But their atheistic propaganda has borne fruit in the modern vagaries, not only of a denial of the sacredness of marriage, but even a denial of the need for such an institution at all. The effort to erect a new system of morality is merely the resurrection of ancient immorality.

Marriage a Matter of Choice

“But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:11, Matthew 19:12). Some commentators interpret this saying as meaning Jesus’ declaration concerning marriage being an irrevocable tie except for the cause of adultery, but it is hard to see how Jesus could give such a clear and positive ruling and then say that a man is at liberty to obey or disobey God’s divine plan. This saying evidently refers to the statement of the disciples that it is better not to marry since marriage is so fixed in character. The answer which Jesus gave discusses this proposition of the single and the married state. He declares that the statement of the disciples is correct under certain circumstances; there are some who should not marry: those who are eunuchs because of “natural infirmity or the cruelty of men,” and those who are voluntary eunuchs, those who choose to remain single in order to devote themselves more completely to the work of Christ. Marriage is open to all, but no one is obliged to marry. It is not profitable for some; it is profitable for others.

Happy Homes This solemn and severe discussion of broken homes is followed by one of the most touching scenes in the Gospel narratives. Jesus’ love for little children is one of the most precious revelations which the inspired biographers have given us. Children are especially mentioned as present at the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand. Their irrepressible praise of Jesus in the temple on the morning after the triumphal entry brought down the wrath of the chief priests and Pharisees Upon returning to Capernaum after the transfiguration, Jesus rebuked the apostles for their quarrel over the chief places in the kingdom by taking a little child and warning them they would not even get into the kingdom if they did not change their attitude and become as little children. Children undoubtedly were always in the midst as Jesus taught, preached, and healed. Several children were healed by Jesus: Jairus’ daughter, the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman, the son of the man at the foot of the Mount of Transfiguration.

Little Children

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them” (Matthew 19:13). The parents were bringing little children that the great Prophet, whose touch healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, and raised the dead, might place His hands on their heads and bless them. Mark and Luke say “touch them,” but Matthew makes the purpose clearer; it was that He might lay His hands on them and pray God’s blessings to be granted to them. The independence of the records is remarkable. Luke uses the Greek word for infants; whereas Matthew and Mark say “little children.” They were evidently of various ages, but all young children. The word also in Luke 18:15, “and they were bringing unto him also their babies,” is interesting. This seems to suggest that in addition to their sick, who were being so wonderfully healed, they were bringing unto Him their infants. Some early Christian writers suggest that the disciples rebuked the parents because they felt the children were unworthy to approach Jesus, but there is no suggestion of this in the text. Children are often a vexation and worry when older people have great enterprises on hand. The disciples thought it was taking too much of Jesus’ time and strength arid that it was an imposition, since the children were not sick or in need of healing. Some suggest that it was bedtime and the children were being brought in to tell Jesus good night. The time of day is not stated, but Jesus was in the midst of His daily teaching, which was now being carried on in the home of some disciple.

Jesus’ Rebuke

Mark is more explicit than the others in describing the effect upon Jesus of this move by the apostles: “But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14). His indignation was not merely at the presumption of the apostles in trying to take command of the situation, for Jesus could have asked the parents to desist if He had so desired; He became indignant rather that His own followers should try to prevent anyone from coming to Him. Jesus was always eager and ready to receive all who came, even little children. The fact that little children manifestly loved Jesus is shown in this passage. They quickly reveal their attitude as they assess the character of each person. Jesus did not need the direction of the apostles in arranging His program, but this seems a secondary consideration. Luke says, “But Jesus called them unto him” (Luke 18:16). This means He called back the parents who were being ushered out by the apostles. He then explained to the entire group of disciples His attitude.

Early Christian writers observe that Jesus did not say, “of these is the kingdom of heaven,” or “of all children,” but “of such,” i.e., of people whether young or old who exhibit the beautiful childlike character which is seen in the ideal little child. Paul urges in his epistles that the Christians should act like men, not children. He means, of course, to refer to the disgusting qualities of spoiled children. Jesus is not urging us to become like some children we have seen. He is talking of the ideal little child. The admirable qualities in a little child are humility, trust, simplicity, sincerity, courage, teachableness, unselfishness, loyalty, innocence, loving devotion, and an obedient spirit. Observe how these characteristics stand out in the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount.

Salvation ofLittle Children His words suffer the little children to come unto me have a deeper and wider significance than this incident. He did not say, “Suffer the parents of little children to bring them unto me.” This is what was certainly being done in the case of the infants who were brought to Him. There is the strong responsibility of parents to use their influence in teaching and leading little children to love Christ and to want to obey Him. With His customary emphasis upon individual choice and responsibility Jesus sets forth that the children are the ones to exercise their own will and come to Him. Parents cannot believe or repent for their children. There is no ground for baptizing a child on the basis of the parent’s faith. Baptism is not mentioned in the passage. It is always fitting to lay one’s hands on a little child and pray that God’s richest blessings may be upon him, but not to make a church ordinance out of it, as is done in “Infant Dedication.” When children desire to come to Jesus, they are not to be forbidden. The age differs at which children come to an understanding of the essential elements of the gospel and pass from the state of innocence into a state of realization of being lost. It differs according to the background and ability of the child. Undue pressure which is sometimes exerted on very young children in revival meetings and summer camps is to be deplored. The child should be permitted to come to his own realization of sin, salvation, and the Savior in very early years. Wisdom and tact should be shown in giving children the proper understanding and faith before they come to be baptized.

Mark reported Jesus as saying, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein” (Mark 10:15). One may receive the kingdom by absolute acceptance of the will of God which circumscribes the kingdom. He thus enters it as a subject. It is thus that a person becomes a naturalized citizen of a country. He receives the country as a citizen of it. Mark is particularly vivid and touching in his description of this scene as Jesus took the children in His arms and blessed them. It was not necessary for Him to take them into His arms in order to lay His hands on them and bless them. Each child seems to have been taken up by Jesus as a beautiful expression of His love for them and for all mankind. It is also an expression of love and confidence on the part of the children.