Matthew 19 commentary

MATTHEW 19 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he
left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to
the other side of the Jordan.
BAR ES, "Coasts of Judea beyond Jordan - The narrative here refers to the last
journey of the Saviour from Galilee to Jerusalem, to attend the last Passover which he
celebrated.
A considerable lapse of time occurred between his last discourse in the preceding
chapter and what is recorded here, and several important events have been recorded by
Luke and John which occurred in the interval, as the sending out of the seventy disciples
Luke 10:1-16; the Saviour’s going up to the feast of Tabernacles, and his final departure
from Galilee, passing through Samaria Luk_9:51-56; Joh_7:2-10; the healing of the ten
lepers Luk_17:11-19; the public teaching of Jesus at the feast of Tabernacles John 7:11-
53; the account of the woman taken in adultery Joh_8:1; the reproof of the unbelieving
Jews, and the escape of the Saviour from their hands John 8:12-59; the instruction of
the lawyer, and the parable of the good Samaritan Luk_10:28-37; the incidents in the
house of Martha and Mary Luk_10:38-42; the return of the seventy Luk_10:17-24; the
healing of the blind man on the Sabbath John 9:1-41; the festival of the Dedication John
10:22-42; the raising of Lazarus John 11:1-46; and the counsel of Caiaphas against Jesus,
and the retiring of Jesus from Jerusalem Joh_11:47-54. See Robinson’s Harmony.
Matthew and Mark now resume the narrative by relating that after Jesus had left Galilee
he approached Jerusalem by passing through the country beyond Jordan. The country
was, in general, called Perea, and appertained to Judea, being the region formerly
occupied by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. The word “coasts” means regions
or parts. See the notes at Mat_2:16.
CLARKE, "Beyond Jordan - Or, by the side of Jordan. Matthew begins here to
give an account of Christ’s journey (the only one he mentions) to Jerusalem, a little
before the passover, at which he was crucified. See Mar_10:1; Luk_9:51.
Jesus came from Galilee (which lay to the north of Judea) into the coasts of Judea;
and from thence, in his way to Jerusalem, he went through Jericho, (Mat_20:17, Mat_
20:29), which lay at the distance of sixty furlongs, or seven miles and a half from Jordan,
to the western side of it. See Joseph. War, book iv. chap. 8. sect. 3. It seems, therefore,
most probable, that the course of Christ’s journey led him by the side of the river Jordan,
not beyond it. That the Greek word περαν, especially with a genitive case as here, has

sometimes this signification, see on Joh_6:22 (note); see also Bp. Pearce.
GILL, "And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings,....
Concerning humility, avoiding offences, the methods to be taken in reproving offenders,
and the forgiveness that is to be exercised towards them:
he departed from Galilee; where he had chiefly preached and wrought his miracles,
no more to return thither till after his resurrection:
and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; that is, to that country which
was called "beyond Jordan", and bordered on Judea; coming still nearer and nearer to
Jerusalem, where he had told his disciples, a little while ago, he must come, and suffer,
and die. Rather, it should be rendered, "on this side Jordan", as also in Joh_1:28 for the
coasts of Judea were on this side; so ‫הירדן‬ ‫,עבר‬ is rendered in Deu_4:49
HE RY, "We have here an account of Christ's removal. Observe,
1. He left Galilee. There he had been brought up, and had spent the greatest part of his
life in that remote despicable part of the country; it was only upon occasion of the feasts,
that he came up to Jerusalem, and manifested himself there; and, we may suppose,
that, having no constant residence there when he did come, his preaching and miracles
were the more observable and acceptable. But it was an instance of his humiliation, and
in this, as in other things, he appeared in a mean state, that he would go under the
character of a Galilean, a north-countryman, the least polite and refined part of the
nation. Most of Christ's sermons hitherto had been preached, and most of his miracles
wrought, in Galilee; but now, having finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee,
and it was his final farewell; for (unless his passing through the midst of Samaria and
Galilee, Luk_17:11, was after this, which yet was but a visit in transitu - as he passed
through the country) he never came to Galilee again till after his resurrection, which
makes this transition very remarkable. Christ did not take his leave of Galilee till he had
done his work there, and then he departed thence. Note, As Christ's faithful ministers
are not taken out of the world, so they are not removed from any place, till they have
finished their testimony in that place, Rev_11:7. This is very comfortable to those that
follow not their own humours, but God's providence, in their removals, that their
sayings shall be finished before they depart. And who would desire to continue any
where longer than he has work to do for God there?
2. He came into the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan, that they might have their day of
visitation as well as Galilee, for they also belonged to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
But still Christ kept to those parts of Canaan that lay towards other nations: Galilee is
called Galilee of the Gentiles; and the Syrians dwelt beyond Jordan. Thus Christ
intimated, that, while he kept within the confines of the Jewish nation, he had his eye
upon the Gentiles, and his gospel was aiming and coming toward them.
3. Great multitudes followed him. Where Shiloh is, there will the gathering of the
people be. The redeemed of the Lord are such as follow the Lamb whithersoever he
goes, Rev_14:4. When Christ departs, it is best for us to follow him. It was a piece of
respect to Christ, and yet it was a continual trouble, to be thus crowded after, wherever
he went; but he sought not his own ease, nor, considering how mean and contemptible
this mob was (as some would call them), his own honour much, in the eye of the world;

he went about doing good; for so it follows, he healed them there. This shows what they
followed him for, to have their sick healed; and they found him as able and ready to help
here, as he had been in Galilee; for, wherever this Sun of righteousness arose, it was
with healing under his wings. He healed them there, because he would not have them
follow him to Jerusalem, lest it should give offence. He shall not strive, nor cry.
JAMISO , "Mat_19:1-12. Final departure from Galilee - Divorce. ( = Mar_10:1-12;
Luk_9:51).
Farewell to Galilee (Mat_19:1, Mat_19:2).
And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he
departed from Galilee — This marks a very solemn period in our Lord’s public
ministry. So slightly is it touched here, and in the corresponding passage of Mark (Mar_
10:1), that few readers probably note it as the Redeemer’s Farewell to Galilee, which
however it was. See on the sublime statement of Luke (Luk_9:51), which relates to the
same transition stage in the progress of our Lord’s work.
and came into the coasts — or, boundaries
of Judea beyond Jordan — that is, to the further, or east side of the Jordan, into
Perea, the dominions of Herod Antipas. But though one might conclude from our
Evangelist that our Lord went straight from the one region to the other, we know from
the other Gospels that a considerable time elapsed between the departure from the one
and the arrival at the other, during which many of the most important events in our
Lord’s public life occurred - probably a large part of what is recorded in Luk_9:51,
onward to Luk_18:15, and part of John 7:2-11:54.
COFFMA , "This verse marks the end of the Galilean ministry and the beginning
of the Perean ministry, according to Robertson, who placed the time interval
between these two chapters at about six months,[1] placing these events in the later
Perean ministry. Immense crowds continued to follow Christ, and countless healings
took place.
LIGHTFOOT, "[He came unto the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan.] If it were
barely said, the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan, by the coasts of Judea one might
understand the bounds of the Jews beyond Jordan. or does such a construction
want its parallel in Josephus; for "Hyrcanus (saith he) built a fortification, the name
of which was Tyre, between Arabia and Judea, beyond Jordan, not far from
Essebonitis." But see Mark here, chapter 10:1, relating the same story with this our
evangelist: He came, saith he, into the coasts of Judea, (taking a journey from
Galilee,) along the country beyond Jordan.
PETT, "Once Jesus had completed His ministry in Galilee He set off for Jerusalem
for the last time, coming into the borders of Judaea. He had made a number of
previous visits to Jerusalem, as we know from John’s Gospel, but this would be His
last. During this visit He will present Himself to the Jews as the Coming King for
those who have eyes to see. As usual great crowds followed Him. They also would be
going up to the feast. And He continued His ministry towards them, healing them in
both body and soul (compare Matthew 8:17). For similar closures as this (‘when He

had finished’) following selections of His teaching see Matthew 7:28; Matthew 11:1;
Matthew 13:53; Matthew 26:1.
‘Beyond the Jordan.’ The areas around the Jordan on both sides of the river were
called ‘Beyond the Jordan’ (compare our description Transjordan). If this entry
was into Judaea proper it would necessarily be in Beyond Jordan on the west side of
the Jordan. On the other hand Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem via Jericho indicates that
at some time stage He went East of Jordan into Peraea, finally crossing the Jordan
from east to west in order to take the Jericho road. But Matthew’s concern is to
emphasise the entry into Judaea, leaving his native Galilee.
BURKITT, "The country of the Jews was divided into three provinces; namely,
Galilee, Samaria, and Judea.
In Galilee, were the cities of azareth, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum; here
Christ dwelt and spent a considerable part of his time, preaching to them, and
working miracles among them. But now comes the time in which our holy Lord
takes his leave of this province of Galilee, and returned no more to it: woe to that
people, whose unthankfulness for Christ's presence and ministry amongst them,
causes him finally to forsake them. Having left Galilee, our holy Lord passes
through Samaria (the Samaritans being prejudiced against him, and refusing to
receive him) and comes into the coasts of Judea, where multitudes of people flocked
after him.
But observe the qualities of his followers, not the great ones of the world, not many
mighty, not many noble; but the poor and despised multitude, the sick and weak,
the deaf and blind, the diseased and distressed.
Thence observe, That none but such as find their need of Christ will seek after him,
and come unto him. one will apply to him for help, till they feel themselves
helpless. Great multitudes of the sick and diseased came unto him, and he healed
them all.
COKE, "Introduction
Jesus leaves Galilee, and comes into the coasts of Judea, and is followed by great
multitudes, whom he heals, Matthew 19:1, Matthew 19:2. The question of the
Pharisees concerning divorce answered, and the doctrine of marriage explained,
Matthew 19:3-9. The inquiry of the disciples on this subject, Matthew 19:10. Our
Lord's answer, explaining the case of eunuchs, Matthew 19:11, Matthew 19:12.
Little children brought to Christ for his blessing, Matthew 19:13-15. The case of the
young man who wished to obtain eternal life, Matthew 19:16-22. Our Lords
reflections on this case, in which he shows the difficulty of a rich man's salvation,
Matthew 19:23-26. What they shall possess who have left all for Christ's sake and
the Gospel. Matthew 19:27-29; How many of the first shall be last, and the last first,
Matthew 19:30.
Verse 1

Beyond Jordan - Or, by the side of Jordan. Matthew begins here to give an account
of Christ's journey (the only one he mentions) to Jerusalem, a little before the
passover, at which he was crucified. See Mark 10:1; Luke 9:51.
Jesus came from Galilee (which lay to the north of Judea) into the coasts of Judea;
and from thence, in his way to Jerusalem, he went through Jericho, ( Matthew
20:17, Matthew 20:29;), which lay at the distance of sixty furlongs, or seven miles
and a half from Jordan, to the western side of it. See Joseph. War, book iv. chap. 8.
sect. 3. It seems, therefore, most probable, that the course of Christ's journey led
him by the side of the river Jordan, not beyond it. That the Greek word περαν,
especially with a genitive case as here, has sometimes this signification, see on John
6:22; (note); see also Bp. Pearce.
HAWKER 1-9, ""And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he
departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; (2) And great
multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. (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."
There can be no question, but that the married state from the beginning of the creation
of the world, was intended as a beautiful representation of the mystical union between
Christ and his Church. Gen_2:18-21 to the end, explained by Eph_5:23 to the end. And
all the after stages, in the departure of our nature by adultery, could not destroy the first,
and legitimate connection. Jesus betrothed his Church to himself forever. Hos_2:19-20.
And though Moses as the Lord Jesus said, for the hardness of the hearts of the Israelites,
did permit a bill of divorcement, yet not so will Jesus. His language is: though thou hast
played the harlot with many lovers, yet return unto me saith the Lord. Jer_3:1; Deu_
24:1-4. Hence the Church recovered by sovereign grace, sings aloud, I will return unto
my first husband. Hos_2:6-7.
BROADUS, "Matthew 19:1-12.
Departure From Galilee. Instructions As To Divorce
The greater part of this section is found also in Mark 10:1-12. Our Lord now leaves
Galilee, and comes into Perea. Matthew and Mark make no mention of anything
intervening, and a little later both bring us to the triumphal entry and the final Passover.
But Luke, after completing his account, parallel to Matthew and Mark, of the ministry in
Galilee, describes Jesus as (Luke 9:51-56) going from Galilee not into Perea, but through
Samaria on the way to Jerusalem. With this agrees John's account (Matthew 19:2-10) of

his going in secret from Galilee to Jerusalem to attend the Feast of Tabernacles, six
months before the final Passover. Then Luke goes on in Luke 10:1 to Luke 18:14, with a
long account of the Saviour's sayings and actions, after which he again becomes parallel
(Luke 18:15) with Matthew (Matthew 19:13) and Mark, (Mark 10:13) and so continues to
the end. We have heretofore noticed that Luke greatly condensed his narrative of the
series of withdrawals from Galilee, giving to it only Luke 9:10-50, while Matt. gives
Matthew 14:13 to Matthew 18:35, and Mark gives Mark 6:30 to Mark 9:50. It seems
plain that Luke thus condensed in order to make room for the mass of matter in reserve,
which for the most part is peculiar to him. Some of the miracles and discourses he goes
on to narrate closely resemble several which Matthew and Mark gave during the
ministry in Galilee before the withdrawals, and which Luke did not there introduce; e. g.,
the blasphemous accusation in Luke 11:14-36 resembles Matthew 12:22-45, Mark 3:19-
30, and the discourse against temporal anxiety in Luke 12:22-31 resembles Matthew
6:25-34. In the present state of harmonistic inquiry, we must choose between two
theories. (1) Luke in Luke 10:1 to Luke 18:14, must be supposed, with Robinson's
Harmony and others, to give a loosely arranged mass of material, mainly falling between
the last Feast of Tabernacles and the last Passover, but partly belonging in fact to the
ministry in Galilee, where similar matters were given by Matthew and Mark. This loose
arrangement is unlikely in itself, particularly in the case of one who expressly undertook
to write an orderly account. (Luke 1:3)(1) (2) Wieseler has pointed out ("Chron. Syn.,"
followed by Tischendorf's "Syn. Evang.," Ellicott's "Lectures on Life of Christ," G. W.
Clark's "Harmony of the Gospels") that Luke in this large section three times speaks of
Jesus as going to or towards Jerusalem, (Luke 9:51-53, Luke 13:22, Luke 17:11) and has
proposed to take the first of these three as parallel to our Lord's going up for the Feast of
Tabernacles, (John 7:2 ff.) the second to the journey for raising Lazarus, (John 11:17 f)
the third as beginning the journey to the final Passover; and accordingly to arrange all
this section of Luke, as belonging to the last six months of our Lord's ministry, and as
located in Judea and Perea. It thus becomes a ministry distinct from that in Galilee
narrated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the similar events and discourses are to be
regarded as not identical but repetitions, such as it is unquestionable that Jesus often
made (see above, beginning of Matthew 5). This view, well wrought out in Clark's
Harmony, is followed in the present Com. as involving fewer difficulties than any other,
and indeed as quite probably correct. At any rate, it is clear, from the comparison with
Luke and John, that Matthew and Mark pass over nearly all the last six months of our
Lord's ministry, just as both they and Luke passed over that early ministry of probably
as great length in Judea which is recorded by John (see above on "Matthew 4:12").
Matthew and Mark have in fact confined themselves entirely to the ministry in Galilee
and vicinity, except the final Passover and a few incidents on the journey thereto.
Matthew 19:1 f. Jesus goes from Galilee into Perea, and exercises his ministry. Departed
is not simply 'went away,' but 'removed,' a rare word used in New Testament only here
and in Matthew 13:53. It must not be here pressed to prove a permanent removal, for in
Matthew 13:53 there was only a temporary removal across the lake. The statement that
he departed from Galilee when he had finished these sayings, would most naturally
mean that he left immediately upon completing the discourse of Matthew 18; compare
the same phrase in Matthew 7:28, Matthew 11:1, Matthew 13:53. We should then take
this departure as parallel to that of Luke 9:51 ff., viz., to attend the Feast of Tab., and the
gap of nearly six months would have to fall between the two adjacent words 'departed'
and 'came.' Wieseler holds that this departure was parallel to Luke 17:11, where Jesus
returns from Judea through Samaria and a portion of Galilee, and probably joins the

pilgrims on the way from Galilee through Perea to Jerusalem. In this way 'departed' is
followed naturally by 'came,' but 'when he had finished these sayings' has to be
understood loosely. Mark's expression (Mark 10:1) agrees best with Wieseler's view.
However much was to be omitted, we could not expect a break in the narrative; see
remarks introductory to Matthew 4:12, It is well to observe that nothing in the
interpretation of what follows will depend upon this nice question of chronology and
harmony.
Matthew's account of the ministry in Galilee has continued since Matthew 4:12. That
ministry appears to have lasted, if we take the feast of John 5:1 to be a passover, nearly
two years, the last six months, however, being nearly all spent in the series of
withdrawals to adjoining districts. (Matthew 14:13 to Matthew 17:20.) Matthew occupies
himself especially with teachings concerning the kingdom of heaven, while most of the
parables given in Luke 13-18 refer only to individual piety, and would thus not come into
Matthew's plan.
Into the coasts of Judea. Borders rather than 'coasts,' see on "Matthew 2:16"; Matthew
15:22. Beyond Jordan.
The Greek construction is peculiar, but makes 'beyond Jordan' state the route by which
he came into the borders of Judea. Mark (Mark 10:1, correct text) has 'into the borders
of Judea and beyond Jordan.' Copyists and early students saw that this differed
somewhat from Matt., and so some omitted Mark's 'and,' others changed 'and' into
'through' (Com. Ver.). Mark's expression thus gives a twofold designation of the region
into which he came, viz., the borders of Judea, and Perea. Matt. might seem to locate the
following matters in Judea, after Jesus had passed through Perea; Mark refers them
indefinitely to both districts; the Harmony (see Matthew 20:17, Matthew 20:29) pretty
clearly places the earlier Portion, certainly Matthew 19:1-15, in Perea. The region 'beyond
Jordan,' i. e., east of the Jordan (see on "Matthew 4:25"), from its mouth to near the
Lake of Galilee, was in the Roman period often called 'the beyond (district),' 'the Perea,'
the Greek word for beyond being peran. The Galilean Jews preferred to go to Jerusalem
by way of Perea, so as to avoid the unfriendly Samaritans; (Luke 9:52 f.) though the
direct route through Samaria was sometimes taken (compare Josephus,"Life," 52). Perea
included the dominions of Sihon and part of those of Og, or the districts later called
Gilead and part of Bashan. The Romans separated Decapolis (see on "Matthew 4:25")
from this district, and accordingly Josephus ("War," 8, 3, 3) says that Perea extended
from Machaerus to Pella (nearly opposite the plain of Esdraelon and Bethshean). It was
divided into a rougher and very beautiful northern portion, and a southern portion,
which latter comprised the plain immediately east of the lower Jordan, and the high
table-land beyond. So far as we can judge, our Lord here appears in Southern Perea, on
his way to Jericho and Jerusalem. (Matthew 20:29, Matthew 21:1) Many places of this
region are of great interest in Old Testament studies, but none appear distinctly in the
New Testament save Machaerus (see on "Matthew 14:3"), and 'Bethany beyond Jordan,'
'the place where John was at first baptizing', (John 1:28 f.; John 10:40) and this last spot
cannot be determined (compare on Matthew 3:13). We can therefore get no local
colouring for Matthew 19:3 to Matthew 20:28. Like Galilee, Perea had so few Jews in the
time of Judas Maccabaeus that he transferred them all to Judea for safe keeping; (1
Maccabees 5:23, 1 Maccabees 5:45) but during the reign of Herod the Great the Jewish

population of Perea evidently became considerable, which will account for the
expressions in Matthew 20:2 and John 10:40-42; and this district was an important part
of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. For accounts of Perea, see especially Schultz in
Herzog, Art. "Palestina," (4); Robinson's "Phys. Geog."; Tristram's "Laud of Moab ";
Merrill's "East of the Jordan" but all are quite incomplete.
Great multitudes, see on "Matthew 4:25". Here, as so often in Galilee, vast numbers of
the people throng and crowd around him. It is probable (see in Clark's "Harmony ") that
this was subsequent to the sojourn beyond Jordan mentioned in John 10:41-42, when
"many resorted unto him," and "many believed on him there." It is not necessary to
suppose a considerable stay in that region at this time, in order to account for the
collection of great crowds, for they probably consisted in part of persons journeying to
Jerusalem for the Passover. And he healed them there, as he had often done in Galilee.
'Them' of course means not all of the crowds, but such as needed healing. Mark says,
(Mark 10:1) 'and, as he was wont, he taught them again.' Thus the Galilean ministry is
reproduced in Pereaâ€”crowds, healing, teaching. And here is another instance of a
general statement, which must be pondered in order to realize the extent of our Lord's
work. (Compare Mark 4:23, Mark 9:35, Mark 14:14, Mark 16:20)
BARCLAY 1-9, "Here Jesus is dealing with what was in his day, as it is in our own, a
vexed and burning question. Divorce was something about which there was no
unanimity among the Jews; and the Pharisees were deliberately trying to involve Jesus
in controversy.
No nation has ever had a higher view of marriage than the Jews. Marriage was a sacred
duty. To remain unmarried after the age of twenty, except in order to concentrate upon
the study of the Law, was to break a positive commandment to "be fruitful and multiply."
He who had no children "slew his own posterity," and "lessened the image of God upon
earth." "When husband and wife are worthy, the glory of God is with them."
Marriage was not to be entered into carelessly or lightly. Josephus outlines the Jewish
approach to marriage, based on the Mosaic teaching (Antiquities of the Jews 4. 8. 23). A
man must marry a virgin of good parentage. He must never corrupt another man's wife;
and he must not marry a woman who had been a slave or a harlot. If a man accused his
wife of not being a virgin when he married her, he must bring proofs of his accusation.
Her father or brother must defend her. If the girl was vindicated he must take her in
marriage, and could never again put her away, except for the most flagrant sin. If the
accusation was proved to have been reckless and malicious, the man who made it must
be beaten with forty stripes save one, and must pay fifty shekels to the girl's father. But if
the charge was proved and the girl found guilty, if she was one of the ordinary people,
the law was that she must be stoned to death, and if she was the daughter of a priest, she
must be burned alive.
If a man seduced a girl who was espoused to be married, and the seduction took place
with her consent, both he and she must be put to death. If in a lonely place or where
there was no help present, the man forced the girl into sin, the man alone was put to

death. If a man seduced an unespoused girl, he must marry her, or, if her father was
unwilling for him to marry her, he must pay the father fifty shekels.
The Jewish laws of marriage and of purity aimed very high. Ideally divorce was hated.
God had said, "I hate divorce" (Malachi 2:16). It was said that the very altar wept tears
when a man divorced the wife of his youth.
But ideal and actuality did not go hand in hand. In the situation there were two
dangerous and damaging elements.
First, in the eyes of Jewish law a woman was a thing. She was the possession of her
father, or of her husband as the case might be; and, therefore, she had, technically, no
legal rights at all. Most Jewish marriages were arranged either by the parents or by
professional match-makers. A girl might be engaged to be married in childhood, and was
often engaged to be married to a man whom she had never seen. There was this
safeguard--when she came to the age of twelve she could repudiate her father's choice of
husband. But in matters of divorce, the general law was that the initiative must lie with
the husband. The law ran: "A woman may be divorced with or without her consent, but a
man can be divorced only with his consent." The woman could never initiate the process
of divorce; she could not divorce, she had to be divorced.
There were certain safeguards. If a man divorced his wife on any other grounds than
those of flagrant immorality, he must return her dowry; and this must have been a
barrier to irresponsible divorce. The courts might put pressure on a man to divorce his
wife, in the case, for instance, of refusal to consummate the marriage, of impotence, or of
proved inability to support her properly. A wife could force her husband to divorce her,
if he contracted a loathsome disease, such as leprosy, or if he was a tanner, which
involved the gathering of dog's dung, or if he proposed to make her leave the Holy Land.
But, by and large, the law was that the woman had no legal rights, and the right to
divorce lay entirely with the husband.
Second, the process of divorce was fatally easy. That process was founded on the passage
in the Mosaic Law to which Jesus' questioners referred: "When a man takes a wife and
marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some indecency
in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his
house..." (Deuteronomy 24:1). The bill of divorcement was a simple, one-sentence
statement that the husband dismissed his wife. Josephus writes, "He that desires to be
divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among
men) let him, in writing, give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more;
for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband." The one safeguard
against the dangerous ease of the divorce process was the fact that, unless the woman
was a notorious sinner, her dowry must be returned.
JEWISH GROUNDS OF DIVORCE (Matthew 19:1-9 continued)
One of the great problems of Jewish divorce lies within the Mosaic enactment. That

enactment states that a man may divorce his wife, "if she finds no favour in his eyes,
because he has found some indecency in her." The question is--how is the phrase some
indecency to be interpreted?
On this point the Jewish Rabbis were violently divided, and it was here that Jesus'
questioners wished to involve him. The school of Shammai were quite clear that a matter
of indecency meant fornication, and fornication alone, and that for no other cause could
a wife by put away. Let a woman be as mischievous as Jezebel, so long as she did not
commit adultery she could not be put away. On the other hand, the school of Hillel
interpreted this matter of indecency in the widest possible way. They said that it meant
that a man could divorce his wife if she spoiled his dinner, if she spun, or went with
unbound hair, or spoke to men in the streets, if she spoke disrespectfully of his parents
in his presence, if she was a brawling woman whose voice could be heard in the next
house. Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that the phrase if she finds no favour
in his eyes meant that a man could divorce his wife if he found a woman whom he liked
better and considered more beautiful.
The tragedy was that, as was to be expected, it was the school of Hillel whose teachings
prevailed; the marriage bond was often lightly held, and divorce on the most trivial
ground was sadly common.
To complete the picture certain further facts must be added. It is relevant to note that
under Rabbinic law divorce was compulsory for two reasons. It was compulsory for
adultery. "A woman who has committed adultery must be divorced." Second, divorce
was compulsory for sterility. The object of marriage was the procreation of children; and
if after ten years a couple were still childless divorce was compulsory. In this case the
woman might remarry, but the same regulation governed the second marriage.
Two further interesting Jewish regulations in regard to divorce must be added. First,
desertion was never a cause for divorce. If there was desertion, death must be proved.
The only relaxation was that, whereas all other facts needed the corroboration of two
witnesses in Jewish law, one witness was enough to prove the death of a partner in
marriage who had vanished and not come back.
Secondly, strangely enough, insanity was not a ground of divorce. If the wife became
insane, the husband could not divorce her, for, if she was divorced, she would have no
protector in her helplessness. There is a certain poignant mercy in that regulation. If the
husband became insane, divorce was impossible, for in that case he was incapable of
writing a bill of divorcement, and without such a bill, initiated by him, there could be no
divorce.
When Jesus was asked this question, at the back of it was a situation which was vexed
and troubled. He was to answer it in a way which came as a staggering surprise to both
parties in the dispute, and which suggested a radical change in the whole situation.

THE ANSWER OF JESUS (Matthew 19:1-9 continued)
In effect, the Pharisees were asking Jesus whether he favoured the strict view of
Shammai or the laxer view of Hillel; and thereby seeking to involve him in controversy.
Jesus' answer was to take things back to the very beginning, back to the ideal of creation.
In the beginning, he said, God created Adam and Eve, man and woman. Inevitably, in
the very circumstances of the creation story, Adam and Eve were created for each other
and for no one else; their union was necessarily complete and unbreakable. Now, says
Jesus, these two are the pattern and the symbol of all who were to come. As A. H.
McNeile puts it, "Each married couple is a reproduction of Adam and Eve, and their
union is therefore no less indissoluble."
The argument is quite clear. In the case of Adam and Eve divorce was not only
inadvisable; it was not only wrong; it was completely impossible, for the very simple
reason that there was no one else whom either of them could possibly marry. Therefore
Jesus was laying down the principle that an divorce is wrong. Thus early we must note
that it is not a law; it is a principle, which is a very different thing.
Here, at once, the Pharisees saw a point of attack. Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1
http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=Dt+24%3A1) had said that, if a man wished
to divorce his wife because she had found no favour in his eyes, and because of some
matter of indecency in her, he could give her a bill of divorce and the marriage was
dissolved. Here was the very chance the Pharisees wanted. They could now say to Jesus,
"Are you saying Moses was wrong? Are you seeking to abrogate the divine law which was
given to Moses? Are you setting yourself above Moses as a law-giver?"
Jesus' answer was that what Moses said was not in fact a law, but nothing more than a
concession. Moses did not command divorce; at the best he only permitted it in order to
regulate a situation which would have become chaotically promiscuous. The Mosaic
regulation was only a concession to fallen human nature. In Genesis 2:23-24
http://www.crossbooks.com/verse.asp?ref=+%Genesis 23:1-20 A23-24, we have the
ideal which God intended, the ideal that two people who marry should become so
indissolubly one that they are one flesh. Jesus' answer was: "True, Moses permitted
divorce; but that was a concession in view of a lost ideal. The ideal of marriage is to be
found in the unbreakable, perfect union of Adam and Eve. That is what God meant
marriage to be."
It is now that we are face to face with one of the most real and most acute difficulties in
the New Testament. What did Jesus mean? There is even a prior question--what did
Jesus say? The difficulty is--and there is no escaping it--that Mark and Matthew report
the words of Jesus differently.
Matthew has:

I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,
and marries another commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).
Mark has:
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery
against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another,
she commits adultery (Mark 10:11-12).
Luke has still another version of this saying:
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her
husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18).
There is the comparatively small difficulty that Mark implies that a woman can divorce
her husband, a process which, as we have seen, was not possible under Jewish law. But
the explanation is that Jesus must have well known that under Gentile law a woman
could divorce her husband and in that particular clause he was looking beyond the
Jewish world. The great difficulty is that both Mark and Luke make the prohibition of
divorce absolute; with them there are no exceptions whatsoever. But Matthew has one
saving clause--divorce is permitted on the ground of adultery. In this case there is no
real escape from a decision. The only possible way out would be to say that in point of
fact, under Jewish law, divorce for adultery was in any event compulsory, as we have
seen, and that therefore Mark and Luke did not think that they need mention it; but then
so was divorce for sterility.
In the last analysis we must choose between Matthew's version of this saying and that of
Mark and Luke. We think there is little doubt that the version of Mark and Luke is right.
There are two reasons. Only the absolute prohibition of separation will satisfy the ideal
of the Adam and Eve symbolic complete union. And the staggered words of the disciples
imply this absolute prohibition, for, in effect, they say (Matthew 19:10) that if marriage
is as binding as that, it is safer not to marry at all. There is little doubt that here we have
Jesus laying down the principle--mark again, not, the law--that the ideal of marriage is a

union which cannot be broken. There is much more to be said--but here the ideal, as
God meant it, is laid down, and Matthew's saving clause is a later interpretation inserted
in the light of the practice of the Church when he wrote.
THE HIGH IDEAL (Matthew 19:1-9 continued)
Let us now go on to see the high ideal of the married state which Jesus sets before those
who are willing to accept his commands. We will see that the Jewish ideal gives us the
basis of the Christian ideal. The Jewish term for marriage was Kiddushin. Kiddushin
meant sanctification or consecration. It was used to describe something which was
dedicated to God as his exclusive and peculiar possession. Anything totally surrendered
to God was kiddushin. This meant that in marriage the husband was consecrated to the
wife, and the wife to the husband. The one became the exclusive possession of the other,
as much as an offering became the exclusive possession of God. That is what Jesus
meant when he said that for the sake of marriage a man would leave his father and his
mother and cleave to his wife; and that is what he meant when he said that man and wife
became so totally one that they could be called one flesh. That was God's ideal of
marriage as the old Genesis story saw it (Genesis 2:24), and that is the ideal which Jesus
restated. Clearly that idea has certain consequences.
(i) This total unity means that marriage is not given for one act in life, however
important that act may be, but for all. That is to say that, while sex is a supremely
important part of marriage, it is not the whole of it. Any marriage entered into simply
because an imperious physical desire can be satisfied in no other way is foredoomed to
failure. Marriage is given, not that two people should do one thing together, but that
they should do all things together.
(ii) Another way to put this is to say that marriage is the total union of two personalities.
Two people can exist together in a variety of ways. One can be the dominant partner to
such an extent that nothing matters but his wishes and his convenience and his aims in
life, while the other is totally subservient and exists only to serve the desires and the
needs of the other. Again, two people can exist in a kind of armed neutrality, where there
is continuous tension and continuous opposition, and continuous collision between their
wishes. Life can be one long argument, and the relationship is based at best on an uneasy
compromise. Again, two people can base their relationship on a more or less resigned
acceptance of each other. To all intents and purposes, while they live together, each goes
his or her own way, and each has his or her own life. They share the same house but it
would be an exaggeration to say that they share the same home.
Clearly none of these relationships is the ideal. The ideal is that in the marriage state two
people find the completing of their personalities. Plato had a strange idea. He has a kind
of legend that originally human beings were double what they are now. Because their
size and strength made them arrogant, the gods cut them in halves; and real happiness
comes when the two halves find each other again, and marry, and so complete each
other.
Marriage should not narrow life; it should complete it. For both partners it must bring a

new fulness, a new satisfaction, a new contentment into life. It is the union of two
personalities in which the two complete each other. That does not mean that
adjustments, and even sacrifices, have not to be made; but it does mean that the final
relationship is fuller, more joyous, more satisfying than any life in singleness could be.
(iii) We may put this even more practically--marriage must be a sharing of all the
circumstances of life. There is a certain danger in the delightful time of courtship. In
such days it is almost inevitable that the two people will see each other at their best.
These are days of glamour. They see each other in their best clothes; usually they are
bent on some pleasure together; often money has not yet become a problem. But in
marriage two people must see each other when they are not at their best; when they are
tired and weary; when children bring the upset to a house and home that children must
bring; when money is tight, and food and clothes and bills become a problem; when
moonlight and roses become the kitchen sink and walking the floor at night with a crying
baby. Unless two people are prepared to face the routine of life as well as the glamour of
life together, marriage must be a failure.
(iv) From that there follows one thing, which is not universally true, but which is much
more likely than not to be true. Marriage is most likely to be successful after a fairly long
acquaintanceship, when the two people involved really know each other's background.
Marriage means constantly living together. It is perfectly possible for ingrained habits,
unconscious mannerisms, ways of upbringing to collide. The fuller the knowledge people
have of each other before they decide indissolubly to link their lives together the better.
This is not to deny that there can be such a thing as love at first sight, and that love can
conquer all things, but the fact is that the greater mutual knowledge people have of each
other the more likely they are to succeed in making their marriage what it ought to be.
(v) All this leads us to a final practical conclusion--the basis of marriage is togetherness,
and the basis of togetherness is nothing other than considerateness. If marriage is to
succeed, the partners must always be thinking more of each other than of themselves.
Selfishness is the murderer of any personal relationship; and that is truest of all when
two people are bound together in marriage.
Somerset Maughan tells of his mother. She was lovely and charming and beloved by all.
His father was not by any means handsome, and had few social and surface gifts and
graces. Someone once said to his mother, "When everyone is in love with you, and when
you could have anyone you liked, how can you remain faithful to that ugly little man you
married?" She answered simply: "He never hurts my feelings." There could be no finer
tribute.
The true basis of marriage is not complicated and recondite--it is simply the love which
thinks more of the happiness of others than it thinks of its own, the love which is proud
to serve, which is able to understand, and therefore always able to forgive. That is to say,
it is the Christlike love, which knows that in forgetting self it will find self, and that in
losing itself it will complete itself.

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR 1-12, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
cause.
The marriage tie
I. Its prescribed limitation. Enforced by
(1) numerical proportion of the sexes;
(2) evils of polygamy;
(3) teaching of the Bible.
II. Its tender intimacy,
III. Its conditional dissolubility:
(1)toleration of Moses;
(2) justifiable grounds of divorce.
IV. Its optional formation. (Dr. Thomas.)
The doctrine of Christ concerning marriage
(1) Its binding character as instituted by God;
(2) its decay in the progress of history;
(3) its prepared restoration under the law;
(4) its transformation by the gospel. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
Husband and wife should be not only one flesh, but also one heart and mind.
(Hedinger.)
Marriage and celibacy
Marriage is the mother of the world, and preserves kingdoms, and fills cities and
churches, and heaven itself. Celibate, like the fly in the heart of an apple, dwells in a
perpetual sweetness, but sits alone, and is confined and dies in singularity; but marriage,
like the useful bee, builds a house and gathers sweetness from every flower, and labours
and unites into societies and republics, and sends out colonies, and feeds the world with
delicacies, and obeys their king and keeps order, and exercises many virtues, and
promotes the interests of mankind, and is that state of good things to which God has
designed the present constitution of the world. Single life makes man, in one instance, to
be like angels; but marriage, in very many things, makes the chaste pair to be like Christ.
This is (as St. Paul says) a great mystery; but it is the symbolical and sacramental
representation of the greatest mysteries of our religion. Christ descended from His
Father’s bosom, and contracted His Divinity with flesh and blood, and married our
nature, and we became a church, the spouse of the Bridegroom, which He cleansed with
His blood, and gave her His Holy Spirit for a dowry, and heaven for a jointure; begetting
children unto God by the gospel. (Bp. Jeremy Taylor.)

Marriage
This union should not be entered into lightly, or rashly. It involves all the happiness of
this life, and much of that to come. The union demands congeniality of feeling and
disposition; of rank in life; of temper; similarity of acquirements; of age; of talent;
intimate acquaintance. It should also be a union on religious feelings and opinions:
because religion is more important than anything else; because it will give more
happiness in the married life than anything else; because where one only is pious, there
is danger that religion will be obscured and blighted; because no prospect is so painful as
that of eternal separation; because it is heathenish to partake the gifts of God in a family
and offer no thanksgiving, and inexpressibly wicked to live as if there were no God, etc.;
because death is near, and nothing will soothe the pangs of parting but the hope of
meeting in the resurrection of the just. (A. Barnes, D. D.)
Advantages of marriage
If you are for pleasure, marry; if you prize rosy health, marry. A good wife is heaven’s
best gift to man: his angel of mercy; minister of graces innumerable; his gem of many
virtues; his casket of jewels; her voice, his sweetest music; her smiles, his brightest day;
her kiss, the guardian of his innocence; her arms, the pale of his safety, the balm of his
health, the balsam of his life; her industry, his surest wealth; her economy, his safest
steward; her lips, his faithful counsellors; her bosom, the softest pillow of his cares; and
her prayers, the ablest advocates of heaven’s blessing on his head. (Bp. Taylor.)
The scriptural view of divorce
I hold that there is only one cause for which a man can lawfully be divorced from his
wife, according to the Scriptures; that is, adultery.
I. Let us turn to the scriptures in proof of this view. “What God hath joined together let
not man put asunder.” God thought it not good for man to be alone: so He made him an
helpmeet. Had it been better for a man to have more than one wife, God would doubtless
have made two. But in our Saviour’s time women had multiplied; but He did not change
the original law. The relation of man and wife is nearer than that of parent and offspring.
“For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,” etc. Where is the nation or man
who shall assume authority to put apart these thus joined together save for the one
cause? “And I say unto you, whoso shall put away his wife,” etc. St. Paul says, “The
woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth.”
II. The views of some of the leading writers in the Christian church. Dr. A. Clarke, in his
Commentary, has the following: “It does not appear that there is any other case in which
Jesus Christ admits of divorce” (Mat_5:32). On Mat_19:9, “The decision of our Lord
must be very unpleasant to these men; the reason why they wished to put away their
wives was, that they might take others whom they liked better; but our Lord here
declares that they could not be remarried while the divorced person was alive; and that
those who did marry during the life of the divorced person were adulterers.” “In this
discourse our Lord shows that marriage, except in one case, is indissoluble, and should
be so.

1. By Divine institution (Mat_19:4).
2. By express commandment (Mat_19:5).
3. Because the married couple become one and the same person (Mat_19:6).
4. By the example of the first pair (Mat_19:8). And
5. Because of the evil consequent on separation (Mat_19:9).
Watson’s “Theo. Institutes,” vol. 2., p. 543, has the following: “The foundation of the
marriage union is the will of God that the human race should increase and multiply, but
only through a chaste and restricted conjunction of one man and one woman, united by
their free vows in a bond made by the Divine law indissoluble, except by death or by
adultery.” Dr. Wayland, in his “Elements of Moral Science,” says: “In the act of marriage,
two persons, under the most solemn circumstances, are thus united, and they enter into
a mutual contract thus to live in respect to each other. This relation, having been
established by God, the contract thus entered into has all the solemnity of an oath.
Hence, he who violates it, is guilty of a twofold crime: first, the violation of the law of
chastity, and second, of the law of veracity-veracity pledged under the most solemn
circumstances.
1. The contract is for life, and is dissoluble for one cause only: the cause of adultery.”
Referring to the text, he says: “We are here taught that marriage, being an institution
of God, is subject to His laws alone, and not to the laws of man. Hence, the civil law
is binding upon the conscience only, in so far as it corresponds to the law of God.”
Matthew Henry’s testimony is, “Christ allows of divorce in cases of adultery; he
disallows it in all others.” Olshausen says: “This union is to be considered
indissoluble, one which man cannot, and only God can dissolve, and in which the
Omniscient does really dissever only in cases of adultery.” Such are the opinions of
some of the most learned and pious Biblical scholars.
III. Now let us turn to the question already anticipated: what man or nation dare
assume authority to put asunder those whom God hath joined together? The answer I
call your attention to is this: 1st, the Jews, and 2nd, our own nation.
1. The Jews. I quote from Dr. Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Mat_19:3. “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 adultery. 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.” Rabbi Akiba said: “If any man saw a woman
handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife away; because it is said in the
law, ‘If she find not favour in his eyes’” (Deu_24:1). “Josephus, the celebrated Jewish
historian, in his Life, tells us, with the utmost coolness and indifference, About this
time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children:, not being pleased with
her manners.” These eases are enough to show to what a scandalous and criminal
excess this matter was carried among the Jews.
2. Then we inquire, How is it with us in America? I find that divorces are wry
common, some for one cause and some for another. So that the question, “Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” is far from being foreign, but really is
applicable to us, and a question of the greatest importance. For, for almost any little
thing that springs up between man and wife, a divorce is applied for, and is obtained.
From the Standard, a Baptist paper, I took the following: “Those whose attention is

not directed to the subject of divorce, will be surprised at the number of applications
in the courts of our large cities and centres of population to have the bonds of
marriage dissolved. In Indianapolis, in 1866, there were 822 marriages, and 210
applications for divorce, which is more than one to four of the whole number of
marriages. In Chicago, the same year, there were 4,182 marriages, and 330
applications for divorce, being nearly one to every thirteen marriages. In both these
cases the number seeking divorce is alarming. But the unenviable and disgraceful
distance in which Indianapolis leads Chicago in this warfare on marriage, is to be
attributed to the peculiarly lax legislation of Indiana, which, for years, has been
notorious on the subject of divorce.” “The various courts of Chicago granted bills of
divorce in 1865 to the number of 274; in 1566, the number was 209; in 1867, 311;
making the whole number of divorces granted in three years, 794. Is not this
appalling? But since 1868, Chicago has registered as high as 730 applications in a
single year, representing families containing about 3,500 souls, and the most of
which are poor women.” The Christian Statesman says that the number of divorces
in eight years, in four States, viz., Vermont, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Connecticut,
have been 5,831. And in the year 1877, in Maine, there were 500 divorces. Brethren
and fellow-citizens, I believe that our lawmakers are to blame for allowing such laws
to exist as they do, and not bringing the law of divorce in these United States to the
Scriptural standard. Look at our statutes of Minnesota, and see the looseness of this
matter. In the General Statutes of Minnesota, page 407, sec. 6, we find the following:
“A divorce from the bonds of matrimony may be adjudged and decreed by the
district court on suit brought in the county where parties, or either of them, reside,
for either of the following causes: 1st, adultery; 2nd, impotency; 3rd, cruel and
inhuman treatment; 4th, when either party, subsequent to the marriage, has been
sentenced to imprisonment in the State Prison; 5th, wilful desertion of one party by
the other for the term of three years next preceding the filing of the complaint; 6th,
habitual drunkenness for the space of one year, immediately preceding the filing of
the complaint.” Here, then, are six causes in our State statutes for which a man or
woman may put away wife or husband. The first is according to Scripture; the others
are unscriptural. What latitude is here given for divorces! I remark, further, that the
peace of the churches is endangered by this ungodly practice of divorce. All Christian
people and all true philanthropists must awake to their duty. Politicians have made
these laws, and by them public sentiment has been educated. (A Cressey, in
American Homiletic Review.)
Jewish divorce customs
Divorce is still very common among the Eastern Jews. In 1856 there were sixteen cases
among the small Jewish population of Jerusalem. In fact, a Jew may divorce his wife at
any time, or from any cause, he being himself the sole judge; the only hindrance is that,
to prevent divorces in a mere sudden fit of spleen, the hill of divorce must have the
concurrence of three rabbis, and be written on ruled vellum, containing neither more
nor less than twelve lines; and it must be given in the presence of ten witnesses. (Allen,
“Modern Judaism.”) The usual causes of divorce (in Asia Minor)are a bad temper or
extravagance in the wife, and the cruel treatment or neglect of the husband. (Van
Lennep.)

The Rulee of Reformation
“From the beginning it was not so.” Which rule, if we apply unto “the scope of this text,
as it stands in relation unto the context, we shall have more to say for it than for most
constitutions, Divine or human. For that of marriage is almost as old as Nature. There
was no sooner one man, but God divided him into two; and then no sooner were there
two, but he united them into one. This is that sacred institution which was made with
mankind in a state of innocence; the very ground and foundation of all, both sacred and
civil, government. It was by sending back the Pharisees to the most venerable antiquity,
that our Lord here asserted the law of wedlock against the old custom of their divorce.
Whilst they had made themselves drunk with their muddy streams, He directed them to
the fountain, to drink themselves into sobriety. They insisted altogether on the Mosaical
dispensation; but He endeavoured to reform them by the most primitive institution.
They alleged a custom; but He a law. They a permission, and that from Moses; but He a
precept, and that from God. They did reckon from afar off; but not, as He, from the
beginning. (Thomas Pierce.)
Matthew 19:1-30
Some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up.
Way seed devoured by birds
The birds devour the truth we neglect to cover. Let us study these birds:-
1. The first belongs to the heron species, having long legs, a long bill, broad strong
wings, and an eye keen as an eagle’s, yet filmy at times, which causes serious
mistakes. This is the bird of intellectual scepticism. It delays your acceptance of the
truth with all kinds of questions.
2. There is another bird of dirty and ruffled feathers, a nondescript, but a hearty
eater of the seed dropped by the wayside. It is evil associations. They neutralize the
influences of the Spirit of God.
5. There is the muscular bird with curved beak that holds like a vice. It is a moth
eater of the falcon order, and ravenous, evil habits, and belongs to a large family.
4. There is a bird of bad odour. Carrion drops from feather and from bill. It i; of the
buzzard tribe. Let us call it the inconsistencies of Christian professors.
5. There is a dull and heavy bird, not easily seared away, of the booby order. It is
religious indecision. All these hinder our salvation. (T. E. Brown, D. D.)
The seed by the wayside
The truth described as a “seed.” There are manifold facilities about the emblem on which
we may dwell. The seed has a germinating power in itself that leads to endless
reproduction. So has every true word. Then man is but the soil. If you are to get Divine
desires in the human heart, they must be sown there: they are not products of the soil.
Again, man’s part is accurately described as a simple reception, not passive, but a co-
operation. Then these different kinds of soil are not unalterably different: it is an

acquired disposition, not a natural characteristic that is spoken of.
I. The beaten path.
II. The lost seed.
I. Let us think about that type of character which is here set forth under the image of
“the wayside.” It is a heart trodden down by the feet that have gone across it; and
because trodden down, incapable of receiving the seed sown. The seed falls upon, not in
it. Point out ways in which the heart is trodden down.
1. By custom and habit. The process of getting from childhood to manhood is a
process of getting less impressible.
2. The heart is trodden down by sin. It is an effect of sin that it uniformly works in
the direction of unfitting men to receive God’s love. Every transgression deprives us,
in some degree, of power to receive God’s truth, and make it our own.
3. The heart is trodden down, so far as receiving the gospel is concerned, by the very
feet of the sower. Every sermon an ungodly man hear, which leaves him ungodly,
leaves him harder by the passage of the Word once more across his heart.
II. The lost seed. Satan’s chosen instruments are those light, swift-winged, apparently
innocent flocks of flying thoughts, that come swooping across your souls, even whilst the
message of God’s love is sounding in your ears. (A. Maclaren D. D.)
Hardened by sin
Every transgression deprives us, in some degree, of power to receive the Divine word of
God’s truth, and making it our own. And these demons of worldliness, of selfishness, of
carelessness, of pride, of sensuality, that go careering through your soul, my brother, are
like the goblin horseman in the old legend; wherever that hoof-fall strikes, the ground is
blasted, and no grass will grow upon it any more for ever! (A. Maclaren D. D.)
Hardened by habit
The best way of presenting before you what I mean will be to take a plain illustration.
Suppose a little child, just beginning to open its eyes and unfold its faculties upon this
wonderful world of ours. There you get the extreme of capacity for receiving impressions
from without, the extreme of susceptibility to the influences that come upon it. Tell the
little thin; some trifle that passes out of your mind; you forget all about it; but it comes
out again m the child weeks and weeks afterwards, showing how deep a mark it has
made. It is the law of the human nature that, when it is beginning to grow it shall be soft
as wax to receive all kinds of impressions, and then that it shall gradually stiffen and
become hard as adamant to retain them. The rock was once all fluid, and plastic, and
gradually it cools down into hardness. If a finger-dint had been put upon it in the early
time, it would have left a mark that all the forces of the world could not make nor can
obliterate now. In our great museums you see stone slabs with the marks of rain that fell
hundreds of years before Adam lived; and the footprint of some wild bird that passed
across the beach in those old, old times. The passing shower and the light foot left their
prints on the soft sediment; then ages went on, and it has hardened into stone; and there
they remain and will remain for evermore. That is like a man’s spirit; in the childish days
so soft, so susceptible to all impressions, so joyous to receive new ideas, treasuring them

all up, gathering them all into itself, retaining them all for ever. And then, as years go on,
habit, the growth of the soul into steadiness and power, and many other reasons beside,
gradually make us less and less capable of being profoundly and permanently influenced
by anything outside us; so that the process from childhood to manhood is a process
getting less impressible. (A. Maclaren D. D. )
The seed sown on the wayside
I. What is the wayside?
1. The wayside hearers are such as are unploughed, unbroken up by the cutting
energy of the law.
2. It is trampled upon by every passer by. The want of “understanding” lies in this:
that they do not see their own connection with the Word.
II. What is the seed? No matter where the seed fell, in itself it was always good; that
which fell on the wayside was the same ,us that which fell on good ground. Thus the
blame of man’s condemnation is in himself. The seed is the Word of God.
III. What are the disadvantages; which prove fatal to its being received at all?
1. The hardness of the ground.
2. The active agents of evil which were near at hand snatched it away. You give no
advantage to the devil which is not immediately seized by him. (P. B. Power, M. A.)
The seed and the husk
Christ is the living seed, and the Bible is the husk that holds it. The husk that holds the
seed is the most precious thing in the world, next after the seed that it holds. (W. Arnot.)
The Word falling on the external senses
Falling only upon the external senses, they are swept off by the next current; as the solid
grain thrown from the sower’s hand rattles on the smooth hard roadside, and lies on the
surface till the fowls carry it away. (W. Arnot.)
Unskilful sowing fruitful
if the seed is good, and the ground well prepared, a very poor and awkward kind of
sowing will suffice. Seed flung in anyn fashion into the soft ground will grow: whereas, if
it fall on the wayside,it will bear no fruit, however artfully it may have been spread. My
latimer was a practical and skilful agriculturist. I was wont, when very young, to follow
his footsteps into the field, further and oftener than was convenient for him or
comfortable for myself. Knowing well how much a child is gratified by being permitted
to imitate a man’s work, he sometimes hung the seed-bag, with a few handfuls in it,
upon nay shoulder, and sent me into the field to sow. I contrived in some way to throw
the grain away, and it fell among the clods. But the seed that fell from an infant’s hands,
when it fell in the right place, grew as well and ripened as fully as that which had been

scattered by a strong and skilful man. In like manner, in the spiritual department, the
skill of the sower, although important in its own place, is, in view of the final result, a
subordinate thing. The cardinal points are the seed and the soil. In point of fact,
throughout the history of the Church, while the Lord has abundantly honoured His own
ordinance of a standing ministry, He has never ceased to show, by granting signal
success to feeble instruments, that results in His work are not necessarily proportionate
to the number of talents employed. (W. Arnot.)
The wayside hearer
The proposals made to the wayside hearer suggest nothing at all to him. His mind
throws off Christ’s offers as a slated roof throws off hail. You might as well expect seed to
grow on a tightly-braced drum-head as the Word to profit such a hearer; it dances on the
hard surface, and the slightest motion shakes it off. (Marcus Dods.)
What can we do with the trodden path?
May it not be possible to do as the farmer would do, if he had some piece of field across
which men and animals were constantly passing? May we not pray for ability to put
some sort of hurdles across, to prevent the mere animal portion of our life, whether of
pleasure or business, or of our own animal passions, from crushing the spiritual life, and
prevent us from giving earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time
we should let them slip. (Robert Barclay.)
No time for understanding
“How is it, my dear,” inquired a schoolmistress of a little girl, “that you do not
understand this simple thing? … I do not know, indeed,” she answered, with a perplexed
look; “ but I sometimes think I have so many things to learn that I have not the time to
understand.” Alas! there may be much hearing, much reading, much attendance at
public services, and very small result; and all because the Word was not the subject of
thought, and was never embraced by the understanding. What is not understood is like
meat undigested, more likely to be injurious than nourishing. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them
there.

CLARKE, "Great multitudes followed him - Some to be instructed - some to be
healed - some through curiosity - and some to ensnare him.
GILL, "And great multitudes followed him,.... The Persic version adds, "of the
sick and diseased"; but all that followed him were not such, though some were: these
came not only from Galilee, but from the adjacent parts, from the country beyond
Jordan, and the coasts of Judea, where he had been formerly; and who resort to him
again, as Mark observes; and whom, according to his usual manner, he taught and
instructed in the knowledge of divine things, and confirmed his doctrines by miracles:
and he healed them there; in the above mentioned places, even as many of them as
were sick and diseased.
JAMISO , "And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there —
Mark says further (Mar_10:1), that “as He was wont, He taught them there.” What we
now have on the subject of divorce is some of that teaching.
COKE, "Matthew 19:1-2. The coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan— Properly speaking,
no part of Judea was on the further side of Jordan; for though, after the Jews
returned from the captivity, the whole of their land was called Judea, especially by
foreigners who happened to mention their affairs, it is certain, that in the Gospels,
Judea is always spoken of as a particular division of the country: we may therefore
reasonably suppose that St. Matthew's expression is elliptical, and may supply it
from St. Mark 10:1 thus: And came into the coasts of Judea, δια του περαν του
Ιορδανου,— through the country beyond Jordan. See John 10:40. In this journey
our Lord passed through the country beyond Jordan, that the Jews living there
might enjoy the benefit of his doctrine and miracles; and great multitudes followed
him, namely, from Galilee into Perea. Our Saviour's fame was become exceedingly
great, insomuch that every where he was resorted to and followed;—by the sick,
who wished to be healed; by their friends, who attended them; by those whose
curiosity prompted them to see and examine things so wonderful; by well-disposed
persons, who found themselves greatly profited and pleased with his sermons; by
enemies, who watched all his words and actions, with a design to expose him as a
deceiver; and, lastly, by those who expected that he would set up the kingdom
immediately. Besides, at this time the multitude might have been greater than
ordinary, because, as the passover was at hand, many going thither might have
chosen to travel in our Lord's train, expecting to see new miracles. See Macknight
and Lamy. The version of 1729 renders the latter part of the 1st verse, And came
into the confines of Judea on the other side Jordan.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They
asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife
for any and every reason?”
BAR ES, "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.
CLARKE, "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 αιτιαν, fault, cause, reason, three MSS.
and the Coptic version read αµαρτιαν, sin or transgression: this was probably the original
reading - the first syllable being lost, αρτιαν alone would remain, which a subsequent
transcriber would suppose to be a mistake for αιτιαν, 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 the
note on Mat_5:31 (note), 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.
GILL, "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 on Mat_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.
HE RY, "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 (Mat_19:3); 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, Deu_24:1. 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_1:27), 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.
JAMISO , "Mat_19:3-12. Divorce.
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? — Two rival
schools (as we saw on Mat_5:31) were divided on this question - a delicate one, as
Deuteronomy Wette pertinently remarks, in the dominions of Herod Antipas.
CALVI , ".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.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?—See
ote on Matthew 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 John 8:1-
11 be rightly placed (see ote 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 Matthew 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 Peræa, they might count, either on the Teacher shrinking
from expressing His convictions, or so uttering them as to provoke the tetrarch’s
wrath, as the Baptist had done. In either case, a point would have been gained
against Him.
COFFMA , "The Pharisees were not asking for information but in the hope of
opening up a conflict between the teachings of Moses and those of Christ. This is
actually an unconscious admission on their part of the weakness in Moses'

permission of divorce because, if Christ had agreed with Moses, they would have
had no case. The proof of weakness in Moses' position is that they instinctively knew
Christ would not agree with it! Why? They knew in their hearts that Moses was
wrong (or at least partially so); and, intuitively, those evil men recognized in Christ
a higher purity and knowledge than existed in Moses and decided to take advantage
of it if they could.
LIGHTFOOT, "[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 chapter 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 achman, 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.
COKE, "Matthew 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. Matthew 5:32 and again in
Perea, Luke 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. Matthew
5:31-32 and on Deuteronomy 24:1
PETT, "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 (Matthew 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.
ote 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 Deuteronomy 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.
either, however, were interpreting the Scripture correctly. For primarily the
purpose of Deuteronomy 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 Deuteronomy 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’ (Matthew 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.
Verses 3-6
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 (Matthew 19:1). Furthermore it is made clear that He is doing so
accompanied by Messianic signs (Matthew 11:5). The crowds follow Him and He
heals them (Matthew 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 (Deuteronomy 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 There came to Him Pharisees, putting Him to the test, and saying, “Is it lawful for
a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matthew 19:3).
b And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who made them from the
beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 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?’ ” (Matthew 19:5).
b “So that they are no more two, but one flesh” (Matthew 19:6 a).
a “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew
19:6 b).
ote 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.
PETT, "A Period of Testing - Jesus Prepares For The ew 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 Matthew 22:46. This commences with a visit by the Pharisees to test
Him on His views on divorce (Matthew 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 (Matthew 21:3 ff).
The Chief Priests and the Scribes (Matthew 21:15 ff).
The Chief Priests and the Elders of the people (Matthew 21:23 ff; Mark includes

Scribes).
The Chief Priests and the Pharisees (Matthew 21:45-46; Luke has the Scribes and
the Chief Priests).
The Pharisees with the Herodians (Matthew 22:15-22; Mark the Pharisees with the
Herodians, Luke ‘spies’).
The Sadducees (Matthew 22:23-33).
The Pharisees, including a lawyer (Scribe) (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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

Matthew 19 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Matthew 19 commentary

Similar to Matthew 19 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Matthew 19 commentary