Matthew 19:3

Mat 19:3. The Pharisees also — Who always had a watchful eye on his motions, and attended him with the most malignant designs, being now more especially irritated by the fame of his late miracles, which they had in vain endeavoured to suppress; came unto him, tempting him — With what they thought a very artful and insnaring question; and — That they might, if possible, find some reason to accuse him, or to discredit him, at least, among the people; they asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? — That is, for any thing which he dislikes in her. “The school of Hillel taught, that a man might put away his wife for any cause. The son of Sirach saith, ‘If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.’ Sir 25:26. Josephus saith, The law runs thus: ‘He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatsoever, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ And he confesseth, that he himself put away his wife, after she had borne him three children, ‘because he was not pleased with her behaviour.’ But the school of Shammah determined, on the contrary that the wife was only to be put away for adultery.” — Whitby. (Christ, it must be observed, “had delivered his sentiments on this subject twice; once in Galilee, Mat 5:31; and again in Perea, Luk 16:18. It is probable, therefore, that they knew his opinion, and solicited him to declare it, hoping it would incense the people, who reckoned the liberty which the law gave them of divorcing their wives, one of their chief privileges. Or if, standing in awe of the people, he should deliver a doctrine different from what he had taught on former occasions, they thought it would be a fit ground for accusing him of dissimulation. But they missed their aim entirely; for Jesus, always consistent with himself, boldly declared the third time against arbitrary divorces, not fearing the popular resentment in the least.” — Macknight.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE DIVORCE PROBLEM

Mat 19:3-12, and Mar 10:2-12. “And the Pharisees coming to Him, asked Him if it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting Him.” The Jews were very lax in their matrimonial relations, often sending away their wives for very trivial causes. Even a great man like Josephus chronicles — apparently innocently — as he writes his histories, “This day I sent away my wife.” These Pharisees, as well as the people generally, were very appreciative of their privilege in this easy way to get rid of their wives. Consequently they interrogate Jesus on the subject, hopeful to catch something from His lips on which they can found an accusation, or at least render Him odious with the people.

“He, responding, said to them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses permitted us to write a tablet of divorcement, and to put her away.” Matthew says that Moses permitted divorcements “on account of the hardness of their hearts;” i.e., the incompatibility of tempers. The Mosaic dispensation being the infantile department of the Church, the standard was not so high as that of the gospel. “Jesus, responding, said to them, Moses wrote to you this commandment on account of the hardness of your heart; but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. On account of this, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh. Therefore what God hath joined together, let not man separate. And again, His disciples in the house asked Him concerning this. And He says to them, Whosoever may put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery with reference to her; and if a woman may put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

Matthew: “But I say unto you that whosoever may put away his wife, not for fornication, and may marry another, committeth adultery; and the one having married her who is put away, committeth adultery.” The E. V. in Mat 5:31, says, “Whosoever marrieth a divorced woman committeth adultery.” There is a great popular illusion and misunderstanding arising from the above erroneous translation in the E. V. The word apolelumenen does not mean the divorced woman, but simply, as R. V. has it, “the cast-off woman.” The truth of it is, she has no right to a divorce, and her husband has run her off for some unjustifiable cause. Consequently she is still his wife, and will be so as long as they both live. Therefore the reason why the man marrying her commits adultery, is because he has married the other man’s wife. Instead of there being a prohibition on the marrying of divorced people, the truth is diametrically opposite — a Scriptural divorce liberating the parties for another marriage, “only in the Lord.” (1Co 7:39)

a. The Divine, Edenic institution of matrimony unifies husband and wife, so they are “no longer twain, but one flesh;” not one spirit, as the spiritual unity is with God alone. Consequently no man has a right to interfere with the religious liberty of his wife, nec contra.

b. There is absolutely but one justifiable cause of divorce, and that is the dark sin of adultery, which in its very nature destroys the conjugal unity, and thus nullifies the matrimonial covenant, making them twain again, the divorcement being but a recognition of the fact that their matrimonial unity, being destroyed, is now null and void.

c. Apostasion, “divorcement,” is the word which, slightly modified, has been transferred to the English language; i.e., apostasy. Consequently you readily apprehend the meaning of a divorce. Just as, apostasy takes the soul out of the kingdom of God back into the dominion of Satan, so the Scriptural divorce takes your body out of the matrimonial covenant and puts it back in the realm of celibacy; i.e., the divorce so utterly rescinds the nuptial alliance as to return both parties into celibacy.

d. The States are all filled up with unlawful divorces, the civil government granting them for a diversity of causes other than the one specified by the Savior. Of course, all such divorces are null and void, the parties standing in the sight of God as if they had never been given.

e. Of course, the design of the divorce is the relief and protection of the innocent party. But as you can not have a marriage without two, the same is true in reference to divorcement. Consequently the legal divorce affects the guilty along with the innocent. You say it is not right, as he is in no way entitled to it. The admission of your premise does not change the conclusion. Many dark sins never receive their just retribution in this life. The man who overtly violates the matrimonial covenant in order to get a divorce, must meet God, and account for the dark crime, not only of adultery, but perjury. Turn him over to God. He is certain to give him justice.

f. We should be very careful not to grieve those whom God has not grieved. I find the Lord’s people, in many localities in my travels, grieved, afflicted, snubbed, ostracized, and in some cases publicly denounced, on the charge of having two living wives or two living husbands, when really the parties have been Scripturally divorced from their former consorts before marrying the latter. This is unjust. If you are Scripturally divorced, she is no longer your wife, or he is no longer your husband. Consequently it is not true that he has two living wives, or that she has two living husbands.

g. In my extensive travels I meet all sorts of matrimonial complexities, which bring me to my knees before God, that He may give me-light to answer the complicated questions propounded by the good and sincere people, who are anxious to do the will of God and get to heaven: e.g., men and women who during the unsaved period of their lives, got married and separated, receiving civil, but unscriptural, divorcement; then, marrying others, have families of children, homes, and a diversity of domestic interests. Meanwhile they have been converted to God, are Church members, and frequently professors of sanctification. I have found them much disturbed over this problem, preachers and prominent saints having told them that they ought to separate. now, before God and the judgment- bar, let me warn you to slowly, lest the last error be worse than the first. If it is your duty to administer temporal support to a former companion from whom you illegally separated, be sure that you satisfy your conscience when, on your knees, you tell God all about it. You see in these Scriptures that Moses granted a divorcement on account of the hardness of their hearts; i. e., when they fell out, and could not live together in peace. Under the new dispensation of-entire sanctification, the normal attitude of the gospel Church contemplates the removal of all of these evil tempers, so there is no need of a divorce.

h. Though we are not under the dispensation of Moses, I am sorry to say that the rank and file of the Church, both clergy and laity, are there to-day. This is evinced in the fact that they neither preach, seek, nor enjoy full salvation, which is the standard of the New Testament Church. Now, I assure you the Mosaic dispensation is a million times better than that of the devil. Therefore, if your matrimonial relations are not fully up to the New Testament standard, you can fall back and live in the dispensation of Moses. But be sure that you go on your knees, and settle all this matter before God, who, in infinite mercy, requires no impossibilities. Perhaps there are matters in your past life which it is impossible for you to rectify. Then turn it all over to God, and put it under the blood. Do the best you can, and where impossibilities intervene, your blessed Heavenly Father will take the will for the deed, and in the end say, “Well done.” Be sure you do nothing rashly, and without the triple illumination of heaven through God’s Word, Spirit, and providence.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19:3 There were two divergent views on when one was allowed to divorce one’s wife. One group of Pharisees, following Rabbi Shammai, argued that divorce was allowed only in the case of adultery or other grave sin, while the other group, following Rabbi Hillel, contended that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, such as if she burned his dinner.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 19:3.[854] Πᾶσαν, every) They wished to elicit from our Lord a universal negative, which they thought would be contrary to Moses.

[854] Πειράζοντες αὐτὸν, tempting Him) At the beginning of His career, His adversaries questioned the Saviour concerning several of the acts committed either by himself or His disciples. But when He had left nothing still remaining to be done for the defence of His own cause and that of His followers, they thenceforth refrained from objections and interrogatories of that kind, and the more for that very reason heaped upon Him general questions, unconnected with any immediate act of His, it being their purpose thereby to surprise Him when off His guard and unprepared.—Harm., p. 422.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_19:3. Πειράζοντες] The question was of an ensnaring nature, owing to the rivalry that existed between the school of Hillel and that of the more rigorous Sammai. See note on Mat_5:31. There is not the slightest foundation in the text for the idea that the questioners had in view the matrimonial relations of Antipas (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald), as though they wanted to involve Jesus, while yet in Peraea, within that princes domains, in a fate similar to that of the Baptist. Moreover, the adoption of this view is altogether unnecessary, since the whole school of Sammai had already condemned that most unlawful state of matters just referred to, and therefore there was on this score nothing of a specially tempting character about the question. But they expected that Jesus in His reply would declare in favour of one of the rival schools (and that it would doubtless be that of Sammai; for with κ. πᾶσαν αἰτίαν they suggested the answer, No), so that they might be able to stir up party feeling against Him. Falling back, however, upon the divine idea on which the institution of marriage is founded, He took higher ground than either of the schools in question, inasmuch as from this divine idea He deduces that marriage is a union which no human authority has a right to dissolve; but as for Himself, He avoids prescribing any law of His own with reference to this matter; comp. Harless, Ehescheidungsfr. p. 34 ff.

εἰ] See note on Mat_12:10.

τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ] Assuming ἀνθρώπῳ to be spurious, the αὐτοῦ can only refer to something in the context, and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the τίς implied in the ἔξεστι. For a similar classical usage, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 503 D.

κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν] for every cause, which he has to allege against her,the view maintained by the school of Hillel, and which was precisely that which gave to this question its tempting character, though it is not so represented in Mark. As given by the latter evangelist the question is not presented in its original form; as it now stands it would have been too general, and so not calculated to tempt, for it would certainly have been foolish to expect from Jesus any answer contrary to the law (in answer to Weiss, Keim); but, according to Matthews version, the persons who were tempting Jesus appear to have framed their question with a view to His splitting on the casuistical rock implied in κ. πᾶσαν αἰτίαν. After having laid down as a principle the indissoluble nature of the marriage tie, Jesus, in the course of the conversation, replies to this captious point in their query in the very decided terms of Mat_19:9, where He says, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 19:3-9 . The marriage question (Mar 10:2-9 ).

Mat 19:3 . φ . πειράζοντες : Pharisees again, tempting of course; could not ask a question at Jesus without sinister motives. εἰ ἔξεστιν : direct question in indirect form, vide on Mat 12:10 . ἀπολῦσαι … κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν : the question is differently formulated in the two accounts, and the answer differently arranged. In Mk. the question is absolute = may a man put away his wife at all? in Mt. relative = may, etc.… for every reason? Under the latter form the question was an attempt to draw Jesus into an internal controversy of the Jewish schools as to the meaning of Deu 24:1 , and put Him in the dilemma of either having to choose the unpopular side of the school of Shummai, who interpreted עֶרְוַת דָּבָר strictly, or exposing Himself to a charge of laxity by siding with the school of Hillel. It was a petty scheme, but characteristic. Whether the interrogants knew what Jesus had taught on the subject of marriage and divorce in the Sermon on the Mount is uncertain, but in any case all scribes and Pharisees knew by this time what to expect from Him. For κατὰ in the sense of propter, vide instances in Hermann’s Viger, 632, and Kypke.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The band of marriage ought not to be broken, unless it be for fornication.

To send her a book of divorcement, see also Matt. 1:19.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 DE WETTE pertinently remarks, in the dominions of Herod Antipas.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. Tempting him] Trying what answer he would give to a question, which, however decided by him, would expose him to censure.

Is it lawful - for every cause?] Instead of 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 Clarke's note on "Mt 5:31", and Calmet's Comment, vol. i. part ii. p. 379. By answering the question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their malice, and confounded their devices.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(3) Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?—See Note on Mat_5:32. So far as the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount had become known, it gave a sufficiently clear answer to the inquiry of the Pharisees. It is, however, quite conceivable that it had not reached the ears of those who now put the question, or, that if it had, they wished to test His consistency, and to see whether on this point He still held with the stricter rule of Shammai, and not with the laxer rule of Hillel. If the narrative of the woman taken in adultery in Joh_8:1-11 be rightly placed (see Note on that passage). that might have given rise to doubts and rumours. Would He who dealt so pitifully with the adulteress have sanctioned divorce even in that case, or pronounced the marriage bond absolutely indissoluble? Or was His apparent tolerance of that offender indicative of a lower standard as to the obligations of marriage? In any case, they might hope to bring Him into conflict either with the stricter or the more popular school of casuists. An illustration of what has been stated in Mat_5:32 may be found in the fact that the Jewish historian Josephus records how he had divorced two wives on grounds comparatively trivial (Life, c. 75, 76), and speaks incidentally in his history of “many causes of all kinds” as justifying separation (Ant. iv. 8, § 23). We do not know on what grounds Herod Antipas had divorced the daughter of Aretas, but it is probable enough that here, as afterwards, the Herodian party were working with the Pharisees. Here, in 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?] The words “for every cause” are omitted in Mark. In Matthew they contain the pith of the question: “Is the husband’s right to divorce his wife quite unlimited?” The school of Shammai allowed divorce in the case of adultery, the school of Hillel on any trivial pretext.

3–12. The Question of Marriage and Divorce

Mar_10:2-9

Mat_19:10-12 are peculiar to Matthew. St Mark mentions the part of the conversation contained in Mat_19:9 as having taken place “in the house,” Mat_19:10-12.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Ver. 3. Is it lawful for a man, &c.] A captious question, purposely to put him to shame or peril before the people. For if he liked divorce, the better sort would be offended and displeased; if he disliked it, the common sort (those that followed him), for denying them that liberty that Moses had allowed them. One thing that created Jeremiah so much trouble among the people of his time, was, that he persuaded them to the yielding up of the city to the Chaldeans, which Isaiah had so earnestly dissuaded them, not long before, in the days of King Hezekiah.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Is it lawful? Here again the Pharisees, ever anxious to ensnare Jesus in his words, come to him and ask him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Thinking now they had to a certainty succeeded, they argue thus with themselves: shall he say that it is not lawful, we will accuse him of blasphemy, contradicting the Scriptures. For, it is written, Deuteronomy iv. 1. If a man take a wife, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness, he shall write a bill of divorce. And Malachias, ii. 16. When thou shalt hate her, put her away. --- On the other hand, if he shall say it is lawful, we will accuse him of favouring the passions. But Jesus Christ, the wisdom of the eternal Father, silences them with the authority of that Scripture they attempted to bring against him. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder; intimating, that the connexion between husband and wife is so strict, that by it they become as one flesh, and can no more be separated than one member from another. (Denis the Carthusian) --- To put away his wife for every cause,[1] or upon every occasion. They did not doubt it, if the cause was considerable. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Quacunque ex causa, Greek: kata pasan aitian, ex qualibet causa.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Our Saviour, though yet at some distance from Jerusalem, was come into that province where the Pharisees had the greatest power, and were in greater numbers: now they come to him,

tempting him; where the word tempting rather signifies, generally, making a trial of him, than strictly, soliciting him to sin; they came (as appeareth by their question) to make a trial whether they could entrap him, and get any determination from him of a point for which they might accuse him. The question they propound to him is,

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The word here translated cause, signifieth not cause, or occasion, but crime also. So it may be translated crime; but they did not only put away their wives for crimes, but upon any occasion, in abuse of that text, Deu 24:1, When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; which the Pharisees had interpreted of any kind of deformity, or natural infirmity, not merely of moral uncleanness. Had our Saviour now answered Yes, he had contradicted what he had formerly delivered, Mat 5:32; had he denied, they had trapped him as contradicting the law of Moses, Deu 24:1, according to their interpretation of it. So they had whereof to accuse him.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. The Pharisees also came — The Pharisees as well as the multitudes. The former to cavil, and the latter to be healed. Tempting him — Trying him to see if they cannot get him into a difficulty. The point was one about which there was a hot partisan dispute, and the object was to involve our Lord in its quarrel. For every cause — The point is this: In Deu_24:1, Moses gives to a man permission to dismiss his wife by granting her a bill of divorce or discharge, certifying that she is no longer his wife, if she “find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found uncleanness in her.” The followers of Rabbi Hillel interpreted this to mean that a man might dismiss his wife whenever he pleased, for the very slightest offence, or for no offence at all, if he found some woman that pleased him more. But the followers of Rabbi Schammai held that the uncleanness meant unchasteness, and so forbid divorce for any other cause. If these Pharisees now can make our Lord commit himself upon this point, they hope to involve him in the feud with one party or the other.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We have now to listen to our Lord"s teaching respecting divorce and marriage. The Pharisees. The article is better omitted. Our Lord was not long left in peace by these inveterate enemies, who, if they could not openly persecute him, might hope to extract something from his words and sentiments which might be used to his disadvantage. They were probably envoys sent from Jerusalem to entrap and annoy him. Tempting him. Trying to get him to give an answer which would in any case afford a handle for malicious misrepresentation. The question proposed concerned divorce. To put away his wife for every cause; kata pasan aitian : quacumque ex causa; for any cause whatever. This was a delicate question to raise in the domains of Herod Antipas, (see Mat_14:3, Mat_14:4) and one greatly debated in the rabbinical schools. Our Lord had already twice pronounced upon the subject, once in the sermon on the mount Mat_5:32), and again when reasoning with the Pharisees on the due observance of the Law. (Luk_16:18) Two opposite opinions were held by the followers of Hillel and Schammai, the heads of antagonistic schools. The school of Hillel contended that a man might divorce his wife for various causes quite unconnected with infringement of the marriage vow, e.g. because he had ceased to love her, or had seen some one whom he liked better, or even because she cooked his dinner badly. The school of Schammai was more strict, and permitted divorce only in case of fornication, adultery, or some offence against chastity. Between these contending parties the Pharisees desired to make our Lord give a decision, thinking that they had fixed him in a dilemma. If he took the popular lax view, they could deride his claims as a Teacher of superior morality; if he upheld the stricter side, he would rouse the enmity of the majority, and possibly, like John the Baptist, involve himself in trouble with the licentious tetrarch. There was a chance also that the high tone which he had already taken might prove to be at variance with Mosaic enactments. The easiness with which divorce was obtained may be seen in Josephus, Who thus writes: "He who for any reason whatsoever (and many such causes happen to men) wishes to be separated from a wife who lives with him, must give it to her in writing that he will cohabit with her no longer, and by this means she shall have liberty to marry another man; but before this is done it is not permitted her to do so" ("Ant.," 4:8, 23). Josephus himself repudiated his own wife because he was not pleased with her behaviour ("Vita," And Ben-Sira gives the curt injunction, "If she go not as thou wouldest have her (kata ceira sou), cut her off from thy flesh,... and let her go" (Ecc 25:26).

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY Vers. 3-9. Divorce.

The readiness with which the marriage tie is dissolved in some countries, and the daring questions on the subject that have been raised in England, make it important for us to see clearly how divorce should be regarded in the light of the teachings of Christ. Plainly he sets his face against any divorce except in the most extreme case. Let us consider some of the pleas for a laxer rule, and then look at the duty of resisting them.

I PLEAS FOR A GREATER FREEDOM OF DIVORCE.

1. The happiness of the home. It is urged that some husbands and wives are hopelessly at variance. Though married outwardly, in soul they are not wedded at all. They live together as enemies compelled to occupy the same prison, which a miserable conventionality falsely names home. Undoubtedly, this may be so. But then happiness is not the chief end of life. Moreover, the immediate relief of freedom would have to be purchased at the cost of an invasion of the settled social order.

2. The rights of liberty. A more daring position is taken up by those who claim liberty to dissolve the marriage bond. These people deny that we have any right to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage; or rather, they plead that such a contract should be subject to revision.

II THE OBLIGATIONS OF IRREVOCABLE MARRIAGE TIES. Jesus Christ saw the terrible evils that resulted from great freedom of divorce in his day, and he distinctly opposed this dangerous licence. Let us consider some of the grave objections to it.

1. It is contrary to nature. On the surface of it, marriage may seem to be an artificial arrangement, and absolute freedom the state of nature. But our Lord pointed out that marriage was instituted at the Creation, and that it was associated with the very constitution of human life. There is a higher nature than that of the animal world. There is a certain best arrangement which only those who have intelligence to perceive it and conscience to follow it can enter into. This corresponds to Nature, not in her lowest instincts, but in her highest aspirations.

2. It is contrary to the law of God. The arrangement of nature was supplemented by the word of revelation. In marriage men and women carry out a law that God has revealed. In free divorce they break that law. This is of no consequence, perhaps, to people who are "emancipated;" but it should be all-authoritative for Christians.

3. It leads to numberless evils.

(1) It ruins the home. Discordant sentiments may also ruin it; but they indicate failure to reach an ideal. Freedom of divorce destroys the very ideal. The home which may be broken up at any moment is no home.

(2) It is unjust. It cannot always happen that both husband and wife desire to be separated when one is tired of the union; and if the wish is on one side only, injustice is done by divorce, and a wrong inflicted. Even if the divorce cannot be carried out without mutual consent, the one person who does not wish for it is placed in a cruelly distressful position.

(3) It lowers the idea of marriage. Instead of studying to make the best of the marriage union, people who have freedom of divorce are tempted to be looking abroad for new attractions. This is immoral; it tends directly to degrade the thoughts, and to throw open the flood gates of unrestrained desires. W.F.A.

HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY Vers. 3-9. Divorce.

The readiness with which the marriage tie is dissolved in some countries, and the daring questions on the subject that have been raised in England, make it important for us to see clearly how divorce should be regarded in the light of the teachings of Christ. Plainly he sets his face against any divorce except in the most extreme case. Let us consider some of the pleas for a laxer rule, and then look at the duty of resisting them.

I PLEAS FOR A GREATER FREEDOM OF DIVORCE.

1. The happiness of the home. It is urged that some husbands and wives are hopelessly at variance. Though married outwardly, in soul they are not wedded at all. They live together as enemies compelled to occupy the same prison, which a miserable conventionality falsely names home. Undoubtedly, this may be so. But then happiness is not the chief end of life. Moreover, the immediate relief of freedom would have to be purchased at the cost of an invasion of the settled social order.

2. The rights of liberty. A more daring position is taken up by those who claim liberty to dissolve the marriage bond. These people deny that we have any right to enter into a lifelong contract of marriage; or rather, they plead that such a contract should be subject to revision.

II THE OBLIGATIONS OF IRREVOCABLE MARRIAGE TIES. Jesus Christ saw the terrible evils that resulted from great freedom of divorce in his day, and he distinctly opposed this dangerous licence. Let us consider some of the grave objections to it.

1. It is contrary to nature. On the surface of it, marriage may seem to be an artificial arrangement, and absolute freedom the state of nature. But our Lord pointed out that marriage was instituted at the Creation, and that it was associated with the very constitution of human life. There is a higher nature than that of the animal world. There is a certain best arrangement which only those who have intelligence to perceive it and conscience to follow it can enter into. This corresponds to Nature, not in her lowest instincts, but in her highest aspirations.

2. It is contrary to the law of God. The arrangement of nature was supplemented by the word of revelation. In marriage men and women carry out a law that God has revealed. In free divorce they break that law. This is of no consequence, perhaps, to people who are "emancipated;" but it should be all-authoritative for Christians.

3. It leads to numberless evils.

(1) It ruins the home. Discordant sentiments may also ruin it; but they indicate failure to reach an ideal. Freedom of divorce destroys the very ideal. The home which may be broken up at any moment is no home.

(2) It is unjust. It cannot always happen that both husband and wife desire to be separated when one is tired of the union; and if the wish is on one side only, injustice is done by divorce, and a wrong inflicted. Even if the divorce cannot be carried out without mutual consent, the one person who does not wish for it is placed in a cruelly distressful position.

(3) It lowers the idea of marriage. Instead of studying to make the best of the marriage union, people who have freedom of divorce are tempted to be looking abroad for new attractions. This is immoral; it tends directly to degrade the thoughts, and to throw open the flood gates of unrestrained desires. W.F.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Pharisees came tempting him - Trying to make him contradict Moses. For every cause - That is, for any thing which he dislikes in her. This the scribes allowed.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The question of the Pharisees:

v. 3. The Pharisees also came unto Him, empting Him and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Their persecution did not cease now that Jesus had deliberately turned His back to them and even left Galilee. They are in a class by themselves, distinct from the people that were following Jesus with no evil designs. With bitterness and hatred in their hearts they here again set a trap for the Lord by proposing an apparently innocent question. They wanted to know whether a man could divorce his wife "for every cause," for any cause whatsoever, that is, whether a man might put away his wife at all, Mar 10:2. It was a catch question, either the positive or the negative answer intended to make enemies for Christ. "They purpose to catch Him. If He should answer: No, He would act contrary to Moses; but should He say: Yes, then He would tear marriage asunder, that people would reject each other and run apart, and the country be filled with adultery: they would therefore trip and catch Him. But He tears through all as a Master and Lord. " Or the connection may have been the following: "At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of Shammai and that of Hillel. On the question of divorce the school of Shammai maintained that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight, that is, when he saw any other woman that pleased him better."

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. That wheresoever our blessed Saviour went, the Pharisees followed him; not out of a sincere intention, but with a design to ensnare him: and accordingly, they propound a question to him concerning divorce, Whether a man might put away his wife on any occasion, as the manner of the Jews was? Concluding that they should intrap him in his answer, whatever it was. If he denied the lawfulness of divorce, then they would charge him with contradicting Moses, who allowed it. If he affirmed it, then they would condemn him for contradicting his own doctrine, Mat 5:32, for favouring men’s lusts, and for complying with the wicked custom of the Jews, who, upon every slight and frivolous occasion, put away their wives from them.

Learn thence, 1. That wheresoever our Lord went, as he had disciples and sincere followers, so the devil stirred him up bitter and malicious enemies, who sought to render his person unacceptable, and his doctrine unsuccessful.

2. That of all Christ’s enemies, none had such a bitter hatred and enmity against his person, ministry, and miracles, as the Pharisees. Men of great knowledge, who rebelled against the light of their own consciences, and the clear convictions of their own mind.

3. That such was the wisdom of our Saviour in all his answers to his enemies, that neither their wit nor malice could lay hold upon anything to insnare him: but observe the piety and prudence of his answer to the Pharisees in the next words.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Pharisees came. As usual, ready to oppose. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Hillel, the greatest of the Jewish Rabbins whom Jews have sought to compare with Christ, taught that almost any ground of displeasure on the part of a husband would justify divorce. He even specifies scorching the bread as sufficient cause. Josephus, the historian, says he “divorced his wife because he was not pleased with her manners.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Jesus begins to teach about marriage and divorce.

came to him

"came to Jesus"

testing him, saying to him

Here "tested" is used in a negative sense. AT: "and challenged him by asking him" or "and wanted to trap him by asking him"

Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female?

Jesus uses this question to remind the Pharisees of what the scripture says about men, women, and marriage. AT: "Surely you have read that in the beginning when God created people he made them male and female." (See: Rhetorical Question)

translationWords

Pharisee

test

lawful

divorce

Jesus

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

3–12. THE QUESTION OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

Mar 10:2-9

Mat 19:10-12 are peculiar to Matthew. St Mark mentions the part of the conversation contained in Mat 19:9 as having taken place ‘in the house,’ Mat 19:10-12.

3. πειράζοντες αὐτόν. For present participle containing an idea of purpose cp. Soph. El. 68, δέξασθέ μʼ εὐτυχοῦντα ταῖσδε ταῖς ὁδοῖς.

εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀπολῦσαι κ.τ.λ. The words ‘for every cause’ are omitted in Mark. In Matthew they contain the pith of the question: ‘Is the husband’s right to divorce his wife quite unlimited?’ The school of Shammai allowed divorce in the case of adultery, the school of Hillel on any trivial pretext.

It was a question of special interest and of special danger in view of Herod’s marriage with Herodias.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3.] This was a question of dispute between the rival Rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai; the former asserting the right of arbitrary divorce, from Deu 24:1, the other denying it except in case of adultery. It was also, says De Wette, a delicate question in the place where our Lord now was,—in the dominions of Herod Antipas.

κ. πᾶσαν αἰτ., as E. V., for every cause;—i.e. is any charge which a man may choose to bring against his wife to justify him in divorcing her? So Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 23, γυναικὸς τῆς συνοικούσης βουλόμενος διαζευχθῆναι καθʼ ἃς δηποτοῦν αἰτίας,—πολλαὶ δʼ ἂν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τοιαῦται γίνοιντο,—γράμμασι μὲν περὶ τοῦ μηδέποτε συνελθεῖν ἰσχυριζέσθω.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(M) 3. And there came to Him Pharisees, tempting Him, and saying, Is it lawful to put away a wife for every cause?] Mk. has: “And Pharisees came and were questioning Him, if it is lawful for a man to put away a wife, tempting Him.” At first sight Mt. seems more likely to be original than Mk. The Jews did not question the legality of divorce. That was legalised by Deu 24:1, Deu 24:2. But they debated about the scope and limits of reasons for divorce. Cf. Gittin 90a, where the views of the schools of Hillel and of Shammai are given. The former allowed divorce for trivial offences, the latter only for some unchaste act. But it is clear that Mt. is editing Mk., and that in κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν and (εἰ) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, v. 9, he has inserted into Mk.’s narrative matter which is really inconsistent with it. In Mk. the Pharisees first put their leading question, Is it lawful to divorce a wife? They themselves would have no doubt of the legality of this, but they test Christ (πειράζοντες, Mar_2), knowing probably from previous utterances of His that He would reply in words which would seem directly to challenge the Mosaic law. Cf. His criticism of the distinction between clean and unclean meats, Mar 7:14-23. Christ answers with the expected reference to the law, What did Moses command? They state the Old Testament law. Moses sanctioned divorce. Christ at once makes His position clear. The law upon this poin was an accommodation to a rude state of society. But a prior and higher law is to be found in the Creation narrative, “Male and female He created them,” Gen 1:27 LXX., i.e. God created the two sexes that they might be united in the marriage bond, which is, therefore, ideally indissoluble. In answer to a further question of His disciples, the Lord enforces the lesson. A man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. A woman who puts away her husband and marries another commits adultery. Upon this point Christ’s teaching passes beyond the ordinary conditions of Jewish society. No woman could divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why the Lord should not have expressed himself as Mk. records. There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine. Cf. Salome, Jos. Ant. xv. 259: “She sent him (Costobar) a bill of divorce, though this was against the Jewish law (and dissolved her marriage with him).” And there is no reason why He may not have been acquainted with the possibility of divorce by women in the West, or why, even if He had not this in view, He may not have emphasised His point by stating the wrongfulness of divorce on either side of the marriage tie. All this is logical and consistent. Compare with it Mt.’s account. The Pharisees are represented as inquiring, Is it lawful to put away a wife on any pretext? Christ answers as in Mk., that marriage from an ideal standpoint is indissoluble. The Pharisees appeal to the law against this judgement. In reply we should expect the Lord, as in Mk., to state the accommodating and secondary character of the legal sanction of divorce, and to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. But instead, He is represented as affirming that πορνεία constitutes an exception. Thus He tacitly takes sides with the severer school of Jewish interpretation of Deu_24, and acknowledges the permanent validity of that law thus interpreted in a strict sense, which immediately before He had criticised as an accommodation to a rude state of social life. This inconsistency shows that Mk. is here original, and that κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν and (εἰ) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ are insertions by the editor of Mt. into Mk.’s narrative. The motive of these insertions can only be conjectured. But in view of other features of the Gospel, it is probable that the editor was a Jewish Christian who has here judaised, or rather rabbinised Christ’s sayings.1 Just as he has so arranged 15:16-20 as to represent Christ’s attitude to the law to be that of the Rabbinical Jews, who regarded every letter of the law as permanently valid, so here he has so shaped Christ’s teaching about divorce as to make it consonant with the permanent validity of the Pentateuchal law, and harmonious with the stricter school of Jewish theologians. It is probably to the same strain in the editor’s character, the same Jewish Christian jealousy for the honour of the law and for the privileges of the Jewish people, that the prominence given to Peter (see on 16:19, p. 180), and the preservation of such sayings as 10:5-6, 23 is due. And to the same source may probably be attributed the judaising of Christ’s language, in such expressions as “the kingdom of the heavens,” “The Father who is in the heavens.”

3. εἰ ἔξεστιν] See note on 12:10.—κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν] cf. Jos. Ant. iv. 253: γυναικὸς δὲ τῆς συνοικούσης βουλόμενος διαζευχθῆναι καθʼ ἁσδηποτοῦν αἰτίας.

3. προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι] The words are omitted from Mk. by D S1 a b k. If they are not genuine there, Mt. has inserted them. For his partiality for προσέρχεσθαι, see on 4:3; and for the insertion of the Pharisees, cf. 22:34, 41, and Introduction, p. lxxviii.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Tempting. See on Mt 6:13.

For every cause. The temptation turned upon the dispute dividing the two great Rabbinical schools, the one of which (that of Hillel) held that a man might divorce his wife for any reason which rendered her distasteful to him; and the other (that of Shammai) that divorce was allowable only in case of unchastity. The querists would be anxious to know which side Jesus espoused.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.