Matthew 19
DODDMatthew 19:1-12
Parallels: Mark 10
Christ declares against divorces, except in the case of adultery, and adds some other particulars relating to the married state. Mat. XIX. 1—12. Mark X. 1—12.
MAT. XIX. 1.
AND, after the instructions that were given by our Lord to his disciples at Capernaum, (which were recorded above from sect. xix. 1 xciii. to cxvi.) it came to pass that when Jesus MAT. XIX. 1. AND it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished
tudes follow Christ, and he preaches to them.
had finished these discourses,^a he arose from thence, [and] departed from Galilee, where he had dwelt so long, and through which he had made such repeated journeys. And after he had first been up at Jerusalem (as was before related, John vii. 10, p. 44), and several other things had happened, which have already been considered in their proper place, he came at length (as was observed in the last section, John x. 40) into the borders of Judea, beyond Jordan,^b where he spent some of the winter months, crossing the river as he saw occasion. And his arrival was no sooner known, but great multitudes followed him from all the neighbouring parts; and, particularly, the people who had seen him formerly at Bethabara resorted to him again (as was said John x. 41); and, according to his usual custom, he readily embraced the opportunity of preaching to them, and taught them there again, as he had done elsewhere; and as they brought many sick persons to him, he healed them all there; which could not but increase the throng.
And the Pharisees, 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
^a When Jesus had finished these discourses.] The passages which Matthew and Mark have mentioned immediately before they introduce this story, are those discourses on humility and forgiveness of injuries which have been considered above, from sect. xciii to xciii. And I have sometimes been inclined to think that this and the next following sections might have been introduced there, as previous to that east of tabernacles which we have so often mentioned. But most harmonizers, without any scruple or apology, place them here, being determined, I suppose, by the close connection between the passages that are here related, and those events at follow them, which happened but a very little while before Christ’s death. It is of very little importance to us, whether these discourses were delivered now or a few months before. However, he might truly be said to arise from Galilee, and come into these parts, though he took a considerable compass, and spent several
weeks in the journey. Compare note o, on Luke ii. 39, Vol. I. p. 77.
^b Beyond Jordan.] Mark has expressed this with some little variation, δία τι σήραν τι λεβάνν, by the farther side of Jordan; or, as the learned Beza, and some other critics choose to render it, on the banks of Jordan; and this may seem to be more suitable to what is said of Christ’s coming to the coast of Judea; which was bounded by Jordan, and had no coasts beyond it. But it appears from John x. 40, that Bethabara, where John at first baptized (John i. 28), was the place to which our Lord removed, which was undoubtedly beyond Jordan, and over against Jericho. (Compare Josh. iii. 16, and Jud. vii. 24.) And this was so near to the coasts of Judea that we might very well retain the usual version, and take the phrase as Matthew hath expressed it; especially as it is probable that Jesus, during his abode in these parts, might often cross the river, and pass from Bethabara to Judea, which la· on the opposite side.
The Pharisees tempt him with a question about
to suppress (see John vii. 32, 47, and ix. 16, 24), came hither also to him, with the view of getting some advantage over him, by tempting him with what they thought a very artful and insnaring question: and, that they might, if possible, entangle him in his talk so as to find some reason to accuse him, or to discredit him at least among the people, they asked him, saying unto him, What thinkest thou, Master, Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for every slight cause of dislike which may be found in her? or is adultery the only just reason for a divorce?
And he said to them in reply, Have ye not read, (Gen. i. 27) that God, the almighty and allwise Creator, from the very beginning of the creation, when he would not fail to constitute human nature in such a way as might be most conducive to its happiness, in forming the first parents of mankind, made them male and female, or one man and one woman? which would neither allow of divorce or polygamy. And do you not remember that when the woman was at first brought to him, the man said, as taught by an extraordinary revelation concerning the ends and obligations of marriage, which therefore may in effect be looked upon as a Divine testimony,⁴ “For this cause, or on account of his engaging
⁴ To dismiss his wife for every cause.] It is well known that there was a debate between the ancient rabbies (perhaps as old as our Lord’s time) concerning the interpretation of the law relating to divorce, Deut. xxiv. 1. The school of Sammai maintained that the words יהוה, which we render some uncleanness, signified adultery; whereas the school of Hillel explained it of any matter of dislike. (See Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. iii. cap. 22.) Perhaps a medium between both would have been a juster interpretation than either; for it is certain that the phrase may with peculiar propriety express any blemish or disorder which a woman might unjustly and foolishly conceal before marriage that was afterwards discovered. At least, I think it plain, from our Lord’s answer, that the disciples of Sammai were mistaken; which farther appears from the provision the Mosaic law made for punishing adultery with death. The interpretation of Hillel
generally prevailed; and the Pharisees concluding Christ would, as he had done before, declare against divorces for trivial causes (Mat. v. 31, 32, and Luke xvi. 18), might hope to expose him to popular resentment for retrenching a liberty which the law allowed: but our Lord feared no consequence of doing it.
⁴ May in effect be looked upon as a Divine testimony.] I think the ingenious author of Revelation examined with Candour solidly argues, from Adam’s pronouncement concerning the obligation of a child’s relation to his parents, which had never the existed, that he spake these words in consequence of some extraordinary Divine illumination; which justifies the turn given in the paraphrase: nor could he without a revelation have known what had passed in his sleep, or ever have conjectured the original of woman to have been what he so plainly refers to. See Revelat. exam. with Candour, Vol. I. Diss. iii. p. 28—33.
re permitted for the hardness of their hearts ;
in the married state, shall a man leave both his other and mother, when those dear relations of parental and filial tenderness shall take place, and shall closely adhere to his wife; and they two shall be joined in so intimate an union as to become one flesh ?” (Gen. ii. 24.) So that it appears of persons thus joined together, that they are no longer two, but one flesh, and should accordingly regard each other as members of one body, What God therefore has thus closely yoked together, let not man separate; but let the bond of marriage be esteemed as sacred, and incapable of being dissolved by any thing which does not make them cease to be one flesh, by making that of the one common to some third person. (See Whitby, in loc.)
They say unto him, by way of objection against this, Why then did Moses under Divine direction and inspiration, command “a man, whose wife found no favour in his eyes, because he had discovered,” as it is there expressed, “some uncleanness in her,” or (as it has been generally understood) some cause of distate and aversion, “to give her a bill of divorce, and so to dismiss her ?” (Deut. xxiv. 1.)
And he replied, and said unto them, How is it that you take this matter ; or what did you allege that Moses did command you ? Is there any thing in his writings that recommends divorce and separation upon light occasions ?
And upon this they said, If it may not be said that Moses does command or recommend it in itself, it is most evident from the passage we have mentioned, that he has permitted a man, in some cases, to write a bill of divorce, and to give it into his wife’s hand, and dismiss her ; on which foundation thou well knowest how frequently divorces prevail among us, and how justifiable they are generally esteemed.
And Jesus answered and said to them, You state the matter now more justly than before : for it amounts merely to a permission : but I must observe to you, that it was on account of the hardness of your hearts, and the perverseness of your tempers, that Moses wrote you
hardness of your hearts.] Jewish nation is too apparent. See the character of the xxxiii. 3 ; xxxiv. 9 ; Deut. ix. 6 ;
But should not be used but in cases of a
this precept, [and] gave you such a permission to put away your wives; knowing that otherwise you might have been tempted to use them intolerably ill: but, as I just now told you, it was not so from the beginning; and the account which that writer gives of the original constitution of things proves it to be an irregularity, how necessary soever he might find it, in some cases, to tolerate it, or rather, by making it irrevocable, to prevent men’s doing it without deep consideration.
And when the assembly was dismissed, and Jesus was retired from the multitude, as they were sitting together in the house where he lodged, his disciples asked him again of the same matter, as not being able fully to understand it, or to reconcile it with the precept of Moses.
And he says to them, If you are willing to receive laws from me, you must submit to a greater restraint than Moses laid on the Israelites; for I expressly tell you, (as I formerly did, Mat. v. 32, sect. xxxix. and Luke xvi. 18, sect. cxxiv.) Whosoever shall dismiss his wife, except [it be] for whoredom, which is a fundamental breach of the main article of the marriage covenant, by which they are one flesh, and shall marry another, commits adultery against her that was his former wife, and who continues still to be so in the sight of God; and he that shall marry her who is so dismissed, without a sufficient cause, commits adultery. And, on the other hand, by a parity of reason, if a woman, not injured in the important article just now mentioned, shall put away her husband, or extort from him a bill of divorce, and be married to another man, she
27; Isa. xlviii. 4; Ezek. ii. 4; and Acts vii. 51. Our Lord (as Grotius well observes) strongly intimates that a more tender disposition may justly be expected from his disciples.
[Except it be for whoredom: v. 11. 1.] Though fornication committed before marriage, and afterwards discovered, might be supposed to justify a divorce, adultery must much more evidently do it; and therefore it is plain the word must be taken in the extent which is here given it. (See note. on Mat. v. 32, Vol. I. p. 222.) But it is by a dangerous latitude of interpretation that Milton (Prose Works, page
- would explain the word as signifying any thing which should be to the husband as grievous and intolerable as whoredom. The case of obstinate desertion, where the husband cannot by law recover his wife, which was the celebrated case of the pious Galeacius Caracciolus, and which we find to be supposed in 1 Cor. vii. 15, is quite of a different nature; nor can a man under such a calamity be said to put away his wife. Erasmus has a remarkable note on Mat. xix. 3, which shews he was not far from Milton’s opinion.
[If a woman shall put away her husband.] Though it is certain that the Jewish law
is objected to, but all cannot live single.
commits adultery, and as she deserves to be abhorred by men, so must she expect to be punished by God, as guilty of that enormous and detestable crime, if she do not from her very heart repent of it.
Then his disciples say unto him, If this be the case between a man and his wife, and the bond be thus indissoluble, surely it is not expedient to marry; since a man may by that means be caught in an inextricable snare, which may make him miserable all the rest of his life.
But he said to them, All men cannot receive this saying of yours, that it is not expedient to marry; but only they to whom it is given, as a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations towards that state which God, for wise reasons, has wrought into the common constitution of human nature. For there are [some] eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and whose natural temper and inclination is in this respect peculiar; and there are [some] eunuchs who were made eunuchs by the wickedness of men, who drive on that scandalous traffic which the luxury and effeminacy of the eastern world has rendered so common; and there are [some] eunuchs who have, as it were, made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of heaven, that is, who, by a resolute guard on their appetites and passions, have conquered the propensities of nature, that being free from the incumbrances of marriage, and devoting themselves to a life of more sublime devotion, they might promote the interest of my gospel. (Compare 1 Cor. vii. 7, 37.) He therefore, on the whole, that finds he is able to receive [this saying], let him receive it; or let him that is in his own conscience persuaded that he can glorify God most by a single life, choose it. Others may, and ought to marry; but let none lightly rush into that state on a supposition that the bond of it may be broken through at pleasure.
did not put it into a woman’s power to divorce her husband, it is plain from Josephus that it was done, not only by several ladies of distinguished rank, but even that his own wife did it (see Dr. Lardner’s Credibility, part i. Vol. II. page 890, note 4), having probably learned of the Roman women, who in this age are known to have practised it in the most scandalous manner. See Juv. Sat. vi. ver. 222-230. Compare 1 Sam. xxv. 44, and 1 Cor. vii. 13.
Reflections on the duties of a married and a single life.
IMPROVEMENT.
FROM what we have been reading we may justly take occasion to adore the wisdom and goodness of Divine Providence in creating the human species male and female, and providing for his new formed creature Adam so suitable and so amiable a companion, to enliven every other object of delight, and to crown the pleasures of paradise itself.
Let us also acknowledge the apparent interposition of a wise and kind Providence in maintaining such a proportion between the sexes, even to this day, which so apparently tends to the benefit of both, as well as the support of the race in future ages; as also in perpetuating in their hearts through succeeding generations that mutual tenderness for each other which the purest bosoms may feel and avow, and which is the foundation of such an union of souls as no other friendship will admit.
Let those who are married, considering the indissoluble bond by which God has joined them together, make it their constant care to promote the comfort and happiness of each other: and let them most cautiously guard against every degree of contention, or even of distaste, which might at length occasion an alienation in their affections, and render so close a bond proportionably grievous.
11,12 Let none rashly run into these important engagements, nor determine their choice by light considerations, of a low and transitory nature. And if any, on the whole, prefer the freedom of a single life to a state which, with its peculiar comforts, must necessarily have its peculiar cares and trials too, let them diligently improve that disengagement, as an obligation to seek the kingdom of God with greater ardour, and to pursue its interests with more active zeal and application.
Mark To conclude; since it appears in this respect, as well as in some others, that the gospel revokes some indulgences which the law of Moses gave, let us endeavour to form our hearts by Divine grace to a wisdom, seriousness, and spirituality, which may suit this nobler dispensation; and while we are reading the precept of the Jewish legislator, let us remember we have a sublimer Master, and are to do and forbear more than others. (Mat. v. 47.)