article24

§19 Divorce and Riches (Matt. 19:1–30)

19:1–6 / When Jesus finished his discourse (as recorded in chap. 18), he left Galilee for the last time and went to the area of Judea that lay east of the Jordan. Great crowds followed him there and he healed them.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him (note the same use of peirazō in Matt. 22:18, 35) by asking him if the law allowed a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason. The Pharisees permitted divorce but differed on the appropriate terms. Deuteronomy 24:1 speaks of a man divorcing his wife “because he finds something indecent about her.” The school of Shammai held this to be immorality on the part of the wife. The school of Hillel interpreted it to be anything at all that proved to be displeasing to the husband. Rabbi Akiba (early second century) went so far as to say that if a man met another woman more pleasing than his wife it was tantamount to finding “something indecent” in her and was an acceptable reason for divorce. God’s declaration “I hate divorce” (Mal. 2:16) had conveniently been ignored by the more liberal school of thought.

Jesus responds with a counterquestion: Haven’t you read … that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female” (made them for marriage)? Therefore, when a man leaves father and mother to become one with his wife, no one is to separate what God has joined together. God’s plan in creation was that man and woman should live together in monogamous marriage (Gen. 1:27). McNeile notes that “the first human male and female were intended solely for each other” (there was no one else to marry) and that this norm of an indissoluble union was intended for each succeeding pair (p. 273).

Genesis 2:24 sets forth the divine intention. Marriage brings man and woman together, not as two people who share certain things in common, but in order to create (it is significant that in v. 4 God is called ho ktisas, the Creator) something new. The two will become one flesh (v. 5). They are no longer two, but one (v. 6). That is why it is wrong for man to separate what God has joined together. It is a reversal of the divine order.

19:7–10 / If divorce runs counter to the divine intention, then why, asked the Pharisees, did Moses give the law allowing a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away? Is Moses guilty of writing laws that run counter to the mind of God? Such an idea would be blasphemous in the religious culture of first-century Judaism. Jesus answers that Moses’ injunction regarding divorce came as a result of their hardness of heart. Williams translates, “It was because of your moral perversity that Moses allowed you to divorce” (v. 8). But that was not what was intended in the beginning. Actually, the requirement of a written notice of divorce made the process more difficult. Prior to that time a marriage could be dissolved by the man simply declaring it to be so. A written notice would give time for anger to dissipate and common sense to regain control.

Jesus continues by pointing out that whoever divorces his wife for any cause other than marital infidelity and marries another is guilty of adultery (v. 9). In the parallel passage in 5:32 divorce is said to cause the woman who is put away to commit adultery. In the culture of that day a divorced woman would very easily find herself trapped into a life of prostitution. In the present passage it is the man who commits adultery by remarriage. The point is that in God’s sight the man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness is still married to her.

If that’s the case between a man and his wife, respond the disciples, then it would be better not to marry at all. The difficulty of achieving a perfect marriage becomes an argument against marriage itself. Tasker writes that “this is the voice of the perfectionist, and the ascetic, who because the best is unlikely to be attained would avoid the second-best” (p. 183).

19:11–12 / Jesus’ response to his disciples’ conclusion about marriage is that not all men are able to accept (chōreō, “to make room,” thus, in a mental sense, “to comprehend or accept,” BAGD, p. 890) this saying (ton logon touton), but only those “who have the gift” (Moffatt). Commentators differ as to what this teaching refers to. Some take it as a response to the disciples’ saying in the previous verse. For example, Knox translates, “That conclusion … cannot be taken in by everybody” (cf. Beare, p. 391; Green, p. 169). The problem here, however, is that God is held as agreeing with the disciples’ conclusion that it is better not to marry (v. 10). This runs counter to the divine intention in creation (Gen. 1:28).

It is better to take Jesus’ statement in verse 11 as referring to his teaching on divorce and remarriage in verses 3–9. Not everyone is able to accept his strict position on the subject, but only those to whom it [the ability to accept] has been given. It is not a question of whether or not a person should refrain from marriage for the sake of evangelism or because the end of all things is not far off. The issue has to do with true disciples who have had to divorce their wives for immorality and “out of obedience to Christ’s law concerning divorce they do not remarry” (Gundry, pp. 381–82). Those who cannot or do not accept the teaching are nondisciples and false disciples.

There are several reasons why men do not marry (or are unsuited for marriage). Some have been disabled from birth. Others were made that way by men (v. 12). It was not uncommon for servants in the royal harems to be castrated in order to protect the women. Also, in certain Mediterranean cults priests dedicated themselves to a mother goddess by self-emasculation (Beare, p. 391). Origen, one of the most influential thinkers of the early church, castrated himself, although in time he came to realize his error.

A third type of eunuch is the man who has renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. This is voluntary celibacy, and, if one follows Gundry’s argument, these are those who “live as eunuchs after they have had to divorce their wives for immorality” (p. 382). So Jesus concludes, The one who can accept this (teaching on divorce and remarriage) should accept it. It is the mark of a true disciple to live in obedience to God’s best intention for human beings.

19:13–15 / When little children were brought to Jesus so that he might lay his hands on them and pray, the disciples rebuked those who brought them (Phillips says that they “frowned on the parents’ action”). The disciples were annoyed that their journey to Jerusalem was being slowed down. Jesus, however, had different priorities. Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to the childlike. So first he gave them his blessing (i.e., placed his hands on them) and then he continued on his way. Verse 14 has often been used in support of child baptism (cf. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, pp. 71–80), but the argument lacks force (cf. Tasker, p. 185).

19:16–22 / The young man who comes to Jesus in this narrative is sometimes called the rich young ruler. That he is rich is clearly seen in all three Gospels. In Mark there is no indication of his age or rank. In Luke he is called a “ruler” (Luke 18:18), but his age is not mentioned. In Matthew he is twice designated young man (vv. 20, 22), but his rank is not indicated.

It is instructive to compare the young man’s question to Jesus as recorded both in Matthew and in Mark. In Mark he addresses Jesus with the title “good teacher” and asks, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17). Matthew has him address Jesus simply as Teacher and moves the adjective “good” to the question: What good thing must I do to get eternal life? This modification requires Jesus’ response in Mark (“Why do you call me good?” 10:18) to become, Why do you ask me about what is good? in Matthew (v. 17).

Differences of this nature are not uncommon in the Synoptic Gospels. Some scholars go to great lengths to explain exactly how it all happened. The relationship between the first three Gospels, with their similarities and differences, is called the Synoptic Problem. It is sufficient to mention at this point that ancient literature need not be pressed into modern categories. The writers of the Gospels, to whatever extent they were aware of or copied from one another (or from some common source), produced their work without any sense of conflict or incongruity. The Gospels should be read with the same openness. The proverbial nature of Jesus’ teaching and the fact that the disciples heard him teach over a period of some years would lead us to expect variations on the same essential truths.

The young man’s question reveals a misunderstanding about spiritual matters: What good thing must I do? He felt that eternal life came as a reward for some great act. Jesus answers, as he so often does, with another question: Why do you ask me (emphasized in Greek) about what is good? As an informed Jew you already have God’s revelation on the subject. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments. To the young man’s query, “What sort of commandments?” (Williams; Gk. poias), Jesus responds by listing five of the Ten Commandments (numbers five through nine, according to Exod. 20:12–16) and adding Leviticus 19:18.

The young man responds that he has obeyed all the commandments listed by Jesus but still feels there is something else he needs to do (v. 20). His uneasiness reveals an instinctive human awareness that legalism falls short of God’s intention. That he had not, in fact, fulfilled the requirement to love his neighbor as himself is brought out in the account as told in the Gospel According to the Hebrews (a second-century expansion of Matthew mentioned by several early Christian writers). In that account Jesus rebukes him for claiming to love his brother when many of them are “clothed in filth” and “dying of hunger.”

When the young man heard from Jesus that in order to reach his goal (to be perfect; Gk. teleios) he would have to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor (v. 21), … he went away sad (v. 22). Unfortunately, he was very rich. Great wealth tends to break down fraternal relationships because it separates those who have from those who have not. The requirement to divest oneself of all possessions is not a universal requirement for entrance into heaven. It was, for this specific person, a test of his willingness to place God’s priorities first in his own life. The monastic requirement of poverty grew out of a misunderstanding of this verse. The idea of two levels of moral obligation is not true to the intent of the passage.

19:23–26 / Turning to his disciples, Jesus summarizes the incident by noting how difficult it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich [person] to enter the kingdom of God. Obviously, Jesus is using hyperbole. The camel was the largest animal in Palestine and the eye of a needle was the smallest opening in a familiar object (Gundry, p. 390). The statement is proverbial and found in the Koran (Sura 7.38) as well as in the Talmud (cf. b. Berak. 55b, where “elephant” is used instead of “camel”). It is unnecessary to find ways in which “camel” can be understood as “rope” or a “piece of camel-hair” and the “eye of a needle” a reference to some low gateway in the wall of Jerusalem. What Jesus is saying is that the lure of possessions is so strong that a rich person is unable with his or her own strength to break its grip.

Because wealth in the Old Testament was generally regarded as a mark of God’s favor (cf. Ps. 1:3), the disciples respond to Jesus’ words about the difficulty of the rich entering heaven by asking, Who then can be saved? The answer is that although it is impossible from a human standpoint (to overcome the powerful attraction of money and place oneself in dependence upon God), with God’s help anything is possible.

19:27–30 / Somewhat incongruously, Peter asks what reward there will be for the disciples who have given up everything in order to follow Jesus. The answer is that at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is enthroned, the twelve disciples will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. The Greek word translated the renewal of all things (palingenesia) occurs only here and in Titus 3:5 in the New Testament. It is a technical term developed by the Stoics, who expected a periodic renewal of the universe following its destruction by fire. In Jewish thought, regeneration referred to the renewal of Israel that would accompany the establishment of God’s earthly kingdom. Christians linked the concept with the enthronement of the Son of Man.

The idea of judging (v. 28 has the participle krinontes) should be taken in the sense of ruling. The Hebrew judge was virtually the ruler of Israel. The symbolism of the twelve tribes is carried over into New Testament to represent the Christian church (cf. James 1:1). Everyone who has forsaken home and family will be rewarded a hundred times over and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first (those who have not made the sacrifice of family in order to follow Jesus) will be last, and many who are last (such as the disciples) will be first. That there are twelve followers is symbolic: it does not ensure a place in the New Age for Judas.