NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part I

Verse 1: After Jesus said all these things, He left Galilee. He went into the area of Judea on the other side of the Jordan River.

This is the last time Galilee is mentioned in the travels of Jesus. The next time we will find Him there is after His resurrection. The mention of His going to the other side of the Jordan River seems to indicate that our Lord went back to the same place He had visited many times before, and that being the compound where John the Baptizer conducted his ministry, and where Jesus met the first of His future disciples.¹

There seemed to be nothing now that would draw our Lord back to the area of His birth. He was born in Bethlehem just outside Jerusalem and lived there until He was about two years old. But then Joseph took him and Mary and fled to Egypt to avoid being caught in Herod’s massacre. Upon their return, they went directly to Nazareth, and that’s where Jesus lived for the next 28 years. The only time they were back in Jerusalem was for Jesus’ bar mitzvah at the age of 12. But even His discourse with the Elders there in the Temple did not whet His appetite to return any sooner.

So there must have been something that suddenly caused Him to pick up and leave Capernaum, never to return, and head for Judea. He had been hinting all along what lay in store for Him there, so as much as these things did not fit into the Messianic ideology His disciples were hoping to see fulfilled, He knew that there was another hill that beckoned Him, and it was called Calvary, also Golgotha – the place of the skull.

Verse 2: Many people followed Him. Jesus healed the sick people there.

Not only did His twelve disciples follow Him, but so did many other followers. So He now was back where it all started; where John the Baptizer had hailed Him as the Lamb of God and fulfilled the Scriptures by baptizing Him to initiate His ministry. Word got around quickly and soon people were flocking to that area, just as they did when John the Baptizer was ministering there. It also brought a change in His ministry style. Back in Galilee He mostly preached and ministered in healing as a part of the outreach. But now, there is a new urgency that elevates His healing ministry. Whatever it was that He did or said, it got the attention of the religious crowd in Jerusalem and they soon showed up to test Him.

Chrysostom gives us this in one of his sermons: “Thus Jesus worked for the salvation of those remaining close by Him and following Him, so as through the miracles to appear, in what He said, a teacher worthy of belief, and to add the gain coming from the miracles to the teaching of His words. In this way, He was leading them by the hand to the knowledge of God. But look at this with me. See how the disciples treat briefly whole multitudes in one word, not recording by name all the individuals who were healed. For they did not say ‘so and so, and so and so’ but ‘many,’ teaching us not to be boastful. Christ healed them, benefiting them and through them many others. For the healing of their sickness becomes for others the moment of recognition of God.”²

Verse 3: Some Pharisees came to Jesus. They tried to make Him say something wrong. They asked Him directly, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for any reason he chooses?”

Even though the Master was a long way from Jerusalem, still the word spread of His being in this area. By this time, His reputation and number of followers had reached great proportions. So the religious leaders were now under more pressure than ever before to find some way to stop Him before all Judea was converted to accept His gospel of salvation through faith instead of works. They tried every other subject, so this time, they decided to ask Him what we call today, a “loaded question,” which is technically known as “a complex question fallacy,” in that it contains an unjustified assumption that is exposed whether or not one answers ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

An effective way of dealing with such a question is not to answer with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but to challenge the assumption behind the question. The reason for that is because an assumption is defined as A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Therefore, it is unfair to allow the inquirer to ask for proof from you in an answer when they have no proof themselves in their question. These Pharisees were certainly aware of their own teachings in their verbal traditions, and they also knew that there were two schools of thought on the subject in which no conclusion had been reached.

One such school was called the School of Hillel, and the other the School of Shammai. These were two competing Rabbis. Hillel was president of the Sanhedrin and Shammai was vice-president. Hillel would say one thing and Shammai would try and correct it. They disagreed on how much flour to use in making certain types of bread or how much water was to be poured into a bath for the purification process.

On the subject of divorce, in Jewish literature we find this: “A man may not divorce his wife unless he found her guilty of an unseemly moral matter, for it is written: ‘And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her — then he should write her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand, thereby sending her away from his household.”³ But the school of Hillel says: Even if she burned his food, for it is written: ‘Because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her.’ [School Hillel reads the verse as if had been written: ‘Because he discovers an unseemly or moral matter in her.’] Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he found another more beautiful than her, as it is written: ‘And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes.’ [Rabbi Akiva reads the verse as if it had been written: ‘And it will be that she does not find favor in his eyes or because he discovers an unseemly, moral matter in her.’]”⁴

Therefore, we may conclude that these Pharisees were not only wanting to find out which school of thought our Lord agreed with, but also to pit Him one against the other so that they could see whose side He was on. But our Lord knew He was up against a mangled mess of interpretations. For instance, it was also taught that a man may divorce his wife without any prenuptial agreement if she was: “Feeding her husband with untithed food, having relations with him during the period of her menstruation, not setting apart her dough-offering, or making vows and not fulfilling them. What is deemed to be a wife’s transgression against Jewish practice? Going out with her hair uncovered, spinning around in the street thereby exposing her arms or flirting with every man. Abba Shaul says; Also, a wife who curses her husband’s parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says; Also one who screams demanding intimate relations. And how loud is considered a screamer? A woman whose voice can be heard by her neighbors when she speaks inside her house.“⁵

Yet, there were those who saw divorce from a different perspective. Rabbi Eliezer said: “For him who divorces the first wife, the very altar sheds tears, as it is written: And this you also do, you cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and with sighing, in so much that he regards not the offering any more, neither receives it with good will from your hand.⁶ Further, it is written: Yet you say, Why is that? Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your marriage contract.⁷”⁸ But very astutely, Jesus points them back to the Written Word.

Verse 4: Jesus answered, “Surely you have read this in the Scriptures: When God made the world, He made people male and female.”

Our Lord either did not finish quoting this verse in the Old Testament, or Matthew felt that this quote was enough for anyone to find the text, because after creating them male and female, it goes on to say: “He blessed them.”⁹ In other words, God performed the wedding ceremony. Jesus wanted them to remember what God said, not what they interpreted Him to have said. One Jewish writer had an interesting comment on this text in Genesis. He says: “The world was maintained by this blessing until the generation of the flood came and brought upon themselves the annulment of the blessing.”¹⁰ So it should not surprise us that after the flood, the sanctity of marriage began to evaporate, which then led to the practice of polygamy, and eventually divorce.

One lay scholar in the early church period wrote the following in his commentary on this verse: “Male and female. Not male and many females, so that a man is allowed to possess many wives, nor males and a female so that one woman is allowed to have many husbands. No, he said male and female, so that a woman should think that no man has been made in the world except one, and a man should think that no woman has been made in the world except one. For it was not two or three ribs that he took from the side of man, and he did not make two or three women. When, therefore, a second or a third wife stands before your face, as then Eve stood before Adam, how could you say to them, ‘This is bone of my bones?’ For even if that woman is truly a rib, it is still not yours. If you have not said this to her, you do not affirm that she is your wife; but if you have said it, you lie.”¹¹

But the great preacher Chrysostom takes another route in his comments. He says: “Look carefully at the wisdom of the teacher. For being asked, ‘Is it allowed?’ He does not immediately say, ‘It is not allowed,’ lest they should be disturbed and break out in an uproar. Before Jesus made His own statement He made it clear through His opening remarks that what He had to say came from His Father’s commandment. In commanding this He was not in opposition to Moses but fully in agreement with him. Notice how He validates covenant sexuality not from the creation alone but from God’s commandment. For he did not say that God had made only one man and one woman but that God had also commanded that the one man should be joined to the one woman.”¹² In other words, because God did not create several women out of Adam’s rib, it was His way of promoting monogamy.

Then Chrysostom goes on: “If God had wanted Adam to dismiss this wife and marry another when he made one man, he would have made many women. But as it is, He shows both by the manner of her creation and the form of the commandment that one man must dwell with one woman continually and never break off from her. And see how he says, ‘He who made them at the beginning made them male and female,’ that is, they sprang from one root and came together as one body, ‘or the two shall be one flesh.’”¹³

However, not all scholars are on the same page with this layman scholar and Chrysostom. God chose to give Adam one companion in the Garden of Eden so he was not always alone, waiting for God to show up so they could converse. Since there were no other choices, there was no reason for divorce. It was only after sin entered the garden through the serpent that sin fostered polygamy and eventually divorce. It was God’s intent for all couples to be like Adam and Eve, but sin corrupted that ideal couple model, and only when all believers are transformed to live in eternity like the angels will that scourge of divorce be finally eradicated.

Another thing to remember is that God chose Eve for Adam. There was no such promise after the flood that God would continue to choose who married who. It became the individuals choice. Sometimes they sought God’s help, such as when Abraham sent his servant to find a wife for Isaac. But for the most part, partners are chosen based on attraction or compatibility. In the meantime, bad choices are allowed by law to be dissolved. Divorce is as forgivable as any other sin that goes against God’s will. But such forgiveness does not mean that it should be done again and again. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.”¹⁴