(Dear Pastor: Divorce and Remarriage) 4. WHAT HAD CHRIST TAUGHT?

One of the fundamental truths that can be gleaned from the words of Jesus is the simple fact that God’s will for His followers was going to be different, in some areas, from what it had been under the Mosaic Law. Numerous times in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “It hath been said . . . but I say unto you.” In Luke 16:16 Jesus said, “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the Kingdom of God is preached . . .” Two verses later, in Luke 16:18, Jesus made this statement, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” The meaning of this verse seems clear. There doesn’t seem to be much need for interpretation. The notion that “if we look at the context, it will make more sense” doesn’t seem to apply, since there doesn’t seem to be much context. Jesus seems to be saying, without any ambiguity, that any remarriage which follows a divorce is adultery. _______________________ In another passage, Mark 10:11-12, Jesus makes some similar statements. In this instance he was having a conversation with the Pharisees, and then with His disciples. Listen to what He says in this passage. “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” So far, the message given to us by our Lord seems to be both clear and consistent. It is further established by Matthew 5:32b where He says, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” There are a numerous other Scriptures pertaining to divorce and remarriage that we have not yet examined. But let’s stop here for a moment and ask ourselves an honest question. Based solely on these words of Christ we have looked at, does it appear that Jerome was mistaken in his counsel about this woman? Does it appear that he was trying to twist Scripture to make it say what he wanted it to say? Or does it appear that he had a sound Scriptural basis for the solution he had imposed?