Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away
7. a writing of divorcement ] See ch. Mat 5:31-32.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Why did Moses … – To this they objected that Moses had allowed such divorces Deu 24:1; and if he had allowed them, they inferred that they could not be unlawful. See the notes at Mat 5:31.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement?] It is not an unusual case for the impure and unholy to seek for a justification of their conduct from the law of God itself, and to wrest Scripture to their own destruction. I knew a gentleman, so called, who professed deep reverence for the sacred writings, and, strange as it may appear, was outwardly irreproachable in every respect but one; that was, he kept more women than his wife. This man frequently read the Bible, and was particularly conversant with those places that spoke of or seemed to legalize the polygamy of the patriarchs!
A writing of divorcement] See the form of it in Clarke’s note on “Mt 5:31“.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark reports this a little differently, Mar 10:3 &c., as if Christ had first said unto them. What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept, & c. The substance of our Saviours answer seemeth to be this: Moses gave you no positive command in the case, he could not make a law directly opposite to the law of my Father; but Moses saw the wantonness and wickedness of your hearts, that you would turn away your wives without any just and warrantable cause; and to restrain your extravagances of cruelty to your wives, or disorderly turning them off upon any occasion, he made a law that none should put away his wife but upon a legal cognizance of the cause, and giving her a bill of divorce. Indeed possibly this bill of divorce was sometimes judicially granted upon irregular causes, and Moses might connive at it for the preventing of greater evils, because you were always a hard hearted and stiff necked people; and you by your traditions have expounded that law beyond Mosess intention, and made a bill of divorce grantable in cases which he never thought of, nor intended in that law. But the measures of lawfulness are neither to be taken from Mosess temporary toleration and connivance, nor much less from your traditions and expositions of the law of Moses, but from the original institution of marriage, and from Gods original law relating to it: now God at first made but one woman for one man, and so united them that he styled them one flesh; so as he who puts away his wife, doth as it were divide and tear his own flesh piece from piece, which is barbarous, inhuman, and unnatural. And the law of God was not, that a man should forsake his wife whenever he had a mind to it, but that he should rather forsake his father and mother than his wife; that he should cleave to his wife, living and dwelling with her, as a man of knowledge; not hating his own flesh; loving his wife as his own body, loving and cherishing her, Eph 5:28,29. Now how can this possibly consist with a mans putting away his wife upon every little and trivial cause of offence or dislike unto her.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. They say unto him, Why did Mosesthen command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
They say unto him,…. That is the Pharisees, who object the law of Moses to him, hoping hereby to ensnare him, and expose him to the resentment of the people, should he reject that, as they supposed he would;
why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and put her away? referring to De 24:1 which they thought to be a contradiction, and what they knew not how to reconcile to the doctrine Christ had delivered, concerning the original institution of marriage, and the close union there is between a man and his wife, by virtue of it, and which is not to be dissolved by men. Concerning a writing of divorcement and the form, and manner of it,
see Gill “Mt 5:31”
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Writing [] . Rev., bill. The word is a diminutive of biblov, which originally means the inner bark of the papyrus, used for writing, then a book or roll of this bark; hence a paper, bill.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
7. Why then did Moses order? They had thought of this calumny, (597) if, which was more probable, Christ should demand a proper cause to be shown in cases of divorce; for it appears that whatever God permits by his law, whose will alone establishes the distinction between what is good or evil, is lawful. But Christ disarms the falsehood and slander by the appropriate reply, that Moses permitted it on account of their obstinacy, and not because he approved of it as lawful. And he confirms his opinion by the best argument, because it was not so at the beginning. He takes for granted that, when God at first instituted marriage, he established a perpetual law, which ought to remain in force till the end of the world. And if the institution of marriage is to be reckoned an inviolable law, it follows that whatever swerves from it does not arise from its pure nature, but from the depravity of men.
But it is asked, Ought Moses to have permitted what was in itself bad and sinful? I reply, That, in an unusual sense of the word, he is said to have permitted what he did not severely forbid; (598) for he did not lay down a law about divorces, so as to give them the seal of his approbation, but as the wickedness of men could not be restrained in any other way, he applied what was the most admissible remedy, that the husband should, at least, attest the chastity of his wife. For the law was made solely for the protection of the women, that they might not suffer any disgrace after they had been unjustly rejected. Hence we infer, that it was rather a punishment inflicted on the husbands, than an indulgence or permission fitted to inflame their lust. Besides, political and outward order is widely different from spiritual government. What is lawful and proper the Lord has comprehended under the ten words. (599) Now as it is possible that many things, for which every man’s conscience reproves and charges him, may not be called in question at a human tribunal, it is not wonderful if those things are connived at by political laws.
Let us take a familiar instance. The laws grant to us a greater liberty of litigation than the law of charity allows. Why is this? Because the right cannot be conferred on individuals, unless there be an open door for demanding it; and yet the inward law of God declares that we ought to follow what charity shall dictate. And yet there is no reason why magistrates should make this an excuse for their indolence, if they voluntarily abstain from correcting vices, or neglect what the nature of their office demands. But let men in a private station beware of doubling the criminality of the magistrates, by screening their own vices under the protection of the laws. For here the Lord indirectly reproves the Jews for not, reckoning it enough that their stubbornness was allowed to pass unpunished, if they did not implicate God as defending their iniquity. And if the rule of a holy and pious life is not always, or in all places, to be sought from political laws, much less ought we to seek it from custom.
(597) “ Ils avoyent songe ceste calomnie pour l’avoir toute preste;” — “they had thought of this calumny, to have it all ready.”
(598) “ Ie repond, Qu’a parler proprement, il ne l’a pas permis: mais d’autant qu’il ne l’a pas defendu estroittement, il est dit qu’il l’a permis;” — “I reply, That, strictly speaking, he did not permit it; but in so far as he did not strictly forbid it, he is said to have permitted it.”
(599) Where the English version gives the words, ten commandments, the phrase in the original Hebrew is, עשרת הדברים, the ten words, ( Exo 34:28; Deu 4:13.) — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) They say unto him.The question comes apparently from the advocates of the laxer school. They fell back from what would seem to them a vague abstract principle upon the letter of the Law. Was Moses, the great lawgiver, sanctioning what God had forbidden? Would the Prophet of Nazareth commit Himself to anything so bold as that?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘They say to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away?” ’
The Pharisees then triumphantly challenged Jesus on the basis of Deu 24:1-4. They could not deny what He had said about the creation ordinances in Genesis, but if He was right why had Moses ‘commanded’ that in the case of divorce a bill of divorce should be given and she be put away? They had Moses’ authority on their side.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Pharisees Try To Argue Him Down About Divorce (19:7-9).
The Pharisees were clearly taken aback by Jesus’ words. They had expected Him to come down either on Shammai’s side or on Hillel’s. They had not expected Him to bring out that divorce was forbidden from the very beginning of creation. They felt that He must have overlooked Moses’ words on the matter. What of Deu 24:1-4? Notice in Jesus’ reply the difference between the Pharisees use of ‘command’ and Jesus use of ‘allowed’. His specific point is that Moses had not given permission for divorce, he had simply allowed it to happen without his approval. Far from being commanded by him it was allowed under sufferance, and only then because he had to cater for the hardness of men’s hearts.
Analysis.
a
b He says to them, “Moses for your hardness of heart allowed you to put away your wives” (Mat 19:8 a).
c “But from the beginning it has not been so” (Mat 19:8 b).
b “And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery” (Mat 19:9 a).
a “And he who marries her when she is put away commits adultery” (Mat 19:9 b).
Not that in ‘a’ the question is concerning Moses’ command that a divorced woman can be ‘put away’, and in the parallel Jesus points out that someone who marries a wife who has been ‘put away’ commits adultery. In ‘b’ the putting away was allowed due to the hardness of men’s hearts and in the parallel if the man remarried he then committed adultery. Centrally in ‘c’ is that from the beginning divorce was not allowed.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
An objection and its answer:
v. 7. They say unto Him, Why did Moses, then, command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
v. 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.
v. 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. The Pharisees’ reference is to Deu 24:1-4. But they understood neither the intention nor the words of Moses. The purpose of Moses had been to hinder the practice of wholesale and easy divorces, and to offer to the woman at least some show of justice, by subjecting the process of separation in vogue among the Jews to certain rules and restrictions, in order to place the relationship of holy wedlock on a higher plane. Another point: Moses did not command that divorces should be obtained. He only made proper provision to safeguard the woman in case the husband insisted upon a separation. “The Pharisees seem to have regarded Moses as a patron of the practice of putting away, rather than as one bent on mitigating its evil results. ” “That was the law of Moses concerning the letter of divorce, and the Jews made use of this law with a vengeance; took wives and chased them away, took others, and regarded the process of marrying and taking wives no differently than a horse-trade. If a man had taken a wife, and she did not please him, he rejected her; and when he had divorced the first wife, and the second one did not suit him (he was sorry on account of the change), he soon wanted another, or desired his first wife again; thus they multiplied divorces. There Moses had placed a bolt in the way, prohibited the remarrying of the first wife; intended to prevent easy divorces; and on account of this addition in the law many kept their first wives.”
Jesus very frankly states the reason why Moses, as the lawgiver for the theocracy of the Old Testament, had included this provision, by inspiration of God. The hardness of their hearts, that condition of heart and mind which refuses to submit to the restraint of purity and holiness, and which will probably seek to vent its spite in acts of cruelty against the wife, made such a rule advisable. And permission was only implied, not commanded. It is true, in general, that it is dangerous to permit the least evil, though prudence may seem to require it, because such permission may soon be construed as command. The Lord knew that this method of dealing with the question would prevent greater evils. “Thus, in civil government, in a city, it may often be necessary to wink at the evil doings of a scoundrel and not punish him, though, properly speaking, he should lose his head. But there may be good cause for it, lest, in punishing him, twenty innocent people would be drawn into it and would suffer damage. Because ye are such bad and desperate scoundrels; and cannot keep what God has commanded; in order, then, that no offense happen, nor that ye slay your wives, nor remove them with poison; therefore Moses has, not commanded, but permitted you to do this. Moses, then, has not given you that law on account of your righteousness, honor, and piety, but has suffered it and winked at it on account of the hardness of your hearts. It was not commanded by him, but Moses thought: This people is a proud and evil people, it might commit one murder after another. If they refuse to keep God’s command, let them be divorced, that murder and poison be omitted. Whoever will not keep his wife willingly, let him put her away, lest a worse offense follow. ” But the argument from God’s institution of holy wedlock and from the original state of holy matrimony are entirely against such a condition of affairs. So far as Jesus is concerned. He repeats the declaration made in the Sermon on the Mount, chapter 5:31-32. He that for any reason puts away, rejects, his wife, except that of marital unfaithfulness, in which case the marriage tie has already been torn asunder, is an adulterer before God; and, in the same way, he that marries a divorcee, one that has left her husband without Scriptural grounds, is guilty of adultery.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 19:7 . Supposed counter-evidence.
] Deu 24:1 , in which, indeed, there is no express command, though it may be said to contain the prescription of the bill of divorce. Mark and in this his account is certainly more original represents the whole reply of Jesus as beginning with the question as to the law of Moses on the matter (Mat 10:3 ). Moreover, the more appropriate expression , which in Mat 19:8 is ascribed to Jesus (not so in Mark), undoubtedly betrays the influence of riper reflection.
Comp. besides, note on Mat 5:31 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Ver. 7. Why did Moses then command, &c. ] Sophister-like they oppose Moses to God, scripture to scripture, as if God were against himself. This is still the guise of graceless heretics; as also to mingle and jumble together truths with falsehoods, that falsehoods may pass the more current. See it in these Pharisees. It was true that Moses commanded (for the honour of the woman, and disgrace of the man) that he should give her an abscessionale, a a bill of divorcement. But it was not true that Moses commanded to put her away. He permitted such a thing indeed as a civil magistrate by divine dispensation (better an inconvenience than a mischief), but that makes little for its lawfulness.
a A permission or command to depart. D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 9. ] In this second question, the Pharisees imagine that they have overthrown our Lord’s decision by a permission of the law, which they call a command (compare , Mat 19:7 , with , Mat 19:8 ). But He answers them that this was done by Moses on account of their hardness and sinfulness , as a lesser of evils , and belonged to that dispensation which , Rom 5:20 ; , Gal 3:19 . This He expresses by the , , , as opposed to , and to . Only that , which itself breaks marriage , can be a ground for dissolving it. The question, whether demonstrated approaches to , short of the act itself, are to be regarded as having the same power, must be dealt with cautiously, but at the same time with full remembrance that our Lord does not confine the guilt of such sins to the outward act only: see ch. Mat 5:28 . St. Mark gives this last verse (9) as spoken to the disciples in the house; and his minute accuracy in such matters of detail is well known. This enactment by our Lord is a formal repetition of what He had said before in the Sermon on the Mount, ch. Mat 5:32 . Notice, as on ch. Mat 5:32 , without the art., and thus logically confined to the case of her who has been divorced . This not having been seen, expositors (e.g. of late Bp. Wordsworth) have fallen into the mistake of supposing that the dictum applies to the marrying a woman divorced , which grammatically would require . The proper English way of rendering the word as it now stands, would be, a woman thus divorced, viz., .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 19:7-9 . , etc.: such doctrine could not be directly gainsaid, but a difficulty might be raised by an appeal to Moses and his enactment about a bill of divorce (Deu 24:1 ). The Pharisees seem to have regarded Moses as a patron of the practice of putting away, rather than as one bent on mitigating its evil results. Jesus corrects this false impression.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Why? Why then? Moses. See note on Mat 8:4.
command, &c. Not till the close of the forty years.
writing. A bill. Reference to Pentateuch (Deu 24:1). See App-117.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
7-9.] In this second question, the Pharisees imagine that they have overthrown our Lords decision by a permission of the law, which they call a command (compare , Mat 19:7, with , Mat 19:8). But He answers them that this was done by Moses on account of their hardness and sinfulness, as a lesser of evils, and belonged to that dispensation which , Rom 5:20; , Gal 3:19. This He expresses by the , , , as opposed to , and to . Only that , which itself breaks marriage, can be a ground for dissolving it. The question, whether demonstrated approaches to , short of the act itself, are to be regarded as having the same power, must be dealt with cautiously, but at the same time with full remembrance that our Lord does not confine the guilt of such sins to the outward act only: see ch. Mat 5:28. St. Mark gives this last verse (9) as spoken to the disciples in the house; and his minute accuracy in such matters of detail is well known. This enactment by our Lord is a formal repetition of what He had said before in the Sermon on the Mount, ch. Mat 5:32. Notice, as on ch. Mat 5:32, without the art., and thus logically confined to the case of her who has been divorced . This not having been seen, expositors (e.g. of late Bp. Wordsworth) have fallen into the mistake of supposing that the dictum applies to the marrying a woman divorced , which grammatically would require . The proper English way of rendering the word as it now stands, would be, a woman thus divorced, viz., .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 19:7. , to give) St Mark (Mar 10:4) has , to write. Moses employs both expressions.- , a writing of divorcement) the LXX. use the same phrase.-, and) sc. thus.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Why: Mat 5:31, Deu 24:1-4, Isa 50:1, Jer 3:8, Mar 10:4
and to: Mat 1:19, Mal 2:16
Reciprocal: Joh 5:45 – in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
19:7
It was natural for them to ask this question, for they knew that the law which Moses gave did not hold strictly to the foregoing requirements.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 19:7. Why then did Moses command? Deu 24:1-4 (comp. chap. Mat 5:31) had been transformed into a command that divorces should take place.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, The Pharisees’ demand, and our Saviour’s reply. They demand, Why Moses commanded to put away the wife by a bill of divorce?
Where note, The wicked abuse which the Pharisees put upon Moses, as if he had commanded them, whereas he only permitted to put them away. Moses suffered it for the hardness of their hearts; that is, he did not punish it; not allowing it as good, but winking at it as a lesser evil, because the Jews were so barbarously cruel to their wives, as to turn them away upon every disgust.
Now our Saviour, in his reply, refers them again to the primitive institution of marriage, bidding them compare the precept and their practice together; for in the beginning it was not so.
Learn, That according to the word and will of God, nothing can violate the bonds of marriage and justify a divorce between man and wife, but the defiling of the marriage bed by adultery and uncleanness: this is the only case in which man and wife may lawfully part. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, committeth adultery.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 19:7-9. They say, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, &c. If divorce be contrary to the original institution of marriage, as you affirm, how came it that Moses has commanded us to give a bill of divorce? &c. The Pharisees, by calling the law concerning divorce a command, insinuated that Moses had been so tender of their happiness that he would not suffer them to live with bad wives, though they themselves had been willing; but peremptorily enjoined, that such should be put away. He saith, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts Because neither your fathers nor you could bear the more excellent way; suffered, (or permitted,) not commanded, you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so And the account which Moses himself gives of the original constitution of things, which has now been referred to, proves it to be an irregularity which must have no place under the gospel dispensation. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication Which is a fundamental breach of the main article of the marriage covenant, by which they are one flesh; and shall marry another, committeth adultery Against her that was his former wife, and who continues still to be so in the sight of God. As the law of Moses allowed divorce, for the hardness of mens hearts, and the law of Christ forbids it, we learn from hence that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, and that they should not be hard-hearted like the Jews. Indeed there will be no occasion for divorces if we bear with one another, and forgive one another in love, as those that are and hope to be forgiven of God, and have found him reluctant to put us away, Isa 50:1. Divorces are unnecessary if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands, and they dwell together as heirs of the grace of life. These are the laws of Christ, and such as we find not in all the law of Moses.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 7
A writing; a certificate.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
19:7 {2} They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
(2) Because political laws are adjusted to allow some things, it does not follow that God therefore approves of them.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus had not yet answered the Pharisees’ question about how one should take the Mosaic Law on this subject, so they asked Him this question. Granting Jesus’ view of marriage, why did Moses allow divorce? In the Deu 24:1-4 passage to which the Pharisees referred, God showed more concern about prohibiting the remarriage of the divorced woman and her first husband than the reason for granting the divorce. However the Pharisees took the passage as a command (Gr. entellomai) to divorce one’s wife for any indecency. God intended it as only a permission to divorce, as the passage itself shows.