Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
8. because of the hardness of your hearts ] Literally, having respect to, with a view to the hardness of your hearts towards God. So the law was relatively good, not absolutely. A great principle. Even now all are not capable of the higher religious life or of the deepest truths. Some interpret “hardness of heart,” of the cruelty of men towards their wives.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He saith unto them … – Jesus admits that this was allowed, but still he contends that this was not the original design of marriage. It was only a temporary expedient growing out of a special state of things, and not designed to be perpetual. It was on account of the hardness of their hearts. Moses found the custom in use. He found a hard-hearted and rebellious people. In this state of things he did not deem it prudent to forbid a practice so universal; but it might be regulated; and, instead of suffering the husband to divorce his wife in a passion, he required him, in order that he might take time to consider the matter, and thus make it probable that divorces would be less frequent, to give her a writing; to sit down deliberately to look at the matter, and probably, also, to bring the case before some scribe or learned man, to write a divorce in the legal form. Thus doing, there might be an opportunity for the matter to be reconciled, and the man to be persuaded not to divorce his wife. This, says our Saviour, was a permission growing out of a particular state of things, and designed to remedy a prevailing evil; but at first it was not so. God intended that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and that they were only to be separated, in the case specified, by him who had formed the union.
Hardness of your hearts – He speaks here of his hearers as a part of the nation. The hardness of you Jews; as when we say, we fought with England and gained our independence; that is, we, the American people, though it was done by our fathers. He does not mean to say, therefore, that this was done on account of the people whom he addressed, but of the national hardness of heart – the stubbornness of the Jewish people as a people.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts] It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command. Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands: for so the word , is understood in this place by some learned men.
From the beginning it was not so] The Jews named the books of the law from the first word in each. Genesis they always term Bereshith, , which is the first word in it, and signifies, In the beginning. It is probable that our Lord speaks in this way here, In Bereshith it was not so, intimating that the account given in Genesis is widely different. There was no divorce between Eve and Adam; nor did he or his family practise polygamy. But our Lord, by the beginning, may mean the original intention or design.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
8. He saith unto them, Mosesasa civil lawgiver.
because ofor “havingrespect to.”
the hardness of yourheartslooking to your low moral state, and your inability toendure the strictness of the original law.
suffered you to put away yourwivestolerated a relaxation of the strictness of the marriagebondnot as approving of it, but to prevent still greater evils.
But from the beginning it wasnot soThis is repeated, in order to impress upon His audiencethe temporary and purely civil character of this Mosaic relaxation.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He saith unto them,…. In answer to their objection;
Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: in which may be observed, that, though it was by direction that Moses, in his system of laws, allowed of divorces; yet not God, but he is said to do it, because it was a branch of the political and judicial laws, by which the people of the Jews were governed under Moses, and whilst the Mosaic economy continued, and did not concern other people, and other times; and therefore it is said “you” and “your” wives, you Jews, and you only, and not the Gentiles. And so the Jews say m, that the Gentiles have no divorces: for thus they represent God, saying;
“in Israel I have granted divorces, I have not granted divorces among the nations of the world. R. Chananiah, in the name of R. Phineas, observed, that in every other section it is written, the Lord of hosts, but here it is written, the God of Israel; to teach thee, that the holy, blessed God does not join his name to divorces, but in Israel only. R. Chayah Rabbah says, , “the Gentiles have no divorces.””
Besides, this was a direct positive command to the Jews, as the Pharisees suggest in their objection; it was only a sufferance, a permission in some cases, and not in everyone; and that because of the hardness of their hearts; they being such a stubborn and inflexible people, that when they were once displeased there was no reconciling them; and so malicious and revengeful, that if this had not been granted, would have used their wives, that displeased them, in a most cruel, and barbarous manner, if not have murdered them: so that this grant was made, not to indulge their lusts, but to prevent greater evils; and not so much as a privilege and liberty to the men, as in favour of the women; who, when they could not live peaceably and comfortably with a man, might be dismissed and marry another:
but from the beginning it was not so; from the beginning of time, or of the creation, or of the world, or at the first institution of marriage, and in the first ages of the world, there was no such permission, nor any such practice. This was not the declared will of God at first, nor was it ever done by any good men before the times of Moses; we never read that Adam, or Seth, or Noah, or Abraham, put away their wives, upon any consideration; though in the latter there might have been some appearance of reason for so doing, on account of sterility, but this he did not; nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any of the “patriarchs”.
m T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 58. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For your hardness of heart ( ). The word is apparently one of the few Biblical words (LXX and the N.T.). It is a heart dried up (), hard and tough.
But from the beginning it hath not been so (‘ ). The present perfect active of to emphasize the permanence of the divine ideal. “The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force” (Vincent). “How small the Pharisaic disputants must have felt in presence of such holy teaching, which soars above the partisan view of controversialists into the serene region of ideal, universal, eternal truth” (Bruce).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Because of [] . Rev., for : having regard to.
It was not so [ ] . The A. V. is commonly understood to mean, it was not so in the beginning. But that is not Christ ‘s meaning. The verb is in the perfect tense (denoting the continuance of past action or its results down to the present). He means : Notwithstanding Moses ‘ permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
(8) Moses because of the hardness of your hearts.The force of the answer lies (1) in emphasized substitution of suffered for commanded. The scribes of the school of Hillel had almost turned divorce into a duty, even when there was no ground for it but incompatibility of temper or other lesser fault, as if Deu. 24:1 had enjoined the writing of divorcement in such cases. (2) In the grounds assigned for the permission. Our Lords position in the controversy between the two schools was analogous to that in which those who are true at once to principles and facts not seldom find themselves. He agreed, as we have seen, with the ideal of marriage maintained by the followers of Shammai. He accepted as a legitimate interpretation of the Law that of the followers of Hillel. But He proclaimed, with an authority greater than that of Moses, that his legislation on this point was a step backwards when compared with the primary law of nature, which had been from the beginning, and only so far a step forward because the people had fallen into a yet lower state, in which the observance of the higher law was practically impossible. But for the possibility of divorce the wife would have been the victim of the husbands tyranny; and law, which has to deal with facts, was compelled to choose the least of two evils. Two important consequences, it will be obvious, flow from the reasoning thus enforced: (1) that the hardness of heart which made this concession necessary may be admitted as at least a partial explanation of whatever else in the Law of Moses strikes us as deviating from the standard of eternal righteousness embodied in the law of Christas, e.g., the tolerance of polygamy and slavery, and the severity of punishment for seeming trivial faults; (2) that the principle is one of wider application than the particular instance, and that where a nation calling itself Christian has sunk so low as to exhibit the hardness of heart of Jews or heathens, there also a concessive legislation may be forced upon the State even while the churches assert their witness of the higher truth.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. Because of the hardness of your hearts Because the rigidness of the moral law, if enforced by civil law, would be by you made an occasion of still greater wrong. You would have murdered your wives to be rid of them. Suffered you He did not command you. And he who availed himself of the permission was none the less guilty of sin. He was not indeed amenable to Moses, but he was still amenable to God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘He says to them, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so.”
Jesus’ reply was that Moses had not ‘commanded’ the putting away of wives, but had simply ‘allowed’ it. And that had only been because of the hardness of men’s hearts. Men’s hearts had been so hardened against the will of God that they had established customs to allow divorce under certain circumstances. Moses had then simply sought to control the customs which they practised so as to prevent worse sin arising. But ‘from the beginning’ it had not been so. Custom could not replace God’s stated will and purpose, and that was that marriage was inviolate. Man’s customs were in fact against the will of God. Nor did the Law permit them. It simply legislated for what happened after men had disobediently followed their customs.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 19:8. Because of the hardness of your hearts He meant their passionate, stubborn, perverse temper, which was such, that had they not been permitted to divorce their wives, some would not have scrupled to murder them; others would have got rid of them by suborning witnesses to prove the crime of adultery against them. Others would have reckoned it great mildness, if they had contented themselves with separating from their wives, and living unmarried. Moses therefore acted as a prudent lawgiver in allowing other causes of divorce besides adultery; because, by admitting the less, he avoided the greater evil. At the same time the Jews, whose hardness of heart rendered this expedient necessary, were chargeable with all the evils that followed it; for which reason, as often as they divorced their wives, unless in the case of adultery, they sinned against the original law of marriage, and were criminal in the sight of God, notwithstanding that their law allowed such divorces. Our Lord, as Grotius well observes, stronglyintimates, that a more tender disposition than that whichcharacterizedthe Jews under the Mosaic dispensation, might justly be expected from his disciples.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 19:8 . ] out of regard to , with (wise) consideration so as to avert greater evil.
] stubbornness of heart (Mar 16:14 ; Rom 2:5 ; Act 7:51 ; Sir 16:10 ; Deu 10:16 ), which will not be persuaded to self-reflection, gentleness, patience, forbearance, etc.; , . , , Euthymius Zigabenus.
] non ita factum est , namely, that a man should have permission to put away his wife. The above primitive institution of God is accordingly not abrogated by Moses, who, on account of the moral obduracy of the people, is rather to be understood as only granting a dispensation in the form of a letter of divorce, that the woman might be protected against the rude severity of the man.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Ver. 8. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts ] Ob duricordiam vestram, saith Tertullian. For the relief of the wife, questionless, was this permitted by Moses, not as a prophet, but as a lawgiver; so he suffered them to exercise usury upon strangers. And, at this day, they are, by the states where they live, permitted to strain up their usury to eighteen in the hundred (18%) upon the Christians. And so they are used, as the friars, to suck from the meanest, and to be sucked by the greatest. But what saith our statute? Forasmuch as all usury, being forbidden by the law of God, is a sin and detestable, &c. And what saith our homily book? Verily so many as increase themselves by usury-they have their goods of the devil’s gift, &c. And what saith blind nature? Aristotle in one page condemneth both and , the usurer and the gambler. And Agis, the Athenian general, set fire upon all the usurer’s books and bonds in the marketplace than which fire Agesilaus was wont to say, he never saw a fairer. But to return to the text: Moses noteth the hatred of a man’s wife to be the cause of much mischief,Deu 22:13-14Deu 22:13-14 . Hence a divorce was allowed in that case, Deu 24:3 , lest the husband’s hatred should work the wife’s ruth or ruin, in case he should be compelled to keep her. He might put her away, therefore, but not without a double blur to himself. 1. By his writing of divorce, he should give testimony to her honesty, and that she was put away merely for his hard-heartedness toward her. 2. If she were again put away by a second husband, the first might not take her to wife again, as having once for ever judged himself unworthy of her further fellowship. Husbands should be gentle to their wives, because of their weakness: glasses are not hardly handled; a small knock soon breaks them. But there are a number of Nabals, a brood of Chaldeans, a bitter and furious nation, that have little growing in their furrows but wormwood; they have a true gall of bitterness in them, Col 3:20 , whereas the very heathens, at their weddings, pulled the gall out of all their good cheer, and cast it away; teaching thereby the married couples what to do ( , . Plut.). And God Almighty professeth that he hates putting away; threatening also to cut off such unkind husbands as by their harshness caused their wives, when they should have been cheerful in God’s services, to cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with crying out, so that he regarded not the offering any more, Mal 2:13 . Picus est imago ingrati mariti, the saith Melancthon. The piannet (magpie) is an emblem of an unkind husband, for in autumn he casts off his mate, lest he should be forced to keep her in winter: afterwards, in the spring, he allures her to him again, and makes much of her. The Athenians were wont to put away their wives upon discontent, or hope of greater portions. Solon, their lawgiver (who permitted it), being asked whether he had given the best laws to the Athenians? answered, The best that they could handle.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 19:8 . ., with reference to. : a word found here and in several places in O. T. (Sept [110] ), not in profane writers; points to a state of heart which cannot submit to the restraints of a high and holy law, literally uncircumcisedness of heart (Deu 10:16 ; Jer 4:4 ). , permitted, not enjoined. Moses is respectfully spoken of as one who would gladly have welcomed a better state of things; no blame imputed except to the people who compelled or welcomed such imperfect legislation ( twice in Mat 19:8 ). , etc.: the state of things which made the Mosaic rule necessary was a declension from the primitive ideal.
[110] Septuagint.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
because of = in view of, or having regard to. Greek. pros. App-104.
suffered = allowed.
was not so: i.e. from the first constitution down to Moses.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 19:8. , for, because of[859])-, permitted) not , enjoined, except in that sense in which St Mark (Mar 10:3) employs the word.- , in the beginning) The origin of wedlock was recorded also by the same Moses, from whom our Lord demonstrates the matter.
[859] , the hardness of heart) So great is the perversity of the human mind, that there are not a few things by which it ought to be put to the blush, as the jews ought to have been in the case of the writing of divorcement, but which it abuses to a preposterous clearing (justification) of itself.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Moses
Thus confirming the Mosaic authorship of Deut.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
because: Psa 95:8, Zec 7:12, Mal 2:13, Mal 2:14, Mar 10:5
suffered: Mat 3:15, Mat 8:31, 1Co 7:6
but: Gen 2:24, Gen 7:7, Jer 6:16
Reciprocal: Gen 4:19 – two wives Deu 22:19 – he may not put 1Sa 1:2 – two 1Sa 25:43 – both 1Ch 14:3 – took Mat 5:32 – whosoever Joh 5:45 – in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
19:8
Jesus did not say that the original law of marriage had been repealed. Neither did he say that Moses ignored it and “permitted” them to divorce their wives as it is so frequently stated. There is a vast difference between permitting a thing and suffering it. The first is equivalent to an endorsement but the second means only to tolerate something under protest. The people had become so hardened in worldliness that the original law was held off for the time being. But that period of indulgence was over when Jesus spoke and man was to be held to the law of marriage as it existed from the beginning and as Jesus stated it in verses 4 and 5.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[Because Moses for the hardness of your hearts suffered, etc.] interpreters ordinarily understand this of the unkindness of men towards their wives; and that not illy: but at first sight hardness of heart for the most part in Scripture denotes rather obduration against God than against men. Examples occur everywhere. Nor does this sense want its fitness in this place: not to exclude the other, but to be joined with it here.
I. That God delivered that rebellious people for the hardness of their hearts to spiritual fornication, that is, to idolatry, sufficiently appears out of sacred story, and particularly from these words of the first martyr Stephen, Act 7:42; God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; etc. And they seem not less given up to carnal fornication, if you observe the horrid records of their adulteries in the Holy Scripture, and their not less horrid allowances of divorces and polygamies in the books of the Talmudists: so that the particle…carries with it a very proper sense, if you interpret it to; according to its most usual signification; “Moses to the hardness of your hearts added this, that he permitted divorces; something that savours of punishment in itself, however you esteem it for a privilege.”
II. But you may interpret it more clearly and aptly of the inhumanity of husbands towards their wives: but this is to be understood also under restriction: for Moses permitted not divorces, because, simply and generally men were severe and unkind towards their wives; for then, why should he restrain divorces to the cause of adultery? But because, from their fierceness and cruelty towards their wives, they might take hold of and seek occasions from that law which punished adultery with death, to prosecute their wives with all manner of severity, to oppress them, to kill them.
Let us search into the divine laws in case of adultery a little more largely.
1. There was a law made upon the suspicion of adultery, that the wife should undergo a trial by the bitter waters, Numbers_5; but it is disputed by the Jewish schools, rightly and upon good ground, whether the husband was bound in this case by duty to prosecute his wife to extremity, or whether it were lawful for him to connive at and pardon her, if he would. And there are some who say he was bound by duty; and there are others who say that it was left to his pleasure.
2. There was a law of death made in case of the discovery of adultery, Deu 22:21-23; “If a man shall be found lying with a married woman, both shall die,” etc. Not that this law was not in force unless they were taken in the very act; but the word shall be found is opposed to suspicion, and means the same as if it were said, “When it shall be found that a man hath lain,” etc.
3. A law of divorce also was given in case of adultery discovered, Deu 24:1; for in that case only, and when it is discovered, it plainly appears from our Saviour’s gloss, and from the concession of some Rabbins also, that divorces took place: for, say they in the place last cited, “Does a man find something foul in his wife? he cannot put her away, because he hath not found foul nakedness in her “; that is, adultery.
But now, how do the law of death and that of divorce consist together? It is answered, They do not so consist together that both retain their force; but the former was partly taken off by the latter, and partly not. The Divine Wisdom knew that inhuman husbands would use that law of death unto all manner of cruelty towards their wives: for how ready was it for a wicked and unkind husband to lay snares even for his innocent wife, if he were weary of her, to oppress her under that law of death! And if she were taken under guilt, how cruelly and insolently would he triumph over her, poor woman, both to the disgrace of wedlock and to the scandal of religion! Therefore the most prudent, and withal merciful lawgiver, made provision that the woman, if she were guilty, might not go without her punishment; and if she were not guilty, might go without danger; and that the wicked husband that was impatient of wedlock might not satiate his cruelty. That which is said by one does not please me, “That there was no place for divorce where matrimony was broke off by capital punishment”; for there was place for divorce for that end, that there might not be place for capital punishment. That law indeed of death held the adulterer in a snare, and exacted capital punishment upon him, and so the law made sufficient provision for terror: but it consulted more gently for the woman, the weaker vessel, lest the cruelty of her husband might unmercifully triumph over her.
Therefore, in the suspicion of adultery, and the thing not discovered, the husband might, if he would, try his wife by the bitter waters; or if he would he might connive at her. In case of the discovery of adultery, the husband might put away his wife, but he scarce might put her to death; because the law of divorce was given for that very end, that provision might be made for the woman against the hardheartedness of her husband.
Let this story serve for a conclusion; “Shemaiah and Abtalion compelled Carchemith, a libertine woman-servant, to drink the bitter waters.” The husband of this woman could not put her away by the law of Moses, because she was not found guilty of discovered adultery. He might put her away by the traditional law, which permitted divorces without the case of adultery; he might not, if he had pleased, have brought her to trial by the bitter waters; but it argued the hardness of his heart towards his wife, or burning jealousy, that he brought her. I do not remember that I have anywhere in the Jewish pandect read any example of a wife punished with death for adultery. There is mention of the daughter of a certain priest committing fornication in her father’s house, that was burnt alive; but she was not married.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 19:8. Suffered you. The Mosaic regulations were merely permissive, growing out of their sinfulness, especially their disposition to be harsh toward their wives.
But from the beginning it hath not been so. In the original state in Paradise. Polygamy appears first (Gen 4:19) in conjunction with murder, and in the line of Cain.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 8
The meaning is, that Moses, as a political legislator, attempted to regulate late an evil which he could not hope wholly to suppress.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
19:8 He saith unto them, Moses {f} because of the hardness of your hearts {g} suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
(f) Being brought about because of the hardness of your hearts.
(g) By a political law, not by the moral law: for the moral law is a perpetual law of God’s justice; the other bows and bends as the carpenter’s bevel.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus explained that the concession in the Mosaic Law was just that, a concession. It did not reflect the will of God in creation but the hardness of the human heart. Divorce was not a part of God’s creation ordinance any more than sin was. However, He permitted divorce, as He permitted sin.
"Moses regulated, but thereby conceded, the practice of divorce; both were with a view to (pros) the nation’s (hymon) hardness of heart: since they persist in falling short of the ideal of Eden, let it at least be within limits." [Note: M’Neile, p. 273.]
The divorce option that God granted the Israelites testifies to man’s sinfulness. Therefore one should always view divorce as evidence of sin, specifically hardness of heart. He or she should never view it as simply a morally neutral option that God granted, the correctness or incorrectness of which depended on the definition of the indecency. The Pharisees’ fundamental attitude toward the issue was wrong. They were looking for grounds for divorce. Jesus was stressing the inviolability of the marriage relationship.
Notice in passing that Jesus never associated Himself with the sin in the discussion. He consistently spoke of the peoples’ sin as their sin or your sin, never as our sin (cf. Mat 6:14-15). This is a fine point that reveals Jesus’ awareness that He was sinless.
What was the indecency for which Moses permitted divorce? It was not adultery since the penalty for that was death, not divorce (Deu 22:22). However, it is debatable whether the Israelites enforced the death penalty for adultery. [Note: See Henry McKeating, "Sanctions Against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11 (1979):57-72.] It could not be suspicion of adultery either since there was a specified procedure for handling those cases (Num 5:5-31). Probably it was any gross immoral behavior short of adultery, namely, fornication, which includes all types of prohibited sexual behavior. Even though divorce was widespread and easy to obtain in the ancient Near East, and in Israel, the Israelites took marriage somewhat more seriously than their pagan neighbors did.