CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 19:1. He departed from Galilee.—This marks a very solemn period in our Lord’s public ministry. It was His farewell to Galilee (Brown). Came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan.—From the parallel passage in Mark (Mark 10:1) we learn that this means: Came into Judæa by the trans-Jordanic route through Peræa. It does not mean that any portion of Judæa lay beyond Jordan (Carr). St. Matthew here omits various particulars, of which some are to be supplied from Luke 9:51 to Luke 17:11; others from John—two visits to Jerusalem (John 7:8-10; John 10:22-39); the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-46); the retirement, to Ephraim (John 11:54).
Matthew 19:3. The Pharisees.—The article is omitted in R.V. Peræa was removed from the great centres of Jewish hierarchism, but even there the sect of the Pharisees was represented. Tempting him.—To know how entangling the question was it is necessary to remember that there was a dispute at the time between two rival schools of Jewish theology—the school of Hillel and that of Shammai—in regard to the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. The one school held that divorce could be had on the most trivial grounds; the other restricted it to cases of grievous sin (Gibson).
Matthew 19:4. Answered.—The answer Jesus gives is remarkable, not only for the wisdom and courage with which He met their attack, but for the manner in which He availed Himself of the opportunity to set the institution of marriage on its true foundation (ibid.). Have ye not read? etc.—It is noteworthy that the answer to the question is found not in the words of a code of laws, but in the original facts of creation. That represented the idea of man and woman as created for a permanent relationship to each other, not as left to unite and separate as appetite or caprice might prompt (Plumptre).
Matthew 19:5. And said.—Through Adam (Genesis 2:24). The words “embody, not Adam’s opinion, conjecture, or imagination, but God’s own marital law for universal man” (Morison).
Matthew 19:7. Why did Moses then command, etc.?—Our Lord’s answer exposes the double fallacy lurking in the question, “Why did Moses command?” He did not command, he only suffered it; it was not to further divorce but to check it, that he made the regulation about the “writing of divorcement.” And then, not only was it a mere matter of sufferance—it was a sufferance granted “because of the hardness of your hearts.” Since things were so bad among your fathers in the matter of marriage, it was better that there should be a legal process than that the poor wives should be dismissed without it (Gibson).
Matthew 19:10. It is not good to marry.—Nothing could prove more clearly the revolution in thought brought to pass by Christ than this. Even the disciples feel that such a principle would make the yoke of marriage unbearable (Carr).
Matthew 19:11. All men cannot receive this saying.—It is as if the Saviour had said: True, so far; it is expedient in some respects and indeed in many, not to marry. Not a few inconveniences, annoyances, difficulties, and trials would thus be avoided. But then, that would be only one side of the case. And it is by no means all men who could easily, or wisely, receive this saying as the rule of their life, and reduce it to practice (Morison). The saying was that of the disciples as virtually re-iterated, and partially accepted by our Lord (ibid.). They to whom it is given.—Who are these? the disciples would naturally ask; and this our Lord proceeds to tell them in three particulars (Brown).
Matthew 19:12. Eunuchs.—See Dr. Schaff’s remarks (p. 448).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 19:1-12
The law of marriage.—The Saviour has left Galilee, and is on the other side of the Jordan, preparatory to crossing to Jericho and going up to Jerusalem (Matthew 19:1; Matthew 20:17). Those who are in need of Him find Him out there in great multitudes; and find Him also to be all that He had ever been, both in word and in deed (Matthew 19:2, Mark 10:1). Those who are opposed to Him find Him out too (Matthew 19:3). They come to Him with an insidious question on the subject of divorce. In what cases did He hold it “lawful” for a man to “put away his wife?” In their own teaching there were many “causes” which were held to justify a man in so doing. What did He say on the matter? In reply to this question the Saviour first lays down an absolute rule; tnen qualifies it by a certain necessary exception; and finally fortifies it by a further word of considerate caution.
I. An absolute rule.—A rule which is absolute, first, in regard to its authority. It is so, on the one hand, on the question of time. It goes back at once to “the beginning” of all (Matthew 19:4). Let that be which has always been. This is what it first says. It is so, on the other hand, on the question of source. There can be no greater authority on this subject than the authority of the Creator (Matthew 19:4). Only He who made man can know fully what man is. Only He, therefore, can either rightly or wisely decide ultimately what man ought to do. Not less absolute is this rule, in the second place, in regard to its nature. Its nature, on the one hand, in recognising so clearly in the marriage relation the idea of “duality,” and of duality only, of nothing beyond. That original and first marriage to which the rule in question refers us, being one which was both brought about and expressly sanctioned by God Himself, is therefore a “pattern” instance to all. That same instance, however, as is so expressly taught us, was one of this kind—a dual instance—a case of “male and female”—one of “man and wife”—one of nothing beyond. Its nature, on the other hand, in recognising just as clearly the idea of “unity” also. These “two” in one sense—so it was also declared by that original and authoritative instance—were to be “one” in another. “One” so intimately that in this respect no other human relation was to be put in comparison with it (Matthew 19:5). One so intimately, also, that those “two,” in a certain sense, ceased to be “two” any more (Matthew 19:6). That, in short, is the primary idea—that is God’s conception—of marriage. The rule to be observed is to keep strictly to that conception in practice—a rule which, of course, precludes the idea of setting that bond on one side (end of Matthew 19:6).
II. A necessary exception.—This exception is brought out, in part, by a further question on the part of the adversaries of the Saviour. Unable to dispute the answer He has given in a general way, they are yet not satisfied with it in full. It leaves untouched, they think, what Moses has said in another part of his writings; as, for example, where he implies, that there are cases in which men might be allowed to “put away” their wives, by stipulating, if they do so, that the dissolution of the marriage should take place in as formal and open and valid a manner as the original contract did at the first (Matthew 19:7). What did He say about this? Did He allow at all—and, if so, in what cases did He allow—of such exceptions? Our Saviour’s answer is twofold. First, He shows that their inference from Moses was not correct as it stood. The stipulation he insisted on did not prove that the exceptions it pointed to were lawful in His judgment. All it showed was that they could not be avoided in the circumstances of the case. Not even Moses could always do all that should be done with the materials at his disposal. With such blinded minds and perverse wills and hardened hearts as he had to deal with, he could sometimes only seek so to regulate an evil as to keep it within bounds. But this was no proof that he looked on it as being a good. To regulate that which for the time being could not be removed, was not to wish it to remain. To supply a man with crutches when he is lame is not to say that lameness is a good thing in itself. Neither was it difficult, in the next place, to see, even so, where the only exception should be. The essence of marriage was in being “one flesh.” There were cases—only too common cases—where this essence had gone. The marriage contract, in all such cases, had been already broken de facto. In such cases to declare it also broken de jure, and to treat it as such by granting a divorce was not out of keeping with the original institution and purport of marriage; and, therefore, might be allowed (Matthew 19:9). That very statement, however, seems to shut out all other “causes” besides.
III. A faithful caution.—On hearing this the disciples say to the Saviour as related in Matthew 19:10. The spirit of His answer to them may be given in very few words. In certain exceptional cases and times it might be as they said (see 1 Corinthians 7:26). It might be better, in such circumstances, not to enter at all into the marriage relation; on that point, to a great extent, men must judge for themselves. If they felt they could do so, let them do so. It would not be displeasing to God. On the other hand, there was no doubt that this view of that relation might cause it, in some cases, to become a very considerable burden and trial to those who had entered upon it. In no case, however, but that mentioned, were they to regard this as a sufficient reason for attempting to dissolve it. For such a remedy would involve more evils than those it attempted to cure. If He has allowed such troubles to come upon us in that connection (Romans 8:28). He will help us to bear them. He will even cause them, if we look to Him for it, to work for our good (Romans 8:28). Anything is better than unlawfully seeking to set asunder what God hath once joined.
From all this we may see, in conclusion:—
1. How holy a thing marriage is.—Of few other human relations can we say as of this, that it was “instituted of God.” It is not be terminated, it is not to be entered into, apart from God’s will.
2. How naturally, therefore, it leads our thoughts on to what is holier still (Ephesians 5:23, etc.).
3. How well we may rejoice, therefore, to find it spoken of here as that which must not be dissolved.—How glorious to think that in this also it sets forth the union of Christ and His church! If the less sacred much more the more so—if the earthly much more the heavenly—if the type much more the antitype—is something which, once entered in, is not to be lightly dissolved!
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 19:3-6. Divorce.—Christ proves by divers arguments that for every cause a divorce is not lawful.
I. From the authority of the Institutor of marriage, viz. God.
II. From the antiquity of the institution of marriage.—“From the beginning.”
III. From the manner of the conjunction and union (Matthew 19:5).
IV. From the excellency of the conjugal bond and tie.—“A man shall leave father and mother,” etc.—Richard Ward.
Matthew 19:6. A happy marriage.—Rev. Robert Newton, the Wesleyan pulpit orator, and his bride, began their married life by retiring twice each day to pray with and for each other. This practice they kept up, when opportunity served, to the end of life. When an old man Mr. Newton remarked, “In the course of a short time my wife and I shall celebrate the jubilee of our marriage; and I know not that, during the fifty years of our union, an unkind look or an unkind word has ever passed between us.”
Matthew 19:3-9. Marriage and divorce among the Jews.—Their highest standard [was] represented in this case by the school of Shammai, while that of Hillel, and still more Rabbi Akiba, presented the lowest opposite extreme. But in reply to the Pharisees our Lord placed the whole question on grounds which even the strictest Shammaite would have refused to adopt. For the farthest limit to which he would have gone would have been to restrict the cause of divorce to “a matter of un-cleanness” (Deuteronomy 24:1), by which he would probably have understood not only a breach of the marriage vow, but of the laws and customs of the land. In fact, we know that it included every kind of impropriety, such as going about with loose hair, spinning in the street, familiarly talking with men, ill-treating her husband’s parents in his presence, brawling, that is “speaking to her husband so loudly that the neighbours could hear her in the adjoining house” (Chetub., vii. 6), a general bad reputation, or the discovery of fraud before marriage. On the other hand the wife could insist on being divorced if her husband were a leper or affected with polypus or engaged in a disagreeable or dirty trade, such as that of a tanner or coppersmith. One of the cases in which divorce was obligatory was if either party had become heretical, or ceased to profess Judaism. But even so, there were at least checks to the danger of general lawlessness, such as the obligation of paying to a wife her portion, and a number of minute ordinances about formal letters of divorce, without which no divorce was legal, and which had to be couched in explicit terms, handed to the woman herself, and that in presence of two witnesses, etc.—A. Edersheim, D.D.
Facilities of divorce among the Jews.—The facility of divorce among the Jews had become so great a scandal, even among their heathen neighbours, that the Rabbis were fain to boast of it as a privilege granted to Israel, but not to other nations.—C. Geikie, D.D.
Matthew 19:4-6. Christianity superior to other systems.—It ought to increase our esteem for Christianity that it takes such a particular care, above all other religions in the world, of regulating that brutish passion of lust, and for the procreation of children in a way so sacred, by making the Christian marriage a covenant of perpetual chastity and friendship. It is plain to any wise, considering man how much the Christian religion, in this respect, is preferable both to Paganism, Mahometanism, and Judaism. As for Paganism, the generality of those of that religion were so far from contriving anything on this subject that was wise or useful to mankind, that their religion abounds with fables of the whoredoms and adulteries of their very gods; and by their example they encouraged themselves in all manner of lewdness, not excepting the most unnatural mixtures, such as the very brute creatures abhor. Some of the learned Greek philosophers were so brutal in their notions of these things that they recommended a promiscuous use of the female sex and gave loose reins to men’s lusts; so that of a whole country they made a general house of debauchery, by this means not only corrupting the minds and manners of men, but hindering both the procreation and good education of children. Indeed, they had so little love to their children that it was a common thing most unnaturally to expose them to perish. The Jewish religion, it is true, rectified a great many of those abuses, yet gave great indulgences to the irregular appetites of mankind; for it allowed them, because of the hardness of their hearts, both a plurality of wives at one time, and the power of putting away their wives by a bill of divorce for every trivial cause, and so does Mahometanism at this day. But the Christian religion goes to the root of all these evils and digs them up. It forbids wandering lust in the very heart and thoughts, so far is it from approving the practice of it. It sets up a sacred, lasting friendship between man and wife, as much more becoming the higher degree of Christian holiness, and forbids the dissolution of marriage by anything else but infidelity to the marriage covenant.—Jas. Blair, M.A.
Matthew 19:10. Is it good to marry?—The disciples think this doctrine hard, for in case divorcement were not lawful, they say it were better not to marry than to be straitly bound in marriage. In whom we see:
1. How impatient our nature is of all restraint, and how much we love to be at liberty, even from the bands of God.
2. Sudden resolutions and sentences are readily full of folly; for here the disciples neither do look unto their own strength, or rather inability, to live in a single life, nor do they consider the incommodities of an unmarried life, nor the commodities of marriage, where God giveth a blessing.—David Dickson.
Milton on divorce.—It is instructive to remember that one of the greatest of English writers has taken the same line of thought in dealing with the question. Milton’s Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, and the treatises that followed it, are but an elaborate and eloquent expression of the words of the disciples, “If the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry.”—E. H. Plumptre, D.D.
Matthew 19:12. Eunuchism.—As I understand the mysterious passage the Saviour distinguishes three kinds of eunuchism:
1. Congenital, which implies neither merit nor guilt.
2. Forced, which implies misfortune on the one hand and guilt on the other.
3. Voluntary, which has moral value and merit if it proceeds from faith and love to Christ, but no merit superior to chastity in the married state. The first and third are only improperly called eunuchism. To speak more fully, the first class of eunuchs embraces the comparatively small number of those who are constitutionally either incapable of, or averse to, marriage; the second class, the eunuchs proper, or mutilated persons, who at that time were quite numerous, especially at courts, and are still found in eastern countries, among heathens and Mohammedans (yea, even in the choir of the papal Sixtine chapel in Rome, the famous Miserere being sung by the clear, silver voices of these unfortunate victims of sacred art); the third class, those who deliberately abstain from marriage either altogether or from second marriage after the death of their first husband or wife, not, however, for the purpose of thereby gaining the kingdom of heaven, but for the purpose of working for the kingdom of heaven from pure and disinterested love to Christ, believing that they can serve Him more unreservedly and effectually in the single state, or remain more steadfast in times of peculiar trial and persecution (1 Corinthians 7:26). To this class belong St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Corinthians 7:26), Barnabas (1 Corinthians 9:5-6), probably also St. John (who in the Greek Church bears the standing title, ὁ παρθένος, with reference to his virgin purity), and thousands of missionaries, divines, ministers and pious laymen, sisters of charity, virgins and widows in all ages and among Protestants as well as Catholics. The great and serious error of the Romish Church consists in making a law for the whole clergy of what the Saviour left to free choice on the basis of a special calling and gift of God (Matthew 19:11), and in attaching a superior merit to celibacy at the expense of the holy and normal state of marriage. From a grossly literal misunderstanding of Matthew 19:12, Origen, in the youthful ardour of enthusiasm for Christ, and misguided by the ascetic notions of his age, committed the unnatural deed which forever disqualified him for marriage. But this was justly condemned in the ancient church, and was made subsequently a reason for his excommunication from the church of Alexandria.—P. Schaff, D.D.