CHAPTER 27

Matthew 19:1–12

LISTEN to the Story

¹When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. ²Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

⁴“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ ⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

⁷“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

⁸Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. ⁹I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

¹⁰The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

¹¹Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. ¹²For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Listening to the Text in the Story: Genesis 1:26–31; 2:7–25; Leviticus 18:1–30; 21:7, 20; Deuteronomy 22:13–23:2; 24:1–4; Ezra 9:1–10:17; Proverbs 18:22; Isaiah 39:7; 56:3–5; Jeremiah 3:1–10; Ezekiel 44:22; Malachi 2:11–12, 16; Sirach 25:16–26:18.

The last word Jesus gave to his own Galilean people was a dire warning about forgiveness. His heavenly Father would be merciless to those who show no mercy and refuse to forgive others (Matt 18:35). Boom. That’s the last thing he said to them. He would never see them again, except for a brief appearance on a mountain with his disciples (28:16–17). His trip to Jerusalem would be his last journey on earth. And so, having offered his parting word to the Galileans, he headed south to Judea, where some Pharisees confronted him with a testy question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (19:3). That question seems like it comes from nowhere. Why would the Pharisees ask him about divorce, especially since Jesus was already “on the record,” having given his position on the subject long ago (5:31–32)? Furthermore, of all the conversations Jesus probably had on his trip to Jerusalem, why would Matthew want to bring up such a random subject? In fact, if we were to skip over this episode, notice how seamless the narrative flow would be—perhaps even improving the story line. Jesus has just given an extended lesson about becoming like children to enter the kingdom, to be humble like the “least of these,” even setting before his disciples a child (18:1–5). Then, like bookends to the moral of the story, children come to Jesus to be blessed, prompting him to anchor his point: “The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (19:14). If that weren’t enough, a “young man” illustrates how badly he’s missed the point, refusing to humble himself because he had great wealth (vv. 16–30). Then Jesus tells the parable about the least becoming the greatest (20:1–16). In light of the thematic structure of the episodic narrative, the Pharisees’ question about divorce seems out of place, intrusive, disruptive.¹

But that’s not the case at all. In fact, the Pharisees have asked a good question in light of Jesus’s teaching about unlimited forgiveness.² Think of what it would mean to marriages if husbands and wives forgave each other as God has forgiven them. Or take Jesus’s response to Peter’s question about the number of times we should forgive someone and apply it to married couples who grow tired of fighting with each other over the same issue. When I was a pastor, counseling sessions over troubled marriages would have ended so much better if just one of the spouses would have said, “I forgive. No debts. No regrets.” But, too often forgiveness was the last thing on their minds. Their lazy husband or contentious wife had built up such a huge debt that the exasperated spouse had come to collect: “Enough is enough. I can’t take this anymore. It’s time for them to pay for what they’ve done.” Like the unmerciful slave who grabbed his fellow servant by the neck and tried to choke him into submission (18:28), I’ve seen frustrated wives wish they could do the same to their husbands (or even worse, was told of angry husbands who physically abused their wives). To be sure, marriage is a complex relationship that seems to invite many complicated problems. Divorce often appears to many as the best option to relieve the pressure between two people who hate each other. Nevertheless, one can’t help but wonder, “Shouldn’t Jesus’s teaching about eternal mercy and limitless forgiveness apply to married couples too?” Or are we more likely to stand with the Pharisees and wonder, “Shouldn’t a man or woman be able to divorce their spouse for any reason, especially when they’ve had enough?”

Whether or not the Pharisees tied the issue of divorce to Jesus’s teaching about forgiveness is difficult to know, but perhaps Matthew saw the connection. Besides, there may have been political reasons motivating the Pharisees to “test” Jesus with their question about divorce. Although our Gospel writer provides a rather vague location for his trip down south (“the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan,” 19:1), it’s very likely that Jesus, his disciples, and the huge crowd following them had come near the same place where John the Baptizer prophesied against Herod’s illicit marriage to Herodias (3:1, 13; 14:3–5). Therefore, to bring up such a touchy subject in the same region would put Jesus in danger—a devious tactic. The Pharisees had been plotting for some time “how they might kill Jesus” (12:14). In fact, they had tried three times to get the people on their side to oppose Jesus (12:24; 15:1–2; 16:1). But that only made things worse for them. So, what better way to do away with Jesus than to have Herod do their dirty work? Possibly that’s why Matthew says they came to Jesus to “test him,” knowing that if he gave the same answer as he did before, Herod would certainly hear of it and execute Jesus too.³ Nevertheless, Jesus didn’t temper his answer. In fact, he expanded on it in ways that may even challenge our ideas about marriage, sexual identity, and commitment to the kingdom.

EXPLAIN the Story

There are two ways to read the Scriptures: one, to look for excuses to live, the other to search for life itself. Jesus and the Pharisees—both taking the Scriptures seriously—approached them differently. The Pharisees were bent on maintaining their tradition, conserving what they had always been taught. Jesus, on the other hand, kept his eye on the singularity, the common thread holding all the pearls of wisdom together on one strand—what we call “God’s will.” Every time they brought up an issue, Jesus headed straight for the heart of the matter. The supposition, the ancillary, the extrapolated, the implication, the casuistry—the result of a carefully constructed argument built on the foundation of Scripture—only interested him if it held up under the scrutiny of the intentions of God, what would have been known “from the beginning.” This was a key hermeneutical move that often put Jesus at odds with the Pharisees, who spent more time maintaining the structure of their traditions than surveying whether the entire edifice of their interpretation was built upon a solid foundation. Again, the major argument between Jesus and the Pharisees had to do with how to read the Scriptures.⁴ The difference between their approaches shows up here in spades.

The argument between Jesus and the Pharisees looks like a card game. Jesus plays his card, “the intentions of God,” going back to Genesis to support his argument that marriage is forever (Matt 19:4–6).⁵ Then, the Pharisees “trump” Jesus’s play with “the law of Moses” card: divorce is sanctioned in the Scriptures (v. 7). How do we hold these two competing ideas together since God’s word is the repository of wisdom? We might call the Pharisees’ approach “progressive revelation”—with time more of God’s will is revealed. Sure, God established marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. Yet, over time God revealed a more nuanced position on marriage, one that takes into account the realities of life. Sometimes marriage doesn’t work, so exceptions need to be made. Jesus, on the other hand, takes a more “foundational” approach to the revelation of God’s will on marriage. Moses allowing the bill of divorce wasn’t a more enlightened teaching on marriage, as if Israel was now prepared to handle it. Instead of seeing Israel progressing toward an ever-increasing knowledge of God’s will, Jesus saw a downward spiral of rebellion among God’s people (a very prophetic worldview). Like Paul claimed, God gave more commandments through Moses to curb Israel’s inclination to sin (Gal 3:19). So, Moses gave the bill of divorce as a concession to a hard-hearted people unwilling to obey God’s intention for marriage (Matt 19:8). The bill of divorce was supposed to protect women from the capricious behavior of men; when a husband divorces his wife to marry another woman, they are breaking the seventh commandment (v. 9).⁶ The only legitimate reason for divorce, according to Jesus, was sexual immorality (see Lev 18:1–23)—the result of a hard heart (see Jer 3:1–10 where God gives Israel a bill of divorce due to “adultery,” i.e., idolatry).⁷ Therefore, if a woman was faithful to her husband, she should never be the victim of divorce.

That idea scared the disciples enough to commit to remaining bachelors for the rest of their lives: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry” (Matt 19:10). If there was no “escape clause”⁸ for a man to get out of a marriage with a “contentious” wife (“Sure, she may be faithful, but she’s driving me crazy!”), then marriage looked more like a prison sentence than a blessed union. But that simply reveals a sexist view informed by a privileged position. Indeed, what Jesus was doing was leveling the playing field of marriage in a male-dominant society, giving husbands a taste of their own medicine. As Nolland states: “The attitude attributed to the disciples here is quite unchivalrous, even rather misogynist. Jewish marriage practice meant that wives had all along experienced marriage more or less on the terms now laid down for men in v. 9.”⁹ Just as women have to grin and bear it—sticking it out with a man who may have driven them crazy—Jesus was requiring the same of his disciples. Marriage was a lifelong commitment, not only arranged by families but instituted by God. “Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate” (v. 6)—not even a dissatisfied husband.

When Jesus said, “Not everyone can accept this word” (v. 11), it’s difficult to know whether he was referring to his teaching about marriage (vv. 8–9)¹⁰ or the disciples’ inference (v. 10).¹¹ Most commentators think the latter due to the explanation given by Jesus—a cautionary word about resigning oneself to the single life (v. 12).¹² The way the disciples see it, men find themselves between a rock (the prospect of a difficult marriage) and a hard place (Jesus’s teaching about marriage). So, why not “jump out of the pan and into the fire” of celibacy? At least, that’s the way Jesus takes their comment. To him, if a man isn’t going to marry, he’s making a commitment to a celibate life—no sex. That’s why he immediately brings up the example of eunuchs, men who are unable to have sex. Note that Jesus didn’t entertain a “third way”: not married, not celibate, yet still single. To him, it’s either sex in marriage or no sex. So, if you’re going to make a commitment to stay single, then you’ve decided to live like a eunuch—a decision one needs to make for the right reason. For Jesus, not being able to divorce a wife for any reason isn’t the right reason to live like a eunuch. Rather, the only reason not to marry is to do so “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (v. 12). Of course, there are eunuchs who have no choice in the matter, either because they were born with a genital defect or they were disfigured “by others” (due to an accident or, perhaps, because of their vocation; see Acts 8:27). But the decision to remain single—for all intents and purposes, to take the vow of chastity—isn’t for everyone: only “the one who can accept this should accept it” (Matt 19:12).

Given the way eunuchs were perceived in the first-century world, it shouldn’t surprise us that once again Jesus holds up a person of low esteem as a model disciple for the kingdom.¹³ Eunuchs were not allowed to enter the Jewish temple (Deut 23:1). To become a eunuch was the sign of a divine curse, evidence of the punishment of God (Isa 39:7). Furthermore, to be a eunuch “means to be without honor,” because the male organ symbolized virility and strength.¹⁴ Therefore, when Jesus encouraged his disciples to consider becoming eunuchs for the kingdom, once again he was inviting them to take the path of downward mobility—a consistent theme in his teaching, but especially emphasized after he predicted his execution in Jerusalem. First a cross (Matt 16:24), then a child (18:2), and now a eunuch. Jesus would be hard pressed to find more humiliating models of discipleship than these three. Yet he never crammed these ideas down the throats of his disciples. Jesus never presumed upon his followers. He always introduced the challenge of entering the kingdom by issuing an open invitation: “Whoever wants to be my disciple . . .” (16:24); “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children . . .” (18:3); “The one who can accept this should accept this” (19:12). It was always up to them whether they would follow Jesus, a single man committed to the kingdom of God who taught that marriage is forever. Even when it came to their sexual life, to be great in the kingdom a disciple had to choose to become one of the least of these: either a committed “eunuch” or a forgiving husband. Being a disciple of Jesus affects every aspect of our lives because everyone needs to forgive and be forgiven—even husbands and wives.

LIVE the Story

If a Christian husband considered forgiving his wife as God had forgiven him, then divorce no longer seemed like a good option to him. When a wife would think like a “Christian” about her marriage, then forgiveness sounded more reasonable to her. But that was the hard part, getting them to apply such a “religious” idea to their “secular” relationship—at least, that’s what they thought I was doing. Often whenever I would bring up our Christian faith in the middle of some intense marital issue, the couple would often give me a dismissive look, a now-your-sounding-like-a-preacher smirk. In fact, once a husband said to me, “Look, preacher. We didn’t come here for a sermon. We came to you for help.”¹⁵ In their minds, their relationship with the Lord had very little to do with their marriage—a union determined more by the laws of the state than the teachings of Christ. (Sometimes it seemed like the soon-to-be-divorced couple was relying more upon the advice of their attorneys than anything I said. Legal advice tended to trump spiritual advice.) Furthermore, such a distinct separation of church and state has led many couples to divorce spiritual practices (like mercy and forgiveness) from domestic pursuits (like rights and privileges). To say that the “law of Christ” (as Paul called it; Gal 6:2) should take precedence over the laws of the land sounded naive to some and downright silly to others.

A scene from one of my favorite movies, O Brother, Where Art Thou? illustrates the point beautifully. Everett, Pete, and Delmar are fugitives running from the law when they come across a baptism.

Streams of men and women wearing white robes are headed for a river, walking like mindless robots through the woods, singing an old gospel song about baptism. As the three fugitives watch the procession of candidates wading into the water to be baptized by a minister wearing a white robe, Everett offers his commentary, dismissing the crowd as “chumps” who can’t deal with the hard times. Then, all of the sudden, Delmar rushes into the water, breaking in front of the line of novitiates, insisting the preacher baptize him immediately. Everett and Pete rush to the water’s edge, standing slack-jawed as they take in the scene of Delmar’s baptism. As Delmar slogs out the water with a big grin on his face, he declares, “Well that’s it boys, I been redeemed! The preacher warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It’s the straight and narrow from here on out and heaven everlasting’s my reward!” When Delmar invites his two partners to join the festivities, Everett dismisses the charade as nonsense.

In the next scene, all three are driving down the road in their stolen vehicle; both Delmar and Pete are dripping wet. Everett is incredulous that Pete got suckered into getting baptized, believing it absolved him of all crimes. Delmar comes to his defense, “But there were witnesses, saw us redeemed!” To which Everett replies, “That’s not the issue, Delmar. Even if it put you square with the Lord, the State of Mississippi is more hardnosed.” Talking down to his passengers like they were ignorant children for believing such ridiculous superstition, Everett then shakes his head and exclaims, “You two are just dumber’n a bag of hammers. Well, I guess you’re my cross to bear.” At which point Delmar encourages Everett to pull over and give a “colored boy a lift.”¹⁶

Perhaps Delmar isn’t as dumb as Everett thinks. Everett was the one who tried to manipulate everyone and everything to achieve his purpose to reconcile with his estranged wife and reclaim his children. Yet due to a series of serendipitous events—giving that “colored boy a lift,” recording a song at a radio station in the middle of nowhere, the unlikely concert of the Soggy Bottom Boys winning the favor of the opportunistic governor, the timely flooding of the lowlands of Mississippi that saves their lives from the bounty hunter—by the end of the story, the state of Mississippi pardons all three for their crimes, and Everett is reunited with his wife and children. The Lord works in mysterious ways—something Delmar believes with all his heart. Everett counted on his intellectual superiority—even deceiving his jail mates about a nonexistent buried treasure—to ensure a desirable outcome. Ironically, however, Delmar ends up being the voice of reason. By showing mercy to others and forgiving those who wronged him (even Everett), Delmar is the hero of the story—the answer to Cain’s age-old question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9).

In Christ, a husband is his wife’s keeper, and a wife is her husband’s keeper because they are brothers and sisters in Jesus’s family. “How many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me?” (Matt 18:21). As many times as it takes to remain brothers and sisters in Christ. For if we refuse to show mercy and to forgive one another—even husbands forgiving wives and wives forgiving husbands—then we incite the wrath of God and his merciless judgment. “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart” (18:35)—especially your husband or your wife. Therefore, we should turn the Pharisees’ question around. Rather than ask, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (19:3), we should say, “Is it unlawful for a man to forgive his wife for any and every reason? Not at all. Moreover, if you can’t forgive her, then perhaps you should consider becoming a eunuch instead of marrying. Then you might learn to live for the sake of the kingdom of heaven—just like Jesus.”

1. According to Garland, themes of the entire Sermon on the Mount are resurfacing here in Matthew 19–20: divorce, low status of the kingdom, law of Moses, command to be perfect, treasure in heaven, danger of mammon, obstacles to entering the kingdom, promise of reward (Reading Matthew, 201). Appealing to W. Carter, Talbert thinks Matthew is arranging the material to coincide with the common subjects of household management: advice for husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/slaves, and wealth (Matthew, 231).

2. Keener sees a correlation with Jesus’s previous teaching about protecting the “weaker ones,” in this case wives (Matthew, 462).

3. Evans, Matthew, 340.

4. See above, 25, 113–14, 117, 240–41, 243–44.

5. For discussion of Jesus’s view of marriage and divorce, see above, 116–17.

6. “The Jewish divorce bill contained the clause, ‘You are free to marry again.’ To obtain a divorce was to obtain permission to remarry” (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:17).

7. Ibid., 3:16.

8. Keener, Matthew, 471.

9. Nolland, Matthew, 775.

10. So Luz, Matthew, 2:500.

11. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:20–21.

12. See the explanation by France, Matthew, 723.

13. See Nolland, Matthew, 777–79.

14. Malina and Rohrbaugh, Synoptic Gospels, 122.

15. Rodney Reeves, Spirituality according to Paul: Imitating the Apostle of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 144.

16. This summary adapted from www.dailyscript.com/scripts/o_brother.html.