There is nothing new under the sun. Already in Jesus’ day discussions were carried on that centered on marriage and divorce. It appears that those of that day could not agree on the issue. And since Jesus was among them—One who seemed to have all the answers—they come to Him with the divorce issue. Actually they wanted to ensnare Him in His words. However, without their being aware of it, they asked Jesus this question so that the church of Jesus Christ might be guided throughout history in this important and crucial matter.

Jesus’ answer evidently silenced the Pharisees. At least no responses are recorded. But we do know how the disciples responded. It seems they were shocked by Jesus’ stand in the matter. To take such a stand, they protested, is to put too great a stricture on marriage. If adultery is the only legitimate ground for divorce, they reasoned, it would be better not to marry. That exceptive clause of Jesus was a little too strict.

Disciples today also are finding that exceptive clause too restrictive. The CRC has a committee of synod re-studying this issue. In fact, right now the whole denomination is studying it. And the issue centers in that exceptive clause. Too bad Jesus said that. It causes so much trouble. The kind of world we live in toady affects the church too. All kinds of divorces for various marital problems are being thrown into the lap of the church for answers. We just simply have to deal with them. How? What answers are we going to give? That is the question we are now wrestling with. We need guidelines. And they must come from Scripture.

It seems that the disciples of Jesus’ day listened better than those of today. To them the exceptive clause was crystal clear. Jesus gave only one ground for divorce: adultery! Our Lord’s hearers had no doubts at all that the word porneia had no other connotation. It was not stretchable. They did not say, for example, “Jesus, that’s great. That gives us all the room we need. Under that umbrella we can include ‘other actions, situations, and conditions that in (our) judgment . . . can . . . be judged to be the equivalent of unrepentant unchastity.’” (Acts 1976, p. 485). Neither were they beguiled into thinking that perhaps the “scope of porneia may be understood to include certain other illicit sex-related acts, as well as willful and prolonged desertion which in the judgment (of men) . . . can only be regarded as the equivalent of unchastity” (Acts 1976, p. 486). The arguments of their day had explored all these avenues. They knew exactly what Jesus said. And they didn’t like it. They honestly responded to Jesus. They said by implication: Too restrictive Jesus! Much too restrictive!

Jesus’ answer to the disciples is very noteworthy. He said, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given.” That is remarkable statement. Just whom is Jesus talking about? Is He talking about those who would consider, as the disciples suggested, not to marry? Or has He in mind the duty of men in relation to His Kingdom? I judge the latter. What Jesus is saying is, as I hear it, that to see marriage within the Kingdom concept is possible only to those who being born again “see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3) and therefore understand its rules and regulations also in regard to marriage. Understanding the God-given place of marriage to do what pleases man, they will not receive that word. They will try to disannul it. The disciples understood Jesus fully. And they faced the issue as it was presented. But their suggested answer wrong. It was not a Kingdom answer. But how about Christ’s disciples today? Are they facing this issue honestly? It seems to me we are trying hard to disannul Jesus’ word.

Cecil W. Tuininga is pastor of the Grande Prairie-La Glace Christian Reformed Church, Alberta, Canada.