TEXT [Commentary]
VII. Opposition Comes to a Head in Judea (19:1–25:46)
A. Ministry in Judea (19:1–23:39)
1. Teaching on marriage and divorce; blessing little children (19:1-15; cf. Mark 10:1-16; Luke 18:15-17)
1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went down to the region of Judea east of the Jordan River. 2 Large crowds followed him there, and he healed their sick.
3 Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’[*]” 5 And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’[*] 6 Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”
7 “Then why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away?”[*] they asked.
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. 9 And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.[*]”
10 Jesus’ disciples then said to him, “If this is the case, it is better not to marry!”
11 “Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. 12 Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry[*] for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
13 One day some parents brought their children to Jesus so he could lay his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him.
14 But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children.” 15 And he placed his hands on their heads and blessed them before he left.
NOTES
19:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went down to the region of Judea east of the Jordan River. Following the characteristic formula that concludes each of Jesus’ five discourses (cf. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 26:1), Matt 19 begins with the fateful geographical note that Jesus departed Galilee for the area of Judea east of the Jordan River (cf. 4:15, 25). He would not return to Galilee until after the resurrection (28:7, 16). The journey south to Jerusalem (over fifty miles) would customarily be made on the east side of the Jordan in order to avoid Samaria (10:5; cf. Luke 9:51-53; John 4:3-4, 9). The reference in 20:29 to Jericho as the point of departure for the journey to Jerusalem could imply that Jesus had already crossed the Jordan from east to west at Jericho. The journey would bring him nearer to those who would soon arrest, try, and crucify him, as he himself had predicted (16:21; 17:22-23).
19:2 Large crowds followed him there, and he healed their sick. Jesus characteristically continued to heal those who were sick in the large crowd following him (cf. 12:15; 14:14; 15:30-31).
19:3-6 From here to 20:28 the focus is on Jesus the teacher. In Matthew’s literary structure, the fourth discourse ends with 18:35-19:1, but Jesus continued to teach and discourse.
Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason? While Jesus was still east of the Jordan, he was drawn into a discussion of divorce by some Pharisees who wanted to test his understanding of divorce law (cf. Mark 10:1-12). Perhaps they wanted to make it seem that Jesus contradicted Moses (19:7). This renews the important Matthean theme of opposition from the religious leaders (cf. 12:14, 24, 38; 15:1, 12; 16:1; 22:15, 35). The discussion here reprises Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (5:31-32). The background of the Pharisees’ question appears to be the rabbinic dispute over divorce and Deut 24:1-4 between Hillel and Shammai. Hillel took a rather loose view of what the shameful or indecent matter mentioned in Deut 24:1 entails, so he permitted divorce for any reason. But Shammai interpreted Deut 24:1 strictly as a reference to sexual impropriety. Later, around AD 200, the Mishnah would codify this oral tradition (m. Gittin 9:10; cf. Josephus Antiquities 4.244-259).
God made them male and female. . . . This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Jesus did not enter into the specifics of the exegesis of Deut 24 but instead cited Gen 1:27 (cf. Gen 5:2) and 2:24 in succession, stressing the original divine purpose for marriage in the creation account. Genesis 2:24 was also cited by Paul in 1 Cor 6:16 and Eph 5:31, and in the Damascus Document (CD) 4:21. The gist of Jesus’ approach is that the original divine plan for monogamy should be more normative than subsequent concessions to human sinfulness. The clause rendered “the two are united into one” by the NLT is lit. “the two shall become one flesh.” It is this “one-flesh” relationship that makes divorce wrong. When God has so united two people, humans may not split them apart. The marital union is a basic, intimate relationship that demands one’s total allegiance. When two people are married, their identity as their parents’ children is permanently altered. Their new identity as husband and wife is forever.
19:7-9 why did Moses say in the law that a man could give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away? Given the apparent prevalence of divorce in that day, Jesus’ argument for the permanence of marriage understandably concerned the Pharisees. Their response to Jesus pits Deut 24:1 against Gen 1–2, evidently still with the motive of trapping Jesus (19:3). Their understanding of Deut 24:1 appears to have been similar to the liberal view of the school of Hillel. Rather than the NLT’s “could give,” their response is more lit. “Why did Moses command to . . . send her away?” and shows that they understood Moses as commanding divorce. Jesus would not accept this view. His citation of Gen 1–2 places the creation narrative in Genesis over the legislation of Deut 24. God’s original purpose for marriage overrides the Mosaic concession for human sin.
Moses permitted divorce. He did not command it. Sexual infidelity is the only permissible grounds for the dissolution of a marriage (cf. 5:32). On this point, Jesus seems to share the strict perspective of Shammai, but his appeal to the creation ordinance rather than Deut 24 might not be accepted by either Shammai or Hillel. The original divine ordinance of marriage trumps the subsequent human expedient of divorce. This is quite different from the Mishnaic view that unfaithful wives had to be divorced by their husbands (m. Nedarim 11:12; m. Sotah 5:1; m. Yevamot 2:8). But divorce is not a matter of course even in the OT (Mal 2:16).
19:10-12 If this is the case, it is better not to marry! The disciples were amazed at the strictness of Jesus’ approach and considered a life of celibacy to be better than marriage under such tight constraints (cf. Sir 25:16-26).
Not everyone can accept this statement. Jesus noted that celibacy is only for certain people who are divinely gifted to accept it (cf. 1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-9). The words “this statement” in 19:11 refer to the disciples’ comment about celibacy in 19:10, not back to Jesus’ comments on divorce in 19:9. The disciples were already aware of (1) eunuchs (Lev 21:20; Isa 39:7; 56:4; Dan 1:3-8; Acts 8:27; cf. m. Zavim 2:1; m. Yevamot 8:4), and (2) those who cannot marry and have children due to birth defects in their genitals or castration, but Jesus added a third category: (3) those who “choose not to marry” (NLT) due to their commitment to the Kingdom. The choice not to marry is literally to “make a eunuch of oneself” (cf. NLT mg), but this is not to be taken literally. It refers to those who choose celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom over marriage and parenting. Among those who fit this category are probably John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul (cf. 1 Cor 7:32-38; 9:5). The eschatological urgency of the Kingdom makes it a priority even over normal family relationships (cf. 8:21; 12:46-50). On the other hand, the Mishnah’s reflection on Gen 1:31 leads to the conclusion that no man is exempt from the duty to have children (m. Yevamot 6:6).
It should be noted here that there is not even a hint in this passage that celibates are more spiritual than married people, or that their lifestyle is a morally superior model to which others should aspire. Rather, only those who are specially gifted should choose celibacy as their role for the sake of the Kingdom. There is no basis here for the promotion of an ascetic lifestyle as the ideal for human existence. For further discussion of celibacy, see Davies and Allison (1997:26-27); Trautman (1966).
19:13-15 Let the children come to me. This incident recalls and reinforces 18:1-14 (cf. Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). It is fitting here since Jesus had been discussing divorce, marriage, and singleness. With this background Jesus was asked to bless some children by laying his hands on them and praying for them (cf. Gen 48:14-15). The disciples rebuked those who asked for the blessing as unwelcome intruders. But Jesus turned the rebuke back on the disciples; they were not to hinder children from coming to him because the Kingdom belongs to such as them.
COMMENTARY [Text]
Introduction to the Narrative Section of Matthew 19:1–23:39. The narrative block between Matthew’s fourth (Matt 18) and fifth (Matt 24–25) discourses begins with Jesus’ journey south from Galilee to Judea beyond (east of) the Jordan (19:1). After a time, he crossed the river to Jericho (20:29) and then moved further westward up into the hills toward Jerusalem as far as Bethphage and the Mount of Olives (20:17; 21:1). When proper arrangements were made, Jesus entered the city (21:10), had a confrontation with the Temple leaders, and left to spend the night in Bethany (21:17). The next morning he returned to the city (21:18), entered the Temple again (21:23), and became embroiled in a series of heated disputes with various Jewish religious leaders. These disputes culminated in the seven woe oracles of Matthew 23, after which Jesus left the Temple for the Mount of Olives (24:1-3), the setting for the fifth and final discourse. In all of this, Matthew’s story is very similar to that found in Mark, with few significant differences (Davies and Allison 1997:1).
The material in Matthew 19–23 continues such basic themes as Jesus the healer, the opposition of the religious leaders, the teaching of the disciples, and the movement of Jesus ever closer to his suffering in Jerusalem. But while the themes are familiar, the content is more topically arranged than in the last narrative block. There is comparatively less stress on healing (19:2; 20:34; 21:14) and passion predictions (20:17-19; cf. the cryptic language in 21:37-39; 23:32). The bulk of the material is devoted to Jesus teaching his disciples (19:10–20:28) and confronting the Jerusalem religious establishment (21:12–23:39). The disciple-oriented material in Matthew 19–20 is, in effect, a continuation of themes from the fourth discourse in Matthew 18 on the values of the Kingdom community. In the material covering Jesus’ Temple confrontations with the religious leaders, a bad situation goes from worse (Matt 21–22) to worst (Matt 23).
Davies and Allison (1997:1-3) present the material in this fourth narrative block as falling into four major sections. First, in 19:1–20:28, Jesus teaches the disciples on family obligations. Second, in 20:29–21:22, Jesus speaks and acts prophetically in healing, cleansing the Temple, and disputing with the chief priests. Third, deeds are left behind as Jesus engages in controversial dialogues with various Jewish religious leaders in 21:23–22:46. Fourth, in Matthew 23, Jesus turns back to the disciples to warn them against Pharisaic practices before he announces seven woes on the Pharisees and laments the fate of Jerusalem.
The Structure of Matthew 19:1-15. Matthew 19:1-15 begins with a transition and introduction that sets off this new narrative block here from the discourse of Matthew 18. The narrative block begins with a controversy initiated by the Pharisees concerning the legality of divorce (19:3-9). Jesus’ strictures against divorce were the occasion for his disciples’ jaded remark on the superiority of singleness; Jesus responded to this as well (19:10-12). At this point children entered the picture, and against the wishes of the disciples, Jesus affirmed and blessed them. So there are three units in this section, with the initial debate with the Pharisees leading to two discussions in which Jesus corrects the disciples’ views of marriage and children respectively. The key motif in the section is the four answers of Jesus, the first pair given to the Pharisees (19:4, 8) and the second pair to the disciples (19:11, 14). Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees on the permanence of marriage and the undesirability of divorce leads naturally into the discussions of singleness and children with his disciples.
Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage. The permanence and normative nature of marriage is the major point of this passage. Jesus’ citation of Genesis 1–2 makes this point explicitly, and his deprecation of divorce as due to sin further supports it. His explanation of celibate singleness as a lifestyle appropriate only for relatively few specially gifted people implicitly honors marriage as the norm for most people. Similarly, his affirmation of the children who result from marriage lends implicit support to the institution of marriage itself. In our day, just as in Jesus’ day, divorce occurs all too frequently; singleness is often exalted over marriage as the more fulfilling lifestyle (although seldom is singleness celibate today!); and children are deprecated as a time-consuming drag on one’s career. But Jesus speaks strongly for marriage as the divine pattern for people, a pattern to which all except a relative few should aspire. This pattern can be abandoned by legal divorce only after it has been broken by sexual infidelity. The obligations of this pattern are preferable to the seeming freedom of singleness, except in cases of special divine endowment. The offspring of this pattern are to be affirmed and blessed. In a sense, marriage can be viewed in terms of Jesus’ teaching on taking up one’s cross and denying oneself (16:25). Divorce, singleness, and childlessness may seem to be the way of success and fulfillment (“saving one’s life”), but in the end the seemingly carefree life will be a lonely, lost life. Marriage and parenting may appear to lead to a burdensome life (“losing one’s life”), but in the end “married with children” will prove to be the richest possible life for most because it is life according to the Creator’s pattern for his creatures.
In the present fallen world, the ideal relationships intended in the created pattern are not easy to attain. Yet the inauguration of the power of the Kingdom enables disciples to live to a great extent according to the created pattern. Many genuine followers of Jesus have failed as spouses, parents, or singles, and the church must reach out to restore them to obedience and fellowship. Nevertheless, it is better to avoid sin than to be forgiven of it. Prevention is superior to cure. For a superb discussion of the passage and ministry in light of it, see the pastorally oriented discussion in Bruner (1990:675-687).
Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage. It is likely that the Pharisees’ question in 19:3 was directed toward Jesus’ understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1ff. In its original context, this passage prohibits a woman who has been remarried and divorced from two different men to remarry her first husband. Deuteronomy 24 is not a divine mandate to divorce but only a concession due to the hardness of hearts. Jesus interprets the original “one-flesh” implications of marriage (Gen 2:24) as requiring the permanence. He will permit divorce only in the instance of sexual immorality, which breaks the one-flesh character of the union. Except in cases of infidelity, divorce leads to adultery. The language here assumes, as did the Old Testament, that a man could divorce his wife but a wife could not divorce her husband (cf. 19:3). However, a wife could appeal to the community elders for redress of grievances (m. Ketubbot).
Matthew 19:9 (cf. 5:32) has been understood in a variety of ways, and its exegetical difficulties are compounded by textual difficulties (Metzger 1994:38-39). One difficulty is the meaning of the word porneia [TG4202, ZG4518], which has been understood variously as marital infidelity (NLT), premarital infidelity (as in Matt 1:19), or incest (as in Lev 18:6; 1 Cor 5:1; cf. BDAG 854). All in all, the approach of NLT seems best because the context does not restrict the general sense of porneia in any specific way. Another major difficulty is the scope of the exception clause, “unless his wife has been unfaithful.” The question is whether this clause permits both divorce and remarriage when infidelity has occurred or only divorce and not remarriage. Most protestant scholars take the former view (Davies and Allison 1997:17), but there are notable exceptions (e.g., Hagner 1995:549; Heth and Wenham 1984). Those who take the second view tend to view 19:11-12 as spoken specifically to the celibacy required of those who have been divorced.
It appears that this issue cannot be resolved by grammatical arguments, but the view that both divorce and remarriage are permitted in the case of infidelity seems best: Freedom to remarry is the essence of divorce; it is meaningless otherwise (m. Gittin 9:3). Further, it seems arbitrary to think that divorced people are universally given the gift of celibacy. Rather, repentant individuals who have been divorced due to infidelity should have the freedom to get it right the second time. For a helpful discussion of the many exegetical difficulties here and reference to scholarly literature, see Carson (1984:412-418). For a superb pastoral discussion of the passage, see Bruner (1995:675-687).
The disciples of Jesus are a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:11-14). Participation in Christ’s Kingdom amounts to being a new people, whose identity and relationships are drawn from humanity as defined before the Fall. Similarly, when Jesus says that divorce “was not what God originally intended,” he implicitly tells his disciples that their identity is to recapitulate the human identity and relationships from before the Fall—before hard hearts began to pervert God’s intention. Jesus’ disciples look forward to the time “when the world is made new” (19:28), but they also long for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven (6:10). In this light, the permanence of marriage ought to be a matter of course in the Christian community, an aspect of its present life that mirrors and anticipates the righteousness that will come with God’s Kingdom to the earth (Hagner 1995:549-551). If Moses did not command divorce, then certainly Jesus did not. Even in cases of marital infidelity, divorce should not be the first—let alone the only—option. Are not the deep wounds caused by marital infidelity susceptible to healing by the love of God? Should not couples contemplating divorce, even in cases of infidelity, be made to consider the implications of Matthew 18:21-35? Forgiveness must be rendered in every situation, including this one, and such forgiveness can often lead to a restored relationship and renewed testimony to the power of Jesus’ Kingdom message. If God hated divorce under the old covenant (Mal 2:14-16), how much more so now that the Kingdom has dawned.
Jesus Blesses the Children. Here, as in 18:3-10, children represent those to whom the Kingdom belongs—i.e., Jesus’ disciples. Because of their spiritual significance, Jesus welcomed them, laid his hands on them, and prayed for them. This passage indicates that Jesus affirmed and cared for children and that his disciples should too. After this incident, he left that area, perhaps to avoid further arguments with the Pharisees (cf. 19:3).
It is doubtful whether this passage should be pressed into the service of later theological concerns. Whatever the merits of the practice of infant baptism, it is extremely doubtful that it is implied here (Davies and Allison 1997:34-35). As in 18:5, where “a little child like this” refers to believers (18:6), here “children” (19:13) represents Jesus’ disciples. The use of little children as an illustration of the humility of the Kingdom is consistent with Matthew’s teaching elsewhere (10:42; 11:25; 18:14; 21:15-16; 25:40, 45). Infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in patristic literature until Tertullian (On Baptism 18; c. AD 175), who opposed it. But for a well-stated evangelical view to the contrary, see Bruner (1990:695-698).