Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
3. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? ] The words “for every cause” are omitted in Mark. In Matthew they contain the pith of the question: “Is the husband’s right to divorce his wife quite unlimited?” The school of Shammai allowed divorce in the case of adultery, the school of Hillel on any trivial pretext.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
3 12. The Question of Marriage and Divorce
Mar 10:2-9
Mat 19:10-12 are peculiar to Matthew. St Mark mentions the part of the conversation contained in Mat 19:9 as having taken place “in the house,” Mat 19:10-12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Pharisees came – See the notes at Mat 3:7.
Tempting him – This means, to get him, if possible, to express an opinion that should involve him in difficulty.
Is it lawful … – There was the more art in the captious question which they proposed, as at that time the people were very much divided on the subject. A part, following the opinions of Hillel, said that a man might divorce his wife for any offence, or any dislike he might have of her. See the notes at Mat 5:31. Others, of the school of Shammai, maintained that divorce was unlawful except in case of adultery. Whatever opinion, therefore, Christ expressed, they expected that he would involve himself in difficulty with one of their parties.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. Tempting him] Trying what answer he would give to a question, which, however decided by him, would expose him to censure.
Is it lawful – for every cause?] Instead of , fault, cause, reason, three MSS. and the Coptic version read , sin or transgression: this was probably the original reading-the first syllable being lost, alone would remain, which a subsequent transcriber would suppose to be a mistake for , and so wrote it; hence this various reading. What made our Lord’s situation at present so critical in respect to this question was: At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of SHAMMAI, and that of HILLEL. On the question of divorce, the school of Shammai maintained, that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight; i.e. when he saw any other woman that pleased him better. See the case of Josephus, mentioned in Clarke’s note on “Mt 5:31“, and Calmet’s Comment, vol. i. part ii. p. 379. By answering the question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their malice, and confounded their devices.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Our Saviour, though yet at some distance from Jerusalem, was come into that province where the Pharisees had the greatest power, and were in greater numbers: now they come to him,
tempting him; where the word tempting rather signifies, generally, making a trial of him, than strictly, soliciting him to sin; they came (as appeareth by their question) to make a trial whether they could entrap him, and get any determination from him of a point for which they might accuse him. The question they propound to him is,
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The word here translated cause, signifieth not cause, or occasion, but crime also. So it may be translated crime; but they did not only put away their wives for crimes, but upon any occasion, in abuse of that text, Deu 24:1, When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; which the Pharisees had interpreted of any kind of deformity, or natural infirmity, not merely of moral uncleanness. Had our Saviour now answered Yes, he had contradicted what he had formerly delivered, Mat 5:32; had he denied, they had trapped him as contradicting the law of Moses, Deu 24:1, according to their interpretation of it. So they had whereof to accuse him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. Is it lawful for a man to putaway his wife for every cause?Two rival schools (as we saw onMt 5:31) were divided on thisquestiona delicate one, as DEWETTE pertinently remarks,in the dominions of Herod Antipas.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The Pharisees also came unto him,…. Either from the places round about, or from Jerusalem: these came unto him, not for the sake of learning, or to be instructed by him; but as spies upon him, to observe what he said and did, and watch every opportunity to expose him to the contempt and hatred of the people;
tempting him with a question about divorces, in order to ensnare him:
and saying to him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? be it ever so trivial, as said the school of Hillell: for there was a difference between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillell about this matter; the former insisted that a man might not put away his wife but in case of uncleanness; but the latter allowed putting away for very trifling things; as if she spoiled her husband’s food by over roasting, or over salting it; and, as one of the doctors say, if he found another woman that was more beautiful than her; see Gill “Mt 5:32”. This question being now agitated in the schools, they artfully put to Christ; not for information, but with a view to reproach him in some way or other; and that he might incur the resentment of one party or another, as he should answer. They might argue thus with themselves, and hope to succeed in this manner; should he be on the side of the school of Shammai, which was the weakest side, and less popular, as they had reason to believe he would, he would then expose himself to the resentment of the school of Hillell, and all on that side the question; should he take the part of Hillell, he would make the school of Shammai his enemies; should he forbid putting away of wives, which Moses allowed, they would then traduce him as contrary to Moses, and his law, which could not fail of setting the people against him; and should he consent to it, they would charge him with contradicting himself, or with inconstancy in his doctrine, since he had before asserted the unlawfulness of it, but in case of adultery; and should he abide by this, they might hope to irritate the men against him, who would think their liberty granted by Moses was entrenched on; as, on the other hand, should he, according to the question, admit of putting away for every cause, the women would be provoked at him, who would be left to the uncertain humour and caprice of their husbands; so that either way they hoped to get an advantage of him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Law of Divorce. |
| |
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
We have here the law of Christ in the case of divorce, occasioned, as some other declarations of his will, by a dispute with the Pharisees. So patiently did he endure the contradiction of sinners, that he turned it into instructions to his own disciples! Observe, here
I. The case proposed by the Pharisees (v. 3); Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? This they asked, tempting him, not desiring to be taught by him. Some time ago, he had, in Galilee, declared his mind in this matter, against that which was the common practice (Mat 5:31; Mat 5:32); and if he would, in like manner, declare himself now against divorce, they would make use of it for the prejudicing and incensing of the people of this country against him, who would look with a jealous eye upon one that attempted to cut them short in a liberty they were fond of. They hoped he would lose himself in the affections of the people as much by this as by any of his precepts. Or, the temptation might be designed this: If he should say that divorces were not lawful, they would reflect upon him as an enemy to the law of Moses, which allowed them; if he should say that they were, they would represent his doctrine as not having that perfection in it which was expected in the doctrine of the Messiah; since, though divorces were tolerated, they were looked upon by the stricter sort of people as not of good report. Some think, that, though the law of Moses did permit divorce, yet, in assigning the just causes for it, there was a controversy between the Pharisees among themselves, and they desired to know what Christ said to it. Matrimonial cases have been numerous, and sometimes intricate and perplexed; made so not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often in these cases people resolve, before they ask, what they will do.
Their question is, Whether a man may put away his wife for every cause. That it might be done for some cause, even for that of fornication, was granted; but may it be done, as now it commonly was done, by the looser sort of people, for every cause; for any cause that a man shall think fit to assign, though ever so frivolous; upon every dislike or displeasure? The toleration, in this case, permitted it, in case she found no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, Deut. xxiv. 1. This they interpreted so largely as to make any disgust, though causeless, the ground of a divorce.
II. Christ’s answer to this question; though it was proposed to tempt him, yet, being a case of conscience, and a weighty one, he gave a full answer to it, not a direct one, but an effectual one; laying down such principles as undeniably prove that such arbitrary divorces as were then in use, which made the matrimonial bond so very precarious, were by no means lawful. Christ himself would not give the rule without a reason, nor lay down his judgment without scripture proof to support it. Now his argument is this; “If husband and wife are by the will and appointment of God joined together in the strictest and closest union, then they are not to be lightly, and upon every occasion, separated; if the know be sacred, it cannot be easily untied.” Now, to prove that there is such a union between man and wife, he urges three things.
1. The creation of Adam and Eve, concerning which he appeals to their own knowledge of the scriptures; Have ye not read? It is some advantage in arguing, to deal with those that own, and have read, the scriptures; Ye have read (but have not considered) that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female,Gen 1:27; Gen 5:2. Note, It will be of great use to us often to think of our creation, how and by whom, what and for what, we were created. He made them male and female, one female for one male; so that Adam could not divorce his wife, and take another, for there was no other to take. It likewise intimated an inseparable union between them; Eve was a rib out of Adam’s side, so that he could not put her away, but he must put away a piece of himself, and contradict the manifest indications of her creation. Christ hints briefly at this, but, in appealing to what they had read, he refers them to the original record, where it is observable, that, though the rest of the living creatures were made male and female, yet it is not said so concerning any of them, but only concerning mankind; because between man and woman the conjunction is rational, and intended for nobler purposes than merely the pleasing of sense and the preserving of a seed; and it is therefore more close and firm than that between male and female among the brutes, who were not capable of being such help–meets for one another as Adam and Ever were. Hence the manner of expression is somewhat singular (Gen. i. 27), In the image of God created he him, male and female created he them; him and them are used promiscuously; being one by creation before they were two, when they became one again by marriage-covenant, that oneness could not but be closer and indissoluble.
2. The fundamental law of marriage, which is, that a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, v. 5. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parents and children; now, if the filial relation may not easily be violated, much less may the marriage union be broken. May a child desert his parents, or may a parent abandon his children, for any cause, for every cause? No, by no means. Much less may a husband put away his wife, betwixt whom, though not by nature, yet by divine appointment, the relation is nearer, and the bond of union stronger, than between parents and children; for that is in a great measure superseded by marriage, when a man must leave his parents, to cleave to his wife. See here the power of a divine institution, that the result of it is a union stronger than that which results from the highest obligations of nature.
3. The nature of the marriage contract; it is a union of persons; They twain shall be one flesh, so that (v. 6) they are no more twain, but one flesh. A man’s children are pieces of himself, but his wife is himself. As the conjugal union is closer than that between parents and children, so it is in a manner equivalent to that between one member and another in the natural body. As this is a reason why husbands should love their wives, so it is a reason why they should not put away their wives, for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, or cut it off, but nourishes and cherishes it, and does all he can to preserve it. They two shall be one, therefore there must be but one wife, for God made but one Eve for one Adam, Mal. ii. 15.
From hence he infers, What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Note, (1.) Husband and wife are of God’s joining together; synezeuxen—he hath yoked them together, so the word is, and it is very significant. God himself instituted the relation between husband and wife in the state of innocence. Marriage and the sabbath are the most ancient of divine ordinances. Though marriage be not peculiar to the church, but common to the world, yet, being stamped with a divine institution, and here ratified by our Lord Jesus, it ought to be managed after a godly sort, and sanctified by the word of God, and prayer. A conscientious regard to God in this ordinance would have a good influence upon the duty, and consequently upon the comfort, of the relation. (2.) Husband and wife, being joined together by the ordinance of God, are not to be put asunder by any ordinance of man. Let not man put them asunder; not the husband himself, nor any one for him; not the magistrate, God never gave him authority to do it. The God of Israel hath said, that he hateth putting away, Mal. ii. 16. It is a general rule that man must not go about to put asunder what God hath joined together.
III. An objection started by the Pharisees against this; an objection not destitute of colour and plausibility (v. 7); “Why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, in case a man did put away his wife?” He urged scripture reason against divorce; they allege scripture authority for it. Note, The seeming contradictions that are in the word of God are great stumbling-blocks to men of corrupt minds. It is true, Moses was faithful to him that appointed him, and commanded nothing but what he received from the Lord; but as to the thing itself, what they call a command was only as allowance (Deut. xxiv. 1), and designed rather to restrain the exorbitances of it than to give countenance to the thing itself. The Jewish doctors themselves observe such limitations in that law, that it could not be done without great deliberation. A particular reason must be assigned, the bill of divorce must be written, and, as a judicial act, must have all the solemnities of a deed, executed and enrolled. It must be given into the hands of the wife herself, and (which would oblige men, if they had any consideration in them, to consider) they were expressly forbidden ever to come together again.
IV. Christ’s answer to this objection, in which,
1. He rectifies their mistake concerning the law of Moses; they called it a command, Christ calls it but a permission, a toleration. Carnal hearts will take an ell if but an inch be given them. The law of Moses, in this case, was a political law, which God gave, as the Governor of that people; and it was for reasons of state, that divorces were tolerated. The strictness of the marriage union being the result, not of a natural, but of a positive law, the wisdom of God dispensed with divorces in some cases, without any impeachment of his holiness.
But Christ tells them there was a reason for this toleration, not at all for their credit; It was because of the hardness of your hearts, that you were permitted to put away your wives. Moses complained of the people of Israel in his time, that their hearts were hardened (Deu 9:6; Deu 31:27), hardened against God; this is here meant of their being hardened against their relations; they were generally violent and outrageous, which way soever they took, both in their appetites and in their passions; and therefore if they had not been allowed to put away their wives, when they had conceived a dislike of them, they would have used them cruelly, would have beaten and abused them, and perhaps have murdered them. Note, There is not a greater piece of hard-heartedness in the world, than for a man to be harsh and severe with his own wife. The Jews, it seems, were infamous for this, and therefore were allowed to put them away; better divorce them than do worse, than that the altar of the Lord should be covered with tears, Mal. ii. 13. A little compliance, to humour a madman, or a man in a frenzy, may prevent a greater mischief. Positive laws may be dispensed with for the preservation of the law of nature, for God will have mercy and not sacrifice; but then those are hard-hearted wretches, who have made it necessary; and none can wish to have the liberty of divorce, without virtually owning the hardness of their hearts. Observe, He saith, It is for the hardness of your hearts, not only theirs who lived then, but all their seed. Note, God not only sees, but foresees, the hardness of men’s hearts; he suited both the ordinances and providences of the Old Testament to the temper of that people, both in terror. Further observe, The law of Moses considered the hardness of men’s hearts, but the gospel of Christ cures it; and his grace takes away the heart of stone, and gives a heart of flesh. By the law was the knowledge of sin, but by the gospel was the conquest of it.
2. He reduces them to the original institution; But from the beginning it was not so. Note, Corruptions that are crept into any ordinance of God must be purged out by having recourse to the primitive institution. If the copy be vicious, it must be examined and corrected by the original. Thus, when St. Paul would redress the grievances in the church of Corinth about the Lord’s supper, he appealed to the appointment (1 Cor. xi. 23), So and so I received from the Lord. Truth was from the beginning; we must therefore enquire for the good old way (Jer. vi. 16), and must reform, mot by later patterns, but by ancient rules.
3. He settles the point by an express law; I say unto you (v. 9); and it agrees with what he said before (ch. v. 32); there it was said in preaching, here in dispute, but it is the same, for Christ is constant to himself. Now, in both these places,
(1.) He allows divorce, in case of adultery; the reason of the law against divorce being this, They two shall be one flesh. If the wife play the harlot, and make herself one flesh with an adulterer, the reason of the law ceases, and so does the law. By the law of Moses adultery was punished with death, Deut. xxii. 22. Now our Saviour mitigates the rigour of that, and appoints divorce to be the penalty. Dr. Whitby understands this, not of adultery, but (because our Saviour uses the word porneia—fornication) of uncleanness committed before marriage, but discovered afterward; because, if it were committed after, it was a capital crime, and there needed no divorce.
(2.) He disallows it in all other cases: Whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. This is a direct answer to their query, that it is not lawful. In this, as in other things, gospel times are times of reformation, Heb. ix. 10. The law of Christ tends to reinstate man in his primitive integrity; the law of love, conjugal love, is no new commandment, but was from the beginning. If we consider what mischiefs to families and states, what confusions and disorders, would follow upon arbitrary divorces, we shall see how much this law of Christ is for our own benefit, and what a friend Christianity is to our secular interests.
The law of Moses allowing divorce for the hardness of men’s hearts, and the law of Christ forbidding it, intimate, that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, that they will not be hard-hearted, like Jews, for God has called us to peace. There will be no occasion for divorces, if we forbear one another, and forgive one another, in love, as those that are, and hope to be, forgiven, and have found God not forward to put us away, Isa. l. 1. No need of divorces, if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands, and they live together as heirs of the grace of life: and these are the laws of Christ, such as we find not in all the law of Moses.
V. Here is a suggestion of the disciples against this law of Christ (v. 10); If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is better not to marry. It seems, the disciples themselves were loth to give up the liberty of divorce, thinking it a good expedient for preserving comfort in the married state; and therefore, like sullen children, if they have not what they would have, they will throw away what they have. If they may not be allowed to put away their wives when they please, they will have no wives at all; though, from the beginning, when no divorce was allowed, God said, It is not good for man to be alone, and blessed them, pronounced them blessed who were thus strictly joined together; yet, unless they may have a liberty of divorce, they think it is good for a man not to marry. Note, 1. Corrupt nature is impatient of restraint, and would fain break Christ’s bonds in sunder, and have a liberty for its own lusts. 2. It is a foolish, peevish thing for men to abandon the comforts of this life, because of the crosses that are commonly woven in with them, as if we must needs go out of the world, because we have not every thing to our mind in the world; or must enter into no useful calling or condition, because it is made our duty to abide in it. No, whatever our condition is, we must bring our minds to it, be thankful for its comforts, submissive to its crosses, and, as God has done, set the one over against the other, and make the best of that which is, Eccl. vii. 14. If the yoke of marriage may not be thrown off at pleasure, it does not follow that therefore we must not come under it; but therefore, when we do come under it, we must resolve to comport with it, by love, and meekness, and patience, which will make divorce the most unnecessary undesirable thing that can be.
VI. Christ’s answer to this suggestion (Mat 19:11; Mat 19:12), in which,
1. He allows it good for some not to marry; He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Christ allowed what the disciples said, It is good not to marry; not as an objection against the prohibition of divorce, as they intended it, but as giving them a rule (perhaps no less unpleasing to them), that they who have the gift of continence, and are not under any necessity of marrying, do best if they continue single (1 Cor. vii. 1); for they that are unmarried have opportunity, if they have but a heart, to care more for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord (1 Cor. vii. 32-34), being less encumbered with the cares of this life, and having a greater vacancy of thought and time to mind better things. The increase of grace is better than the increase of the family, and fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ is to be preferred before any other fellowship.
2. He disallows it, as utterly mischievous, to forbid marriage, because all men cannot receive this saying; indeed few can, and therefore the crosses of the married state must be borne, rather than that men should run themselves into temptation, to avoid them; better marry than burn.
Christ speaks here of a twofold unaptness to marriage.
(1.) That which is a calamity by the providence of God; such as those labour under who are born eunuchs, or made so by men, who, being incapable of answering one great end of marriage, ought not to marry. But to that calamity let them oppose the opportunity that there is in the single state of serving God better, to balance it.
(2.) That which is a virtue by the grace of God; such is theirs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. This is meant of an unaptness for marriage, not in body (which some, through mistake of this scripture, have foolishly and wickedly brought upon themselves), but in mind. Those have thus made themselves eunuchs who have attained a holy indifference to all the delights of the married state, have a fixed resolution, in the strength of God’s grace, wholly to abstain from them; and by fasting, and other instances of mortification, have subdued all desires toward them. These are they that can receive this saying; and yet these are not to bind themselves by a vow that they will never marry, only that, in the mind they are now in, they purpose not to marry.
Now, [1.] This affection to the single state must be given of God; for none can receive it, save they to whom it is given. Note, Continence is a special gift of God to some, and not to others; and when a man, in the single state, finds by experience that he has this gift, he may determine with himself, and (as the apostle speaks, 1 Cor. vii. 37), stand steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power over his own will, that he will keep himself so. But men, in this case, must take heed lest they boast of a false gift, Prov. xxv. 14.
[2.] The single state must be chosen for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; in those who resolve never to marry, only that they may save charges, or may gratify a morose selfish humour, or have a greater liberty to serve other lusts and pleasures, it is so far from being a virtue, that it is an ill-natured vice; but when it is for religion’s sake, not as in itself a meritorious act (which papists make it), but only as a means to keep our minds more entire for, and more intent upon, the services of religion, and that, having no families to provide for, we may do the more works of charity, then it is approved and accepted of God. Note, That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and stuck to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to the preparing of us for, and the preserving of us to, the kingdom of heaven.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Pharisees tempting him ( ). They “could not ask a question of Jesus without sinister motives” (Bruce). See 4:1 for the word ().
For every cause ( ). This clause is an allusion to the dispute between the two theological schools over the meaning of De 24:1. The school of Shammai took the strict and unpopular view of divorce for unchastity alone while the school of Hillel took the liberal and popular view of easy divorce for any passing whim if the husband saw a prettier woman (modern enough surely) or burnt his biscuits for breakfast. It was a pretty dilemma and meant to do Jesus harm with the people. There is no real trouble about the use of here in the sense of or because of (Robertson, Grammar, p. 509).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Tempting. See on Mt 6:13.
For every cause. The temptation turned upon the dispute dividing the two great Rabbinical schools, the one of which (that of Hillel) held that a man might divorce his wife for any reason which rendered her distasteful to him; and the other (that of Shammai) that divorce was allowable only in case of unchastity. The querists would be anxious to know which side Jesus espoused.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Mat 19:3
. And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him. Though the Pharisees lay snares for Christ, and cunningly endeavor to impose upon him, yet their malice proves to be highly useful to us; as the Lord knows how to turn, in a wonderful manner, to the advantage of his people all the contrivances of wicked men to overthrow sound doctrine. For, by means of this occurrence, a question arising out of the liberty of divorce was settled, and a fixed law was laid down as to the sacred and indissoluble bond of marriage. The occasion of this quibbling was, that the reply, in whatever way it were given, could not, as they thought, fail to be offensive.
They ask, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever? If Christ reply in the negative, they will exclaim that he wickedly abolishes the Law; and if in the affirmative, they will give out that he is not a prophet of God, but rather a pander, who lends such countenance to the lust of men. Such were the calculations which they had made in their own minds; but the Son of God, who knew how to take the wise in their own craftiness, (Job 5:13,) disappointed them, sternly opposing unlawful divorces, and at the same time showing that he brings forward nothing which is inconsistent with the Law. For he includes the whole question under two heads: that the order of creation ought to serve for a law, that the husband should maintain conjugal fidelity during the whole of life; and that divorces were permitted, not because they were lawful, but because Moses had to deal with a rebellious and intractable nation.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?See Note on Mat. 5:32. So far as the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount had become known, it gave a sufficiently clear answer to the inquiry of the Pharisees. It is, however, quite conceivable that it had not reached the ears of those who now put the question, or, that if it had, they wished to test His consistency, and to see whether on this point He still held with the stricter rule of Shammai, and not with the laxer rule of Hillel. If the narrative of the woman taken in adultery in Joh. 8:1-11 be rightly placed (see Note on that passage). that might have given rise to doubts and rumours. Would He who dealt so pitifully with the adulteress have sanctioned divorce even in that case, or pronounced the marriage bond absolutely indissoluble? Or was His apparent tolerance of that offender indicative of a lower standard as to the obligations of marriage? In any case, they might hope to bring Him into conflict either with the stricter or the more popular school of casuists. An illustration of what has been stated in Mat. 5:32 may be found in the fact that the Jewish historian Josephus records how he had divorced two wives on grounds comparatively trivial (Life, c. 75, 76), and speaks incidentally in his history of many causes of all kinds as justifying separation (Ant. iv. 8, 23). We do not know on what grounds Herod Antipas had divorced the daughter of Aretas, but it is probable enough that here, as afterwards, the Herodian party were working with the Pharisees. Here, in Pera, they might count, either on the Teacher shrinking from expressing His convictions, or so uttering them as to provoke the tetrarchs wrath, as the Baptist had done. In either case, a point would have been gained against Him.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. The Pharisees also came The Pharisees as well as the multitudes. The former to cavil, and the latter to be healed. Tempting him Trying him to see if they cannot get him into a difficulty. The point was one about which there was a hot partisan dispute, and the object was to involve our Lord in its quarrel. For every cause The point is this: In Deu 24:1, Moses gives to a man permission to dismiss his wife by granting her a bill of divorce or discharge, certifying that she is no longer his wife, if she “find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found uncleanness in her.” The followers of Rabbi Hillel interpreted this to mean that a man might dismiss his wife whenever he pleased, for the very slightest offence, or for no offence at all, if he found some woman that pleased him more. But the followers of Rabbi Schammai held that the uncleanness meant unchasteness, and so forbid divorce for any other cause. If these Pharisees now can make our Lord commit himself upon this point, they hope to involve him in the feud with one party or the other.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And there came to him some Pharisees, putting him to the test, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” ’
This particular group of Pharisees (no definite article) in Judaea clearly saw this question as an acid test of a prophet. Let Jesus now adjudicate on this fundamental disagreement that they had among themselves. Then they would see what He was made of. (Up to now their knowledge of Him was mainly only by hearsay from their northern brethren. We must not make the mistake of seeing the Pharisees as one strong united body. While they shared similar beliefs they belonged to their own separate groups). It was the beginning of a series of tests that would end when He had been thoroughly grilled and when all His opponents had been confounded (Mat 22:46) with their favourite ideas disposed of. Their question was as to whether it was lawful (within the Law of Moses) that a man put away his wife ‘for every cause’. In other words on any grounds that suited them.
It may be asked why this would be seen as ‘a test’. And the answer is because the question was one on which there was great division between different teachers, even between those two great past exponents of Pharisaism, Shammai and Hillel. It thus caused division among the Pharisees. It was a question on which the influence of Hillel was seen as strong (for his view suited the menfolk), but which was strongly contested. (The Qumran Community did not, in fact, believe in divorce at all, for they saw themselves as a holy community). Thus by His reply Jesus would indicate which party He was throwing His weight behind, or might even come up with some compromise solution.
Note that in true Jewish fashion the assumption is that only the man can initiate divorce. (Matthew leaves out the alternative possibility for the sake of his Jewish readers). It was the teaching of the Scribes who followed Hillel that divorce was allowable to a man for any ‘good cause’. But as that included burning the dinner it will be observed that what he saw as a good cause was simply the man’s displeasure at his wife. This was based on his interpretation of Deu 24:1 ‘some unseemly thing/something indecent in her (literally ‘the nakedness of a matter)’. He argued that it meant anything by which a wife displeased her husband.
The opposing view was that of Shammai. Emphasising ‘the nakedness’ he argued that its meaning was restricted to something grossly sexually indecent. He was always much stricter in his interpretations than Hillel and in this case, probably to everyone’s surprise, it brought him much nearer to Jesus’ position.
Neither, however, were interpreting the Scripture correctly. For primarily the purpose of Deu 24:1-4 was not in order to permit divorce as such, but was in order to safeguard a woman, on her being divorced according to general custom, so as to ensure that she was given a bill of divorce. This was in order that she might be able to prove that she was not officially committing adultery with any second husband, thus becoming subject to the death penalty for both him and herself.
It was also in order to limit what was allowable once a divorce had taken place. It was so as to prevent a remarriage of the same two persons once the wife had subsequently married another man. For to then go back to her first husband would have been seen as a kind of incest, and as committing adultery twice. It would have been seen as making a mockery of marriage and as a way of mocking God’s ordinance. It was indeed seen as so serious that it was described as ‘an abomination before the Lord’. The original purpose of Deu 24:1-4 was therefore in order to prevent a bad situation getting worse. That was why Jesus said ‘for your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to put away your wife’ (Mat 19:8). His point was that divorce had not strictly been given God’s permission, even though it might happen in cases of gross indecency on the part of the wife (which was also not with His permission). For it was in fact a sin against the very roots of creation.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Testing Of Jesus Begins. The Pharisees Challenge Jesus About Divorce (19:3-6).
Jesus is now approaching Jerusalem through Judaea, and whatever route we see Him as taking Matthew’s emphasis is on the fact that He has left Galilee and has entered Judaea (Mat 19:1). Furthermore it is made clear that He is doing so accompanied by Messianic signs (Mat 11:5). The crowds follow Him and He heals them (Mat 19:2).
But the inevitable result of His public entry into Judaea, headed for Jerusalem, where He will deliberately draw attention to Himself in the triumphal entry and cleansing of the Temple, is that He will be challenged by all aspects of Judaism, and this will enable Him to lay down the foundations of the new age which He is introducing. His previous visits to Jerusalem had been on a quieter scale, but now He was forcing Himself on the notice of the differing religious and civil authorities, and pointing to the signs of the new age.
The first challenge made to Him is on the question of divorce. It was a burning issue among many in Jerusalem and it was one that had caused the death of John the Baptist, something which would not have been forgotten by the common people who had flocked to John. Perhaps the Pharisees hoped by this question to stir Him into speaking against Herod. However, at the very least it was intended to land Him in the midst of religious controversy.
We should note that there was no question that brought out the way in which the Scriptures had been distorted by the Pharisees more than this question about divorce. The majority freely allowed divorce on the basis of a ruling of Moses, which had sought to regulate the custom of divorce prevalent among the people at the time. His purpose had been firstly in order to safeguard a woman rejected according to custom, by ensuring that she had a ‘bill of divorce’, and secondly in order to prevent divorced people (who were divorced on the basis of custom, not of the Law, which made no provision for divorce) from again remarrying after the wife had first been married another (Deu 24:1-4). But on the basis of it a large group of Scribes and Pharisees (who followed the teaching of the great Hillel) allowed divorce almost literally ‘for any cause’ (such as burning the dinner, or not being pretty enough). It was the most flagrant misuse of Scripture. It had not necessarily resulted in wholesale divorce in Jewish society because of the strength of family feeling and of custom, and because on divorce the marriage settlement had to be handed back, but there was probably a superfluity of divorce in Pharisaic circles (Josephus blatantly tells us how he put away his own wife for displeasing him), and if it once ever did become prevalent it would attack the very roots of their society.
Indeed the right to be able to divorce was something that Jewish men could be depended on to feel strongly about, for it probably gave them a hold over their womenfolk and made them feel superior. Thus to challenge these Pharisees on this question of divorce would be for Him to challenge the very basis of their own authority. Then once His views became known the crowds would have to decide who was most right. But one thing they knew, and that was that whichever side Jesus came down on He would offend a good number of people. What they probably did not expect, for to them divorce was simply a relatively unimportant matter which all accepted, and about which there was only disagreement concerning the grounds for it, was that Jesus would introduce a whole new aspect to the matter that would cut the ground from right under their feet. They may also have hoped that He would say something unwise about Herod, like John had done before Him. That would certainly have given them a lever for getting rid of Him. But instead Jesus reveals a totally new view of marriage, which He points out has been true from the beginning, thereby indicating the coming in under His teaching of a new world order.
Furthermore Jesus will in fact, in His dealings with His disciples, turn their argument round in order to demonstrate that the Kingly Rule of Heaven is here, and that marrying and having children is no longer to be the sole basis of society (a view held by the main religious teachers of Judaism).
Analysis.
a
b And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female” (Mat 19:4).
c “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?’ ” (Mat 19:5).
b “So that they are no more two, but one flesh” (Mat 19:6 a).
a “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mat 19:6 b).
Note that in ‘a’ the question was the grounds on which a man could put away his wife, and in the parallel the reply is that what God has joined no one can put asunder. In ‘b’ the stress is on the fact that God made them male and female, and in the parallel that once they are married they are therefore now one flesh. Centrally in ‘c’ is God’s stated purpose for a man and a woman.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Marriage And Divorce In The New Age (19:3-12). .
Having in chapter 18 laid down the principles on which His new congregation was to run Jesus will now begin to lay down the foundations of life in the new age in relation to marriage, divorce, and celibacy, humility as a basis for life, and attitudes towards wealth and family. He commences with the question of the basis of true marriage.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Period of Testing – Jesus Prepares For The New World Order – Journey to Jerusalem – Triumphal Entry – Jesus Is Lord (19:3-22).
Having entered Judaea on the way to Jerusalem for His final visit, Jesus enters into a period of testing as to His status as a Prophet, a process which comes to completion in Mat 22:46. This commences with a visit by the Pharisees to test Him on His views on divorce (Mat 19:3 ff). In reply to this He reveals that marriage is not something to be treated lightly, nor is it something to be manipulated by men, but is permanent and unbreakable, and that a new day is dawning when marrying and having children will not be the main focus of the Kingly Rule of Heaven.
The testing will then continue on as He is approached by various combinations of opponents concerning various contentious issues, as He Himself enters Jerusalem as its King. These include:
The Pharisees (Mat 21:3 ff).
The Chief Priests and the Scribes (Mat 21:15 ff).
The Chief Priests and the Elders of the people (Mat 21:23 ff; Mark includes Scribes).
The Chief Priests and the Pharisees (Mat 21:45-46; Luke has the Scribes and the Chief Priests).
The Pharisees with the Herodians (Mat 22:15-22; Mark the Pharisees with the Herodians, Luke ‘spies’).
The Sadducees (Mat 22:23-33).
The Pharisees, including a lawyer (Scribe) (Mat 22:34 ff; Mark has Scribe; Luke has Scribes).
These testings go on until they recognise the futility of testing Him any further because He always has an unassailable answer (Mat 22:46). Thus all the main political and religious elements in Jewry were included in the opposition (the Essenes and the Qumran Community would have no particular reason for attacking Jesus. They were separatists and looked to God to deliver them from their enemies).
The combinations described by Matthew are deliberately intended:
To demonstrate how all the opposition were getting together one by one in order to bring Him down (note that no combination is repeated).
To indicate the widescale nature of the opposition.
To bring out how even hereditary enemies were being brought together for the purpose (Chief Priests and Scribes, Chief Priests and Pharisees, Pharisees and Herodians).
As can be seen the Chief Priests are mentioned three times, and the Pharisees are mentioned four times, the former around the time of His purifying of the Temple, when He has drawn Himself specifically to their attention and has shown up their dishonesty in their dealings in the Temple, and the latter all the way through, for the Pharisees, who were to be found throughout Judaea and Galilee, had dogged His footsteps from the beginning. It must be remembered in considering the parallels that most, although not all, of the Scribes were Pharisees (there were Scribes of the Sadducees and general Scribes as well).
Brief note on the Pharisees; Scribes; Chef Priests; Sadducees; Elders and Herodians.
The Pharisees were a sect of Judaism. They were in all around seven thousand in number but their influence far outweighed their numbers. They laid great weight on what distinguished Judaism from the world around them such as the keeping of the Sabbath, the payment of tithes and the various daily washings for the constant removal of uncleanness. They saw themselves as responsible to preserve the purity of Judaism. They did not run the synagogues but had great influence in them, and their Scribes (Teachers) were influential in teaching the people. They believed in the resurrection and in angels, strove for ‘eternal life’ by obedience to the Law of Moses and the covenant, and sought rigidly to keep the covenant as they saw it, but often with a great emphasis on externals as is man’s wont when enthusiasm has died down. This involved them in a rigid intent to observe the Law in all its detail, in which they were guided by the Traditions of the Elders and by their Scribes. In general they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, although with various viewpoints concerning him, and to God’s final deliverance of His people, when Pharisaic teaching would triumph. They waited patiently, but restlessly, for God to step in and remove the occupying forces as He had done in the time of their ancestors. Meanwhile they accepted the need for passive obedience to their conquerors.
The Scribes were the Teachers of Judaism. As well as Scribes of the Pharisees, who were by far the greatest number, there were Scribes of the Sadducees and general Scribes. The Scribes of the Pharisees laid great stress on the Traditions of the Elders which included secret information which they claimed was passed down orally from teacher to teacher from the past, and these especially included past dictates of former well known Scribes such as Shammai and Hillel. This teaching in general formed the basis of religious observation by the common people, although they did not conform to all its particulars, and were in general seen as ‘sinners’ because of this. The Scribes of the Pharisees were generally looked to by the people as the authorities on religious matters. Their influence in Judaea outside Jerusalem was paramount. While accepting the authority of the Chief Priests over the Temple and compromising with them on various matters they generally conflicted with them at every turn. They were bitter opponents.
The Chief Priests ran the Temple and its ordinances which provided them with a source of revenue and great wealth. At their head was the High Priest. There was strictly only one functional High Priest, but as far as the Jews were concerned the appointment was for life, and when the Romans replaced one High Priest for another, religiously the earlier High Priest remained High Priest (thus Annas, the father of Caiaphas the High Priest, was still High Priest in Jewish eyes, as were any others who had been High Priest and were still alive). The Chief Priests also included the high officials of the Temple such as the Temple Treasurer, the leaders of the courses of priests, and so on. It was their responsibility to supervise and maintain the cult with its many offerings and sacrifices. They were pragmatists and maintained a steady if uneasy relationship with the secular state, (they were despised by them and despised them in return), favouring the status quo. Their influence was mainly restricted to Jerusalem, except cultically, for the whole of worldwide Jewry looked to the Temple as the centre of their religion and contributed their Temple Tax to the Temple authorities.
The Sadducees were a small but important sect, mainly, but not exclusively, restricted to Jerusalem and its environs. They were on the whole wealthy. They included the chief priests and their wider families. We do not know much about them for they died out with the fall of Jerusalem, and the information that we have about them has mainly come from their opponents who survived. Seemingly they did not believe in angels or in the resurrection. They accepted the teaching of the Law and, to some extent at least, the Prophets. But they rejected the traditions of the Elders. They were antagonistic towards the Pharisees, and were not favoured by the people.
The Elders of the people were the lay rulers and wealthy aristocrats connected mainly with princely families. Along with the Chief Priest and Pharisees their leading members formed a part of the Sanhedrin, which was from the Jews’ viewpoint, the governing body of Judaism in Jerusalem. As the Romans tended to leave local government to the locals, only intervening when it was considered necessary, they were very influential at this period. The Roman prefect/procurator lived away from Jerusalem in Caesarea, although coming to Jerusalem for the feasts in case of trouble.
The Herodians were members of Herod’s court (Herod ruled Galilee and Peraea, while the Roman prefect/procurator ruled Judaea and Samaria) or supporters of Herod. They may have been mainly a secular group, in as far as a Jewish group could ever be secular, favouring the status quo. Little else is known about them, but they would have political influence at Herod’s court which was why they were useful to the Pharisees in their opposition to Jesus.
All of these would gather in Jerusalem for the Passover.
End of note.
During this period in Judaea and Jerusalem Jesuswill be called on to deal with some of the main questions of the day, which will mainly be used, either as a means of seeking to entrap Him into exposing Himself as a false prophet, or in order to get Him into trouble with the Roman authorities. These included questions on divorce (Mat 19:3-12); on prophetic authority (Mat 21:23-27); on tribute paid to Caesar (22-15-22); on the afterlife (Mat 22:23-33); on what is central in the Law (Mat 22:34-40); and on how the Messiah relates to David (Mat 22:41-45).
We should not be surprised at the opposition that Jesus faced for He was now publicly approaching the very centre of Judaism in order to make clear Who He was and why He had come. While in Galilee and its surrounds He had been a distant figure as far as the authorities of Jerusalem were concerned, apart from previous visits to Jerusalem, only affecting them when the northern supporters of the Scribes called on them for assistance (there were not many Scribes in Galilee). But once He approached Jerusalem and began to assert His claims more forcefully than before it was inevitable, either that Jerusalem would flock to Him, or that they would bitterly oppose Him. And the latter in general proved to be the case. On the whole Jerusalem did not welcome Him (His popularity was among the visitors to Jerusalem for the Passover). It was a very religious city and very much bound up with the cult. Few of them would accept Him. His views overthrew too many of their treasured views, and threatened to upset the status quo.
Intermingled with this description of opposition is a clear emphasis in Matthew on the fact that Jesus is coming to Jerusalem to claim His heavenly throne, and, through His death and resurrection, is about to set up a new world order.
This process began at His birth when He was established as and proclaimed as King of the Jews (Mat 19:1-2), and continued on with His being introduced by His forerunner (Mat 19:3). That was followed by a period of consolidation and establishment of His authority, until the moment of His ‘official’ recognition as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God by His followers (Mat 16:16). His heavenly royal status was then verified by the Transfiguration (Mat 17:5) and His payment of the Temple Tax from heavenly resources (Mat 17:25). At the same time He prepared for the establishment of His new ‘congregation’ (of Israel) (Mat 16:18; Matthew 18)
Now, taking up the thought found in Mat 16:16; Mat 17:5; Mat 17:25 that He is the Messiah and His Father’s Son, enjoying royal authority, we will find:
1) That He sets up a totally new standard for marriage based on the principles of His Kingly Rule, which involves monogamous and unbreakable marriage, while at the same time indicating that marriage and having children will no longer necessarily be the prime function of man, an idea which was revolutionary to normative Judaism, in view of the arrival of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 19:4-6; Mat 19:12).
2) That He turns the world order upside down by declaring that life under the Kingly Rule of Heaven must be based on childlike trust and humility (compareMat 18:1-4), and not on riches and wealth, because God is at work doing the impossible (Mat 19:13-26).
3) That He declares that in this soon coming new world order He will sit on the throne of His glory in the presence of the Ancient of Days, while His Apostles will reign on earth on His behalf, sitting on ‘the thrones of David’ in Jerusalem, and establishing His new congregation of Israel, while all who serve under His Kingly Rule will enjoy multiplied blessing (Mat 19:28-29).
4) That all His disciples are called to work in His Father’s vineyard with the promise of equal reward and blessing (Mat 19:30 to Mat 20:16).
5) That after His death and resurrection (Mat 20:17-19) His disciples are not to vie for earthly advancement or honour (Mat 20:20-23), but are rather to be zealous of being servants and slaves like He is (Mat 20:24-27), following His example of sacrificial zeal in that through His death He will have bought redemption for many (Mat 20:28). Thus the ministry of the Servant (Mat 8:17; Mat 12:17) will be cut short by death, but this will lead on to resurrection.
6) That while He is rejected by the seeing, the blind will acknowledge Him as the Son of David (Mat 20:29-34).
7) That He will enter in humble triumph into Jerusalem on an ass in fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy of the king who is coming (Mat 21:1-11) and will reveal His authority over the Temple and His disagreement with the old order (Mat 21:12-13).
8) That the blind and the lame (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) will then cry ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’ (Mat 21:14-15).
9) That, as the withering of the fig tree reveals, the old order is dying, so that all good men must face now up to His authority, and be like a repentant son who says, ‘Sir, I am ready to go’ (Mat 21:16-32).
10) That as the beloved Son, having been killed by the previous workers in the vineyard, He will be made the head of the corner with a new nation replacing the old (Mat 21:33-43).
11) That as the King’s Son His marriage feast is coming as a result of which those who are in the highways and byways will be called to His feast, while those who refuse to wear His insignia will be cast out and destroyed (Mat 22:1-14).
12) That men must now recognise their duty to God as well as to the state, and must begin in a new way to render to God the things that are God’s (Mat 22:15-22).
13) That when the new age comes to its finalisation in the Resurrection, marriage and reproduction will no longer be central matters of concern, for they will have no application to their new resurrected state (Mat 22:23-33).
14) That the basis of His coming rule is that men must love God with their whole beings and their neighbour as themselves (Mat 22:34-40).
15) That He is not just the son of David but is also declared by Scripture to be David’s Lord (Mat 22:41-45).
Thus having in Galilee mainly (although by no means solely) stressed His presence as the Servant Messiah, in His approach to Jerusalem He is deliberately turning their thoughts towards Himself as the Coming King, something which the disciples appear to recognise, even if incorrectly, for their thoughts are still being shaped as they are wooed from their own false ideas. They have yet to learn that the advance of the Kingly Rule of Heaven will take place in a very different way than they anticipate. See Mat 20:20-22; Mat 20:24-27; Mar 9:34; Luk 22:24.
So, far from this section depicting Jesus as offering Himself as the King and being refused, it reveals how He is in fact in process of turning the world upside down, and firming up the Kingly Rule of Heaven, preparatory to its massive expansion when He has been enthroned and crowned (Mat 28:18).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Analysis Of The Section Mat 19:3 to Mat 22:46 .
This whole Section may be analysed as follows:
a Jesus’ testing commences with a question about divorce.
b Jesus questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say. Scripture has demonstrated that God is the Creator and Lord over all, and that man cannot change what God has in His sovereignty declared, that a man and woman are to cleave together and become one flesh, which no man is to put asunder. Their relationship is unique. Thus His coming and His Kingly Rule introduce a new sanctity to marriage (Mat 19:3-6).
c Jesus deals from Scripture with the question of the permanence of marriage on earth, and insists on an unbreakable oneness in the family (Mat 19:7-9).
d Jesus indicates the great change that has now taken place with regard to marriage in the light of the presence Kingly Rule of Heaven. Marriage is no longer to be seen as the central basis of the new Kingly Rule or as all important (Mat 19:7-12).
e Jesus receives the little children and declares that of such is the Kingly Rule of Heaven. This is what being in the Kingly Rule of Heaven is all about. It is those who are like little children who reveal the image of God. And this in direct contrast with a rich young man approaching maturity who rejects eternal life because of his riches, raising the whole question of what must be given to God. The lesson is that those who have childlike hearts will gather to Jesus under His Kingly Rule while the worldly wise will go away sorrowful (Mat 19:13-22).
f Men are now therefore faced with a choice about how they will view riches, and should consider that shortly He will sit on the throne of His glory with His Father, at which point His Apostles will take up their royal responsibilities on earth, overseeing the new ‘congregation’ of the new Israel, when all who have followed Him on His terms, forsaking all for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, will be richly rewarded, firstly in this life and then by receiving eternal life (Mat 19:23-29).
g He declares the parable of the householder who send out labourers into his vineyard (compareMat 9:37-38), whose labours would gradually build up until evening comes, and then those who have faithfully worked in His vineyard will be rewarded equally (Mat 19:30 to Mat 20:16).
h Jesus declares that He will face death as a result of the machinations of the Chief Priests and Scribes and this is contrasted with the perverse reaction of ‘two sons’ who are seeking glory (the sons of Zebedee), but who will learn instead of the suffering and humble service that awaits them. They have misunderstood His teaching about the thrones (Mat 20:17-23).
i The twelve hear of the attempt of the two sons of Zebedee to obtain precedence, and react with indignation. They are all advised that if they would have precedence it will not be by seeking thrones but by seeking who can serve to the greatest extent, something of which He is the prime example as He gives Himself for the redemption of ‘many’ (Mat 20:24-28).
j Jesus heals the blind men who call Him the Son of David (Mat 20:29-34).
k Jesus enters Jerusalem in humility and triumph and purifies the Temple (Mat 21:1-13).
j The blind and the lame are calling Him the Son of David and He heals them (Mat 21:14-17).
i The twelve see what happened to the fig tree and react by marvelling. They are advised that if they have faith nothing will be impossible to them. Here is how they can truly have precedence, by the exercise of true faith. It is now up to them (Mat 21:18-22).
h Jesus’ authority is questioned by the Chief Priests and the Elders of the people and in return He challenges them in terms of ‘two sons’ who reveal what the future holds (Mat 21:23-32).
g The second parable of the householder and in which those who had faithlessly worked in His vineyard, slaying His servants and His Son, will be ‘rewarded’ accordingly. They too will be treated equally (Mat 21:33-46).
f The parable of the wedding of the King’s son, when those who are His, coming from the highways and byways will share His blessing, while those who refuse to come on His terms and wear His insignia will be cast into outer darkness and will weep and gnash their teeth, for ‘many are called but few are chosen’ (Mat 22:1-14).
e Jesus is faced with a question about whether to pay tribute to Caesar and declares that it is now time that they remembered that they were made in the image of God, and that they give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God. They marvel, and leave Him, and go their way (Mat 22:15-22)
d Jesus deals from Scripture with the question of the lack of marriage in Heaven and the certainty of the resurrection. In the final analysis marriage will be no more (Mat 22:23-33).
c Jesus testing finishes with a question about what is central in the Law and He cites Scripture in order to declare that love of God, together with love of neighbour, binding all together as one, is central to all Law, and basic to His new Kingly Rule, and thus seeks to inculcate an unbreakable oneness (Mat 22:34-41).
b Jesus questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say. Scripture has declared the Messiah to be David’s Lord, and He cannot therefore merely be David’s son. His relationship to God is unique. Thus man must not oppose what God has sovereignly declared about the Messiah (Mat 22:42-45).
a Jesus testing finishes with no one daring to ask Him any more questions (Mat 22:46).
Note that in ‘a’ Jesus begins to be tested, and in the parallel He ceases to be tested. In ‘b’ He questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say and declares that mankind cannot oppose what God has sovereignly declared about the oneness of man and woman in marriage, and their unique relationship, and in the parallel He questions the Pharisees about what the Scriptures say and declares that mankind cannot oppose what God has said about the Messiah, and His unique relationship with God. In ‘c’ Jesus deals with the permanence of marriage on earth and its importance in ensuring the unity of the family, and in the parallel He deals with the question of loving God and neighbour, thus ensuring the unity of His people. In ‘d’ He reveals that marriage is no longer incumbent on all and that it is permissible to refrain from it for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven, and in the parallel He deals with its non-existence in Heaven and its significance as regards the resurrection. In ‘e’ the attitudes of young children and of a worldly wise young man to the Kingly Rule of Heaven and to God are described, especially in relation to wealth, and in the parallel the attitude of those who question about the tribute money, who are also worldly wise, is challenged. Both raise questions as to what to do with wealth, and status in the Kingly Rule of Heaven. In ‘f’ men are faced with a choice about riches, but should consider that one day He will sit on the throne of His glory when all who have followed Him on His terms will be rewarded and will finally receive eternal life, for ‘those who are last will then be first, and those who are first will be last’, while in the parallel we have described the parable of the wedding of the King’s son when all those who are His will share His blessing, while those who refuse to come on His terms will be cast into outer darkness and will weep and gnash their teeth, for ‘many are called but few are chosen’ In ‘g’ we have the parable of the householder and the faithful workers in his vineyard, ‘the last will be first’, and in the parallel the parable of the householder and the faithless workers in the vineyard, the first will very much be last. The latter are being replaced by the former. In ‘h’ the attitude of the Jewish leaders towards Jesus is described and two sons are used as examples in order to bring out what the future holds, and in the parallel the attitude of the Jewish leaders towards Jesus’ authority is described, and two sons are cited as examples of what the future holds. In ‘i’ we have the reaction of the twelve to the rebuking of James and John, and what they should rather do in order to gain precedence, seek to serve, and in the parallel we have their reaction to the cursing of the fig tree, a parabolic rebuke of Israel, and what they are to do in order to gain precedence, demonstrate their outstanding faith. In ‘j’ the blind men call Him the Son of David and are healed (their eyes have been opened), and in the parallel the blind and the lame have called Him the Son of David and are healed (it is His enemies who are thus blind). Centrally in ‘k’ Jesus enters in humble triumph into Jerusalem, which stresses the central feature of the section, the revealed Kingship of Jesus which is about to burst on the world (compare Mat 28:18-20).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Testimony of Scripture Regarding Man’s Eschatological Hope Theme – The testimony of Scripture regarding man’s eschatological hope declares that God accepts man’s faith and obedience to Him from the heart rather than through his own efforts of good works. Salvation comes by God’s grace through man’s faith in Him. Perhaps the testimony of the Scriptures is offered first among the other testimonies of Jesus, John the Baptist, His miracles, and God the Father because the Scriptures offer the strongest testimony in this area of man’s redemption. This passage of Scripture is found within narrative material (Mat 19:1 to Mat 23:39) that immediately precedes the Escatalogical Discourse (Mat 24:1 to Mat 25:46). Since the five-discourse outline of the Gospel of Matthew reflects a common theme between the narrative material and the discourse that follows, this narrative passage in the fifth narrative section has an escatalogical emphasis as well the Olivet discourse that follows. Therfore, the rich young ruler’s question of what he must do to inherit eternal life is an escatalogical question. Jesus’ answer at the end of this passage is therefore cast in an escatalogical manner when He says, “So the last shall be first, and the first last.” (Mat 20:16)
Structure The story of the Pharisees with their question on divorce is placed beside the story of Jesus blessing the children in order to contrast man’s efforts to obtain eternal life with the simplicity of entrusting oneself into God’ grace. The Pharisees knew the Scriptures well; yet they trusted in their own good works for a right standing before God. For this reason, they refused to come to Jesus, whom the Scriptures declared to be the Messiah and Son of God (Mat 19:3-12). In contrast, the small children came to Jesus with little or no knowledge of the Scripture, entrusting themselves into His love and care in order to receive divine blessings (Mat 19:13-15). A second contrast is made between the story of the rich young ruler and the disciple’s inquiry about forsaking all to follow Him. The rich young ruler was unable to fulfill the Law of Moses in that he could not relinquish his trust in earthly riches (Mat 19:16-26), while the disciples forsook all to follow Jesus, entirely entrusting themselves unto Him (Mat 19:27-30). Jesus concludes these two sets of lessons with the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard to explain how eternal rewards are not based upon the knowledge of the Law or upon good works, but solely upon divine grace being poure forth to those who in genuine faith entrust themselves into God’s tender care (Mat 20:1-16).
Here is a proposed outline:
1. Trusting in the Knowledge of the Scriptures Mat 19:3-15
2. Trusting in Earthly Riches Mat 19:16-30
3. The Parable of Workers in the Vineyard Mat 20:1-16
Mat 19:3-15 Trusting in the Knowledge of the Scriptures to Receive Eternal Life ( Mar 10:1-12 ) Mat 19:3-15 Jesus reveals that eternal life does not come through the head knowledge of the Scriptures, but through simple faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the Scriptures testify to be the Son of God.
Here is a proposed outline:
1. Pharisees on the Law Mat 19:3-9
2. The Inquiry of the Disciples Mat 19:10-12
3. Example of Those Entering the Kingdom Mat 19:13-15
The Scriptural Teaching on Marriage and Divorce – The focus of Mat 19:3-12 is Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce in the Kingdom of Heaven. In this passage Jesus gives to us God’s commandments on marriage from three difference ages of mankind. Jesus addresses God’s commandments before the Mosaic Law (Mat 19:3-6), then His commandments during the dispensation of the Law (Mat 19:7-8) and finally God’s commandment during the dispensation of the Church (Mat 19:9-12).
The Transition of Themes Reflected in the Teaching on Marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven While the fourth narrative section placed emphasis upon perseverance in God’sWord, the fifth narrative section emphasizes eschatology. Mat 19:3-12 serves as a transitional passage in that Jesus explains the need to follow God’s original laws even in regards to the institution of marriage and not be offended by His Word in order to partake of the Kingdom of Heaven. [508]
[508] Christopher Smith says, “The first narrative episode after a discourse often serves both to recapitulate its theme and to introduce a new one.” Christopher R. Smith, “Literary Evidences of a Five-Fold Structure in the Gospel of Matthew,” in New Testament Studies 43 (1997): 549-550.
Mat 19:3-9 The Pharisees on the Law In Mat 19:3-9 the Pharisees came to Jesus to ask Him which interpretation of the Law regarding the institution of marriage has God’s blessings. Jesus explains God’s original purpose and plan for marriage, which takes priority over the Law. While the Pharisees sought God’s blessings through the Law, the children will gather around Jesus in Mat 19:13-15 and receive His blessings on an entirely different base, that of divine mercy and grace. While the Pharisees based their right standing before God upon adherence to the Law, the children sought the priviledge to stand before Jesus based upon His love for them.
Mat 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mat 19:3
[509] Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, in Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 703.
Deu 24:1, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”
With the context of this ongoing debate on the Law regarding marriage and divorce, the Pharisees were essentially saying to Jesus, “We are experts in the Law; and we are not sure how to interpret its view on marriage and divorce. Let us see how well you handle this issue.”
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:4
Mat 12:3, “But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;”
Mat 12:5, “Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?”
Mat 19:4 “ that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female ” Comments The phrase “made them male and female” is found verbatim in Gen 1:27; Gen 5:2 in the LXX.
Gen 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Gen 5:2, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:5
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mat 19:6
Illustration – We see how strong this sentence can be translated by looking at examples in Scripture. When Matthew wrote his Gospel, God still referred to Bathsheba as the wife of Uriah. Thus, Matthew wrote, “And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her (that had been the wife) of Urias;” (Mat 1:6) The Greek text literally reads, “David the king begat Solomon of her of Urias.” The phrase “that had been the wife” was added later by translators.
This is why Jesus can say in verse 9 that whoever marries someone from a divorce that God had not honored commits adultery. Someone can only commit adultery with another man’s wife, but not with his own wife. If a marriage is not annulled by adultery or widowhood, then God does not recognize the divorce, and thus, further marriages by these partners become adultery.
Because David repented of his sin, God was able to sanctify his marriage with Bathsheba. It is important for married couples to repent of their sins if they have wrongly entered into unscriptural marriages, so that God’s blessings may be found.
In contrast, we see Herod taking his brother’s wife and being rebuked by John the Baptist, who states that this was an evil act. Herod was unrepentant.
Mat 14:3-4, “For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.”
Mat 19:4-6 Comments Original Purpose and Intent of the Institution of Marriage When the Pharisees asked Jesus to state His opinion on the current controversy over divorce and remarriage under the Mosaic Law, He went to the book of Genesis and explained the original purpose and intent of the institution of marriage.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:7
Deu 24:1, “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”
Mat 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.
Mat 19:8
Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Mat 19:9
Mat 19:9 “And I say unto you ” Variations of the phrase “but I say unto you” are employed fourteen times in the Sermon on the Mount, six of those times immediately after quoting an Old Testament passage of Jewish regulation, as Jesus does in Mat 19:9.
Jesus has just quoted from the book of Genesis when explaining God’s original purpose and intent of marriage (Mat 19:4-6). He then explains how the Law allowed divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts (Mat 19:8). Jesus now says, “And I say unto you” as a way of reconciling these two passages of Old Testament Scripture and establishing the rules for the Kingdom of Heaven. He will then explain to His disciples that these rules will not be obeyed by everyone, only those whose hearts are able to accept them (Mat 19:10-12).
Mat 19:9 Comments In Mat 19:9 Jesus explains the application of Gen 1:27; Gen 2:24; Gen 5:2 to the child of God. Because man and woman are one flesh in the eyes of God, a divorce made by man does not disannul God’s Word. God still sees this man and woman as one flesh, even when they enter into second marriages for reasons other than the death of a spouse or adultery on the part of a spouse. Therefore, such remarriages without biblical grounds constitute a state of adultery in God’s eyes.
God gave the institution of marriage to Adam and Eve before the Fall as individuals who had not yet committed disobedience. Therefore, the original purpose and intent of Gen 1:27 still applies under the new covenant instituted by Jesus Christ, since the new covenant is God’s means of restoring mankind back to fellowship with Him and human immortality that existed in the beginning. In contrast, Deu 24:1 applies to the carnal man, both Jews and Gentiles, who is sinful by nature.
Mat 19:10-12 The Inquiry of the Disciples In Mat 19:10-12 the disciples inquire from Jesus about His dialogue with the Pharisees on marriage and divorce. The disciples had left all to follow Jesus so that those who were single became “eunuchs” for the Kingdom of Heaven, while Peter honored his existing marriage.
Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Mat 19:10
Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
Mat 19:11
Mat 19:11 Comments Jesus could have simply said, “Yes, it is not good to marry after putting away a wife for any reason.” However, because God allows man the free will to choose whether to obey Him or not, Jesus explains that only certain men will be willing to follow this rule. Because of the hardness of men’s hearts, many will divorce their wives for reasons other than adultery.
Mat 19:13-15 Example of Those Entering the Kingdom ( Mar 10:13-16 , Luk 18:15-17 ) In Mat 19:13-15 Jesus teaches us about the role of child-like faith in the Kingdom of Heaven using children as an example a humble and pure heart, a heart that characterizes those who seek the Kingdom of Heaven. Within the context of this narrative passage, this pericope follows after a teaching dealing with the hardness of men’s hearts in regards to the divine institution of marriage. In contrast to the hardness of heart of the Jewish leaders, children offer themselves to God in a humble and pure heart, a heart that characterizes those who seek the Kingdom of Heaven. While adults come to God believing they must offer good works in order to be received by Him, children come to God entirely dependent upon His grace. In contrast to the Pharisees who were very educated in the Scriptures, the child came to Jesus unhindered in simple faith and devotion.
Mat 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:13
While the Pharisees depended upon their good works under the Law to establish their right standing with God, the children had nothing to offer God as recipents of His blessings but their simple faith and trust in His willingness to bless them. In contrast to the educated Pharisees, the children had very little understanding of the Law; but their conscience was pure.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:14
Mat 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
Mat 19:15
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The question of the Pharisees:
v. 3. The Pharisees also came unto Him, empting Him and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Their persecution did not cease now that Jesus had deliberately turned His back to them and even left Galilee. They are in a class by themselves, distinct from the people that were following Jesus with no evil designs. With bitterness and hatred in their hearts they here again set a trap for the Lord by proposing an apparently innocent question. They wanted to know whether a man could divorce his wife “for every cause,” for any cause whatsoever, that is, whether a man might put away his wife at all, Mar 10:2. It was a catch question, either the positive or the negative answer intended to make enemies for Christ. “They purpose to catch Him. If He should answer: No, He would act contrary to Moses; but should He say: Yes, then He would tear marriage asunder, that people would reject each other and run apart, and the country be filled with adultery: they would therefore trip and catch Him. But He tears through all as a Master and Lord. ” Or the connection may have been the following: “At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of Shammai and that of Hillel. On the question of divorce the school of Shammai maintained that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight, that is, when he saw any other woman that pleased him better.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 19:3. The Pharisees also came, &c.for every cause Upon every pretence. Campbell. At discretion. Version of 1729. Our Lord had delivered his sentiments on the subject twice; once in Galilee, ch. Mat 5:32 and again in Perea, Luk 16:18. It is probable, therefore, that they knew his opinion, andsolicited him to declare it, hoping that it would incense the people, who reckoned the liberty which the law gave them of divorcing their wives, one of their chief privileges. Or, if, standing in awe of the people, he should deliver a doctrine different from what he had taught on former occasions, they thought it would be a fit ground for accusing him of dissimulation. But they missed their aim entirely; for Jesus, always consistent with himself, boldly declared the third time against arbitrary divorces, not in the least fearing the popular resentment. See Macknight, and the note on ch. Mat 5:31-32 and on Deu 24:1
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 19:3 . ] The question was of an ensnaring nature, owing to the rivalry that existed between the school of Hillel and that of the more rigorous Sammai. See note on Mat 5:31 . There is not the slightest foundation in the text for the idea that the questioners had in view the matrimonial relations of Antipas (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald), as though they wanted to involve Jesus, while yet in Peraea, within that prince’s domains, in a fate similar to that of the Baptist. Moreover, the adoption of this view is altogether unnecessary, since the whole school of Sammai had already condemned that most unlawful state of matters just referred to, and therefore there was on this score nothing of a specially tempting character about the question. But they expected that Jesus in His reply would declare in favour of one of the rival schools (and that it would doubtless be that of Sammai; for with . they suggested the answer, No ), so that they might be able to stir up party feeling against Him. Falling back, however, upon the divine idea on which the institution of marriage is founded, He took higher ground than either of the schools in question, inasmuch as from this divine idea He deduces that marriage is a union which no human authority has a right to dissolve; but as for Himself, He avoids prescribing any law of His own with reference to this matter; comp. Harless, Ehescheidungsfr . p. 34 ff.
] See note on Mat 12:10 .
] Assuming to be spurious, the can only refer to something in the context, and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the implied in the . For a similar classical usage, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep . p. 503 D.
] for every cause , which he has to allege against her, the view maintained by the school of Hillel, and which was precisely that which gave to this question its tempting character, though it is not so represented in Mark. As given by the latter evangelist the question is not presented in its original form; as it now stands it would have been too general, and so not calculated to tempt, for it would certainly have been foolish to expect from Jesus any answer contrary to the law (in answer to Weiss, Keim); but, according to Matthew’s version, the persons who were tempting Jesus appear to have framed their question with a view to His splitting on the casuistical rock implied in . . After having laid down as a principle the indissoluble nature of the marriage tie, Jesus, in the course of the conversation, replies to this captious point in their query in the very decided terms of Mat 19:9 , where He says, .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Ver. 3. Is it lawful for a man, &c. ] A captious question, purposely to put him to shame or peril before the people. For if he liked divorce, the better sort would be offended and displeased; if he disliked it, the common sort (those that followed him), for denying them that liberty that Moses had allowed them. One thing that created Jeremiah so much trouble among the people of his time, was, that he persuaded them to the yielding up of the city to the Chaldeans, which Isaiah had so earnestly dissuaded them, not long before, in the days of King Hezekiah.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] This was a question of dispute between the rival Rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai; the former asserting the right of arbitrary divorce, from Deu 24:1 , the other denying it except in case of adultery. It was also, says De Wette, a delicate question in the place where our Lord now was, in the dominions of Herod Antipas.
. ., as E. V., for every cause; i.e. is any charge which a man may choose to bring against his wife to justify him in divorcing her? So Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 23, , , .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 19:3-9 . The marriage question (Mar 10:2-9 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 19:3 . . : Pharisees again, tempting of course; could not ask a question at Jesus without sinister motives. : direct question in indirect form, vide on Mat 12:10 . : the question is differently formulated in the two accounts, and the answer differently arranged. In Mk. the question is absolute = may a man put away his wife at all? in Mt. relative = may, etc. for every reason? Under the latter form the question was an attempt to draw Jesus into an internal controversy of the Jewish schools as to the meaning of Deu 24:1 , and put Him in the dilemma of either having to choose the unpopular side of the school of Shummai, who interpreted strictly, or exposing Himself to a charge of laxity by siding with the school of Hillel. It was a petty scheme, but characteristic. Whether the interrogants knew what Jesus had taught on the subject of marriage and divorce in the Sermon on the Mount is uncertain, but in any case all scribes and Pharisees knew by this time what to expect from Him. For in the sense of propter, vide instances in Hermann’s Viger, 632, and Kypke.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 19:3-9
3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mat 19:3 For a full discussion of the origin and theology of the Pharisees see the Special Topic at Mat 22:15.
“testing Him” This term (peiraz) had a negative connotation of “testing with a view toward destruction.” See Special Topic at Mat 4:1. This was not a theological discussion in a neutral setting!
NASB”for any reason at all”
NKJV”for any reason”
NRSV”for any cause”
TEV”for whatever reason he wishes”
NJB”on any pretext whatever”
In Mar 10:2 the question was about divorce, but here the question concerned the grounds for divorce. The conservative rabbinical school of Shammai picked up on the phrase “some indecency” from Deu 24:1, while the liberal rabbinical school of Hillel picked up on the phrase “she finds no favor.” So the first school said the grounds were only for adultery or some other forbidden sexual act; the second said for any cause. Later, Rabbi Akiba, of the school of Hillel, even said that one could divorce his wife if he found someone prettier!
The Pharisees are asking Jesus a question, not for information but to hurt Him
1. with some portion of His followers (factions within Judaism)
2. with Herod Antipas (John the Baptist condemned Herod’s divorce and remarriage)
Mat 19:4 “Have you not read” Jesus expected that Jewish people had read God’s book (cf. Mat 12:3; Mat 19:4; Mat 21:16; Mat 22:31). Knowledge of Scripture was foundational for godly living. Jesus expects modern believers to ” have read” it also! The Jewish traditions twisted and annulled Scripture, as does modern denominational traditions, usually quoting one text or part of a text out of context and ignoring all other parallel passages!
“created” This participle (ktisas) is in the uncial MS B, but the verb “made” (poisas) is in MSS , C, D, L, W, Z. It follows the Septuagint of Gen 1:27. However, the UBS4 thinks the first option is original (i.e., a “B” rating, meaning ” almost certain”).
“from the beginning” This quote is from Gen 1:27; Gen 5:2 of God’s creation of both men and women. Marriage is God’s idea and it is to be monogamous (cf. Gen 2:23-24) and permanent (cf. Mat 19:6).
Mat 19:5 “for this reason. . .leave his father and mother” This is a quote from Gen 2:24. Notice both parents are mentioned, but also the radical break with one’s nuclear family that marriage demanded. In the ancient world families lived with multiple generations in one house. The priority and independence of each generation is affirmed.
“the two shall become one flesh” The singular form but with a plural sense is also found in Gen 2:24, Deu 6:4, and Eze 27:17. Love merges individuals!
Mat 19:6 “what therefore God has joined together” This is an aorist active indicative, which expressed completed action. By stating “what,” not “who,” the institution of marriage was emphasized. The term “joined together” meant “yoked together.”
Mat 19:7 “Moses commanded to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away” This is from Deu 24:1-4. Jesus said that Moses did it, not because God wanted it, but because of the hardness of the peoples’hearts. Moses had compassion for the wife’s societal plight. This certificate (1) required several days, (2) required legal help, (3) may have required return of the dowry, and (4) implied remarriage.
What really bothers me about Jesus’ rejection of Moses’words is how do I know what else is contained in OT Scripture that God rejects. I would never have known this unless Jesus expressly stated it here. All my life I have revered Scripture, used it to guide my life and actions, but now Jesus says part of it was never God’s will!! This gives me pause and forces me to cling to the NT and not the OT. The OT must be viewed through its interpretation by Jesus and His inspired Apostles! Jesus is Lord of Scripture (cf. Mat 5:17-48)!
Mat 19:9
NASB”except for immorality”
NKJV”except for sexual immorality”
NRSV”except for unchastity”
TEV”other than her unfaithfulness”
JB” I am not speaking of fornication”
NJB”I am not speaking of an illicit marriage”
The Greek term is porneia, which comes into English as “pornography.” This could have referred to fornication (pre-marital sexual activity), adultery (extra-marital sexual activity), or other inappropriate sexual acts such as bestiality and homosexuality (forbidden sexual activity).
“and marries another woman” Only Jewish men had the right of divorce during this period of time. In Mark and Luke, who were writing to a Gentile audience, women are also addressed (cf. Mar 10:12).
“commits adultery” This is present passive (deponent) indicative (cf. Mar 10:11-12). There are some textual variations in this verse probably caused by scribes referring to Mat 5:32. The verb tenses from Mat 5:32 shed light on this passage. In Mat 5:32 the translation should be “causes her to become an adulteress.” This passive voice has also been found in Mat 19:9 in the Greek manuscripts B and C*. This possibly referred to the social stigma which was put on the divorced woman by her Jewish culture, which designated her as an adulteress by the fact that she was put away.
At this point F. F. Bruce’s comment on this text in his book Answers to Questions, p. 55, is relevant to the use of this text today:
“He was not giving His disciples occasion for instituting a new legalism on the basis of His ruling, as some of them have tried to do. What He said about the Sabbath law could be said of the marriage law: it was made for human beings, and not vice versa.”
See Dr. Utley’s audio tapes on “divorce” online at www.freebiblecommentary.org in the “Difficult and Controversial Texts” section.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Pharisees. See App-120.
tempting Him = trying Him. See note on Luk 16:18.
for = on account of. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] This was a question of dispute between the rival Rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai; the former asserting the right of arbitrary divorce, from Deu 24:1, the other denying it except in case of adultery. It was also, says De Wette, a delicate question in the place where our Lord now was,-in the dominions of Herod Antipas.
. ., as E. V., for every cause;-i.e. is any charge which a man may choose to bring against his wife to justify him in divorcing her? So Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 23, ,- ,- .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 19:3.[854] , every) They wished to elicit from our Lord a universal negative, which they thought would be contrary to Moses.
[854] , tempting Him) At the beginning of His career, His adversaries questioned the Saviour concerning several of the acts committed either by himself or His disciples. But when He had left nothing still remaining to be done for the defence of His own cause and that of His followers, they thenceforth refrained from objections and interrogatories of that kind, and the more for that very reason heaped upon Him general questions, unconnected with any immediate act of His, it being their purpose thereby to surprise Him when off His guard and unprepared.-Harm., p. 422.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
tempting: Mat 16:1, Mat 22:16-18, Mat 22:35, Mar 10:2, Mar 12:13, Mar 12:15, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Joh 8:6, Heb 3:9
Is it: Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32, Mal 2:14-16
Reciprocal: Gen 2:24 – and they shall be one flesh Mal 2:16 – the Lord Mat 12:10 – Is it Mat 22:18 – Why Mar 8:11 – Pharisees 1Pe 3:7 – ye
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
19:3
Jesus answered all questions that were put to him that were of importance, and that of divorce was certainly in that class. The Pharisees were not sincerely seeking information when they asked this question, for the writer says they asked it tempting him. But for the benefit of others who could hear him and for those who would read it in the record, the Lord gave his explanation of the delicate subject.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?] of the causes, ridiculous (shall I call them?) or wicked; for which they put away their wives, we have spoke at Mat 5:31. We will produce only one example here; “When Rabh went to Darsis (‘whither,’ as the Gloss saith, ‘he often went’), he made a public proclamation, What woman will have me for a day? Rabh Nachman, when he went to Sacnezib, made a public proclamation, What woman will have me for a day?” The Gloss is, “Is there any woman who will be my wife while I tarry in this place?”
The question here propounded by the Pharisees was disputed in the schools, and they divided into parties concerning it, as we have noted before. For the school of Shammai permitted not divorces, but only in the case of adultery; the school of Hillel, otherwise.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 19:3. Came unto him Pharisees. Even in remote Perea, almost the only remaining field of labor, Christs opposers sought Him.
Tempting him, or, trying Him.
It is lawful, etc. A matter of dispute between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Herod Antipas, in whose dominions Christ now was, had imprisoned John the Baptist for too free an utterance on this point.
For every cause.The school of Hillel held that almost any charge on the part of a husband would justify divorce. They wished not only to entangle Him in their party disputes but also to place Him in opposition to the law of Moses (Mat 19:7). An affirmative answer would probably have called forth the charge of lax morality.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. That wheresoever our blessed Saviour went, the Pharisees followed him; not out of a sincere intention, but with a design to ensnare him: and accordingly, they propound a question to him concerning divorce, Whether a man might put away his wife on any occasion, as the manner of the Jews was? Concluding that they should intrap him in his answer, whatever it was. If he denied the lawfulness of divorce, then they would charge him with contradicting Moses, who allowed it. If he affirmed it, then they would condemn him for contradicting his own doctrine, Mat 5:32, for favouring men’s lusts, and for complying with the wicked custom of the Jews, who, upon every slight and frivolous occasion, put away their wives from them.
Learn thence, 1. That wheresoever our Lord went, as he had disciples and sincere followers, so the devil stirred him up bitter and malicious enemies, who sought to render his person unacceptable, and his doctrine unsuccessful.
2. That of all Christ’s enemies, none had such a bitter hatred and enmity against his person, ministry, and miracles, as the Pharisees. Men of great knowledge, who rebelled against the light of their own consciences, and the clear convictions of their own mind.
3. That such was the wisdom of our Saviour in all his answers to his enemies, that neither their wit nor malice could lay hold upon anything to insnare him: but observe the piety and prudence of his answer to the Pharisees in the next words.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 19:3. The Pharisees also Who always had a watchful eye on his motions, and attended him with the most malignant designs, being now more especially irritated by the fame of his late miracles, which they had in vain endeavoured to suppress; came unto him, tempting him With what they thought a very artful and insnaring question; and That they might, if possible, find some reason to accuse him, or to discredit him, at least, among the people; they asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? That is, for any thing which he dislikes in her. The school of Hillel taught, that a man might put away his wife for any cause. The son of Sirach saith, If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, give her a bill of divorce, and let her go. Sir 25:26. Josephus saith, The law runs thus: He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatsoever, let him give her a bill of divorce. And he confesseth, that he himself put away his wife, after she had borne him three children, because he was not pleased with her behaviour. But the school of Shammah determined, on the contrary that the wife was only to be put away for adultery. Whitby. (Christ, it must be observed, had delivered his sentiments on this subject twice; once in Galilee, Mat 5:31; and again in Perea, Luk 16:18. It is probable, therefore, that they knew his opinion, and solicited him to declare it, hoping it would incense the people, who reckoned the liberty which the law gave them of divorcing their wives, one of their chief privileges. Or if, standing in awe of the people, he should deliver a doctrine different from what he had taught on former occasions, they thought it would be a fit ground for accusing him of dissimulation. But they missed their aim entirely; for Jesus, always consistent with himself, boldly declared the third time against arbitrary divorces, not fearing the popular resentment in the least. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
THE DIVORCE PROBLEM
Mat 19:3-12, and Mar 10:2-12. And the Pharisees coming to Him, asked Him if it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting Him. The Jews were very lax in their matrimonial relations, often sending away their wives for very trivial causes. Even a great man like Josephus chronicles apparently innocently as he writes his histories, This day I sent away my wife. These Pharisees, as well as the people generally, were very appreciative of their privilege in this easy way to get rid of their wives. Consequently they interrogate Jesus on the subject, hopeful to catch something from His lips on which they can found an accusation, or at least render Him odious with the people.
He, responding, said to them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses permitted us to write a tablet of divorcement, and to put her away. Matthew says that Moses permitted divorcements on account of the hardness of their hearts; i.e., the incompatibility of tempers. The Mosaic dispensation being the infantile department of the Church, the standard was not so high as that of the gospel. Jesus, responding, said to them, Moses wrote to you this commandment on account of the hardness of your heart; but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. On account of this, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh. Therefore what God hath joined together, let not man separate. And again, His disciples in the house asked Him concerning this. And He says to them, Whosoever may put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery with reference to her; and if a woman may put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Matthew: But I say unto you that whosoever may put away his wife, not for fornication, and may marry another, committeth adultery; and the one having married her who is put away, committeth adultery. The E. V. in Mat 5:31, says, Whosoever marrieth a divorced woman committeth adultery. There is a great popular illusion and misunderstanding arising from the above erroneous translation in the E. V. The word apolelumenen does not mean the divorced woman, but simply, as R. V. has it, the cast-off woman. The truth of it is, she has no right to a divorce, and her husband has run her off for some unjustifiable cause. Consequently she is still his wife, and will be so as long as they both live. Therefore the reason why the man marrying her commits adultery, is because he has married the other mans wife. Instead of there being a prohibition on the marrying of divorced people, the truth is diametrically opposite a Scriptural divorce liberating the parties for another marriage, only in the Lord. (1Co 7:39)
a. The Divine, Edenic institution of matrimony unifies husband and wife, so they are no longer twain, but one flesh; not one spirit, as the spiritual unity is with God alone. Consequently no man has a right to interfere with the religious liberty of his wife, nec contra.
b. There is absolutely but one justifiable cause of divorce, and that is the dark sin of adultery, which in its very nature destroys the conjugal unity, and thus nullifies the matrimonial covenant, making them twain again, the divorcement being but a recognition of the fact that their matrimonial unity, being destroyed, is now null and void.
c. Apostasion, divorcement, is the word which, slightly modified, has been transferred to the English language; i.e., apostasy. Consequently you readily apprehend the meaning of a divorce. Just as, apostasy takes the soul out of the kingdom of God back into the dominion of Satan, so the Scriptural divorce takes your body out of the matrimonial covenant and puts it back in the realm of celibacy; i.e., the divorce so utterly rescinds the nuptial alliance as to return both parties into celibacy.
d. The States are all filled up with unlawful divorces, the civil government granting them for a diversity of causes other than the one specified by the Savior. Of course, all such divorces are null and void, the parties standing in the sight of God as if they had never been given.
e. Of course, the design of the divorce is the relief and protection of the innocent party. But as you can not have a marriage without two, the same is true in reference to divorcement. Consequently the legal divorce affects the guilty along with the innocent. You say it is not right, as he is in no way entitled to it. The admission of your premise does not change the conclusion. Many dark sins never receive their just retribution in this life. The man who overtly violates the matrimonial covenant in order to get a divorce, must meet God, and account for the dark crime, not only of adultery, but perjury. Turn him over to God. He is certain to give him justice.
f. We should be very careful not to grieve those whom God has not grieved. I find the Lords people, in many localities in my travels, grieved, afflicted, snubbed, ostracized, and in some cases publicly denounced, on the charge of having two living wives or two living husbands, when really the parties have been Scripturally divorced from their former consorts before marrying the latter. This is unjust. If you are Scripturally divorced, she is no longer your wife, or he is no longer your husband. Consequently it is not true that he has two living wives, or that she has two living husbands.
g. In my extensive travels I meet all sorts of matrimonial complexities, which bring me to my knees before God, that He may give me-light to answer the complicated questions propounded by the good and sincere people, who are anxious to do the will of God and get to heaven: e.g., men and women who during the unsaved period of their lives, got married and separated, receiving civil, but unscriptural, divorcement; then, marrying others, have families of children, homes, and a diversity of domestic interests. Meanwhile they have been converted to God, are Church members, and frequently professors of sanctification. I have found them much disturbed over this problem, preachers and prominent saints having told them that they ought to separate. now, before God and the judgment- bar, let me warn you to slowly, lest the last error be worse than the first. If it is your duty to administer temporal support to a former companion from whom you illegally separated, be sure that you satisfy your conscience when, on your knees, you tell God all about it. You see in these Scriptures that Moses granted a divorcement on account of the hardness of their hearts; i. e., when they fell out, and could not live together in peace. Under the new dispensation of-entire sanctification, the normal attitude of the gospel Church contemplates the removal of all of these evil tempers, so there is no need of a divorce.
h. Though we are not under the dispensation of Moses, I am sorry to say that the rank and file of the Church, both clergy and laity, are there to-day. This is evinced in the fact that they neither preach, seek, nor enjoy full salvation, which is the standard of the New Testament Church. Now, I assure you the Mosaic dispensation is a million times better than that of the devil. Therefore, if your matrimonial relations are not fully up to the New Testament standard, you can fall back and live in the dispensation of Moses. But be sure that you go on your knees, and settle all this matter before God, who, in infinite mercy, requires no impossibilities. Perhaps there are matters in your past life which it is impossible for you to rectify. Then turn it all over to God, and put it under the blood. Do the best you can, and where impossibilities intervene, your blessed Heavenly Father will take the will for the deed, and in the end say, Well done. Be sure you do nothing rashly, and without the triple illumination of heaven through Gods Word, Spirit, and providence.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 3
For every cause; that is, for any fault which the husband may consider a sufficient cause.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
19:3 {1} The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to {b} put away his wife for every cause?
(1) The band of marriage ought not to be broken, unless it is because of fornication.
(b) To send her a bill of divorce; see Mat 1:19 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
VI. THE OFFICIAL PRESENTATION AND REJECTION OF THE KING 19:3-25:46
This section of the Gospel continues Jesus’ instruction of His disciples in preparation for their future (Mat 19:3 to Mat 20:34). Then Jesus presented Himself formally to Israel as her King with His triumphal entry (Mat 21:1-17). This resulted in strong rejection by Israel’s leaders (Mat 21:18 to Mat 22:46). Consequently Jesus pronounced His rejection of Israel (ch. 23). Finally He revealed to His disciples that He would return to Israel later and establish the kingdom (chs. 24-25).
Throughout this entire section the Jewish leaders’ opposition to Jesus continues to mount in intensity, and it becomes more focused on Him. Reconciliation becomes impossible. Jesus revealed increasingly more about Himself and His mission to His disciples and stressed the future inauguration of the kingdom. Between these two poles of opposition and inauguration God’s grace emerges even more powerfully than we have seen it so far. Matthew never used the word "grace" (Gr. karis), but its presence is obvious in this Gospel (cf. Mat 19:21-22; Mat 20:1-16).
". . . despite the gross rejection of Jesus, the chronic unbelief of opponents, crowds, and disciples alike, and the judgment that threatens both within history and at the End, grace triumphs and calls out a messianic people who bow to Jesus’ lordship and eagerly await his return." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," pp. 410-11.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
A. Jesus’ instruction of His disciples around Judea 19:3-20:34
The primary emphasis in this section of Matthew’s Gospel is Jesus’ instruction of His disciples to prepare them for the future. Specifically, He emphasized the importance of the first becoming last and the last first: humble servanthood (cf. Mat 19:30; Mat 20:16).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
1. Instruction about marriage 19:3-12 (cf. Mar 10:2-12)
Matthew evidently included this instruction because the marriage relationships of Jesus’ disciples were important factors in their effective ministries. Jesus clarified God’s will for His disciples, which was different from the common perception of His day. He dealt with the single state as well as the essence of marriage and the subjects of divorce and remarriage.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Pharisees again approached Jesus to trap Him (cf. Mat 12:2; Mat 12:14; Mat 12:38; Mat 15:1; Mat 16:1; Mat 22:15; Mat 22:34-35). This time they posed a question about divorce. In Mat 5:31-32, Jesus had taught the sanctity of marriage in the context of kingdom righteousness. Here the Pharisees asked Him what divorces were legitimate. Perhaps they hoped Jesus would oppose Herod as John had done and would suffer a similar fate. The Machaerus fortress where Herod Antipas had imprisoned and beheaded John was nearby, east of the north part of the Dead Sea. Undoubtedly the Pharisees hoped Jesus would say something that they could use against Him.
Both the NASB and NIV translations have rendered the Pharisees’ question well. They wanted to know if Jesus believed a man could divorce his wife for any and every reason. The Mosaic Law did not permit wives to divorce their husbands.
There was great variety of opinion on this controversial subject among the Jews. Most of them believed that divorce was lawful for Jews, though not for Gentiles, but they disagreed as to its grounds. [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:332-33.] The Qumran community believed that divorce was not legitimate for any reason. [Note: J. R. Mueller, "The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts," Revue de Qumran 38 (1980):247-56.] In mainstream Judaism there were two dominant views both of which held that divorce was permissible for "something indecent" (Deu 24:1). Rabbi Shammai and his school of followers believed the indecency was some gross indecency though not necessarily adultery. Rabbi Hillel and his school interpreted the indecency more broadly to include practically any offense that a wife might have committed, real or imagined by the husband. This even included a wife not cooking her husband’s meal to his liking. [Note: For a fuller discussion of the two major views, see Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:333-34.] One of Hillel’s disciples, Rabbi Akiba, permitted a man to divorce his wife if a prettier woman caught his eye. [Note: Mishnah Gittin 9:10.] Josephus was a divorced Pharisee, and he believed in divorce "for any causes whatsoever." [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 4:8:23.] In many Pharisaic circles "the frequency of divorce was an open scandal." [Note: Hill, p. 280.]