While Jesus was still in Peraea, certain Pharisees came to Him and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" To their query He replied, "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 his 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" (Matt. 19:4-6). Then the Pharisees asked Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?" (vs. 7). In reply our Lord declared, "Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, 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" (vss. 8,9).

Since the Pharisees were trying Jesus, as stated in verse 3, it becomes immediately apparent that they were not asking for their own edification. They were probably up to their old tricks--trying to ensnare Him and get Him involved in some legal technicality in order to discredit Him in the eyes of the people. If this supposition is correct, these men were prompted by the wrong motive. One should seek for truth for the sake of truth and for the sake of conforming his life thereto. Everyone should be like Ezra, who set his heart to know the law of God in order that he might do it and might teach it to others (Ezra 7:10).

Is it ever lawful for a man to put away his wife? This is the question which the Pharisees put to Jesus. In reply our Lord said that from the beginning the Almighty made them male and female and for that reason a man should leave his mother and father and should cleave to his wife, and that they two should become one flesh. They are no longer two, but one flesh. What God has joined, man should not attempt to put asunder. Then the question arose concerning Moses granting to Israel the privilege of a man's divorcing his wife under certain conditions. (See Deut. 24:1-4.) Why did Moses concede the privilege to a man of divorcing his wife, if it were not God's will that there should be any divorces--under any conditions? No provisos were made originally; but on account of the hardness of Israel's heart God did permit a man to give a bill of divorcement to his wife. This permissive legislation was doubtless included in Ezekiel's statement found in Ezekiel 20:25: "Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances wherein they should not live . . .." When men will not accept God's number one plan for their lives, He will let them adopt a secondary plan. But who wants to be in the permissive will of God whereas he may be in God's holy directive will?

In contrast to what God had spoken through Moses, our Lord, in verse 9, declared: "And I say unto you, 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." There is echoed in our Lord's statement here the consciousness of His own divine nature and authority. This same consciousness is reflected in His utterances found in the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matt., chaps. 5-7). His teachings have the ring of divine authority and omnipotence. His is the final or last word on every theme. From Him there can be no further appeal.

But what is the correct interpretation of this verse which I have just quoted? One group of scholars understand that it teaches the right of an innocent person to divorce an unfaithful companion and to remarry. In other words, they see in this passage the authority for a person to divorce an unfaithful companion and to marry another. They affirm that there is but one scriptural ground for divorce. When an innocent person is certain that his or her companion is guilty of adultery, then he or she can institute legal proceedings which dissolve the bond uniting the two. Then he or she is at liberty to take another companion.

There is still another school of thought which interprets the passage as allowing the innocent person to get, a divorce from his or her unfaithful companion, but does not allow such a one to remarry. Of course this group of interpreters does not believe that the guilty person has any right to re-marry.

This whole question should be studied in the light of Luke 16:18, which reads as follows: "Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery." There is no proviso in this passage which allows the dissolution of the marriage vow. According to this statement, if a person puts away his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. Should another marry the divorcee, he commits adultery.

To say the least in regard to the matter, one may be certain that it is safe for the innocent person to remain single, if a divorce is obtained. There can be no question about the soundness of this interpretation.

In view of the seriousness of the marriage and divorce situation, it behooves every one to be very careful before entering into the marriage relationship. It is to be "until death do us part." If people only recognized this fact and would enter into the marriage relationship only after earnest, sincere, believing prayer, there would be fewer divorces.

After Jesus answered the Pharisees, the disciples came and asked him, "If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." In reply to this statement the Lord Jesus answered, "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" (vss. 11, 12). All people do not have the same gift. God gives to each one according to His wisdom and the individual's need.

At this time one came to Jesus and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?" (vs. 16). In reply our Lord said, "Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments" (vs. 17). According to Matthew, Jesus asked the young man why he asked Him concerning the good. In the parallel passage in Mark 10:17,18 Jesus is reported to have asked, "Why callest thou me good?" We have a right to believe that Jesus asked both of these questions. Doubtless He did so to call forth the young man's faith with reference to Himself. Our Lord urged him to keep the commandments, to which he replied, "Which?" Then Jesus mentioned several of them. The young man asserted that he had observed all of these from his youth up and inquired, "What lack I yet?" Then Jesus instructed him that, if he would be perfect, he should go and sell all that he had and give to the poor and come and follow Him. When the young man heard this, he went away sorrowful, because he had great possessions. The wealth which the young man had was evidently a millstone about his neck. Our Lord's telling him to sell these things and distribute the money to the poor was His effort to remove such a burden from him that would sink his soul into perdition. Our Lord does not insist upon people's giving up things, necessarily; but if one's possessions are a hindrance to one and one's full surrender to the Lord, one is urged to lay aside all these weights and hindrances to one's spiritual progress.

What one possesses is not his own, for it belongs to the Lord. What we have has been entrusted to us. We are simply stewards of the manifold grace of God. One question which should concern us is: Am I faithful as a good steward of Jesus Christ? This rich young man was not. He under no conditions would give up his possessions in order to walk with the Lord.

At the conclusion of this episode, our Lord remarked to the disciples, "Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (vss. 23,24). Wealth and earthly possessions are frequently hindrances which make it impossible for one to come to God. In fact, the Lord has to extend special grace to the rich in this world's goods, otherwise they would be unable to come to the Lord in full surrender and faith.

According to our Lord it is just as difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. What is meant by the eye of a needle? We are to understand this statement literally. I am perfectly aware of the fact that an explanation has been given to this effect: There was a small wicket gate which constituted part of the city gate of Jerusalem. This was there for travelers who came to the city late in the day. In order for one with his camel to enter the city through the gate, the animal had to get down on its knees and crawl in. This is a beautiful little theory, if the facts justified it. So far as I have been able to see, I have found nothing to substantiate such a position. I therefore take the passage literally.

When the Lord showed how difficult it is for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven, He looked around and said, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." We praise God for this assurance. God takes into consideration one's circumstances and removes the difficulties that stand in the way of one's coming to Him for salvation.

Peter, as usual, spoke up by asserting that he had left everything and followed Jesus. He therefore wanted to know what he would receive. Our Lord's reply was: "Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." According to this verse, the Apostles will sit upon twelve thrones in the Millennial Age--the regeneration--and will judge the twelve tribes of Israel. We who use our pounds (Luke 19:11-27) will reign with our Lord in the Millennial Age according to our works.

It seems from the last two verses of Matthew, chapter 19, that Peter thought that he and the other Apostles had a kind of priority right on the positions of honor and trust in the Millennium, since they had followed Jesus first. But our Lord showed that such was not true. There are many who are first, but who will be last. Also there are many who are last, but who will become first. The principle governing such matters will be discussed in the next article of this series, which will take up the parable found in chapter 20, verses 1-16.