Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
Divorce
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. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not 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 marital unfaithfulness, 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 some are eunuchs because
they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others
have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one
who can accept this should accept it."
Explanation: THE FINAL JOURNEY (19:1-22:46)
Jesus continues to face conflicts with the establishment and misunderstanding
among his disciples, but especially once he arrives in Jerusalem,
the conflicts with the municipal aristocracy-the local religious
and political establishment backed by the Roman Empire-grow more
intense. Without an army to support him, Jesus challenges the leadership
in Jerusalem, an act that would, apart from God's intervention,
inevitably invite his execution.
Inverting the World's Values (19:1-20:16)
Jesus' male contemporaries valued the great and powerful; Jesus
summoned status-seeking men to love their wives and children. The
world valued wealth; Jesus summoned his followers to sacrifice all
for the kingdom, caring for the poor (19:21; compare 6:19-24). Only
those who prepared for such sacrifices could enter the coming kingdom.Grounds
for Divorce in God's Law (19:1-12)
The hardhearted person who cannot forgive or live in proper relation
to others in Christ's body (18:1-35) will also despise weaker people
in society-in Jesus' day, these included wives (19:1-12; compare
Mal 2:14-16) and children (Mt 19:13-15). By contrast, Jesus, who
is not hardhearted, remains unimpressed by worldly status (vv. 16-22).
When we hold grudges against a genuinely repentant spouse and remain
hardhearted toward her or him-whether or not we officially cast
the person away-we hinder our own communication with God (1 Pet
3:7-12) and ultimately can invite our own damnation (Mt 18:34-35).
It is thus no coincidence that in Matthew Jesus' teaching on marital
commitment directly follows his teaching on forgiveness (18:21-35),
just as in Mark it follows a discussion of sinning against a "little
one" (Mk 9:42-50; compare Mt 18:7-9). The more intimate the
relationship, the deeper the wounds of interpersonal friction sear;
marriage without forgiveness and reconciliation would be difficult.
Some of Jesus' contemporaries for this reason either emotionally
neglected or divorced their wives; many of our contemporaries refuse
to form close bonds of commitment to begin with. This passage provides
a number of essential principles.
Jesus Summons Us to Work Toward God's Ideals
(19:1-6)
God wants us to work for the purposes he intended for the world
before it was marred by sin. Matthew introduces the setting of Jesus'
debate in a manner similar to Mark 10:1, but again notes Jesus'
healings (19:1-2). The religious elite, perhaps provoked again by
Jesus' indisputable signs (compare 9:34; 12:14, 24; 14:36-15:1;
15:38; 16:1), try to lure him into a debate on the sorts of issues
in which they had sharpened their own debating skills.
The two main schools of Pharisaic teachers debated the meaning of
Deuteronomy 24:1, in which a man finds "any matter of indecency"
(my translation) in his wife and hence divorces her. The School
of Shammai interpreted Deuteronomy 24 as indicating that a man could
divorce his wife for the cause of unfaithfulness ("indecency");
the School of Hillel understood the passage to mean that a man could
divorce his wife for any cause, even burning his toast ("any
matter"-m. Gittin 9:10; Sipre Deut. 269.1.1). In practice both
schools agreed that the law at least often granted the man a right
to divorce, regrettable as divorce was (as in b. Sanhedrin 22a).
Jesus, however, circumvents their whole argument based on Deuteronomy
24. The ultimate issue should not be the right to divorce, but God's
original desire for husbands and wives to be one flesh (compare
Belkin 1940:231); "one flesh" is the language of family
ties and alliances (as in 2 Sam 5:1). The Genesis principle from
which Jesus draws this application goes beyond opposing divorce;
it opposes marital disharmony altogether. Indeed, the purpose of
the Deuteronomy 24 law itself was probably "to check haste
in divorce" (Gundry 1982:380), hence to provide some legal
protection for the wife (Luck 1987:109; compare Coiner 1968:368-69).
Jesus' call to follow and proclaim him comes first (Mt 10:34-39;
19:27-30), but one's relationship with a spouse must take priority
over any other relationship but one's relationship with Christ.
Although his opponents claim Scripture for their purposes, Jesus
challenges their actual knowledge of Scripture by showing that they
are proof texting rather than reading it in light of God's whole
plan: Haven't you read . . . ? (v. 4; compare 12:3; 21:16, 42; 22:31).
Some Pharisees might have considered Jesus "liberal" (as
we would put it) in his interpretations, but his objection was not
to Scripture but to human traditions of interpretation (15:2-9;
compare 5:17-20; 8:4; 22:24, 32); here he even attributes a saying
of the biblical narrator directly to God (19:4-5; J. Wenham 1977:28).
Some People Interpret the Bible in a Way That Treats Others Unjustly
(19:7-8)
God sometimes allowed what was less than ideal because people's
hard hearts made the ideal unattainable (for example, Ex 13:17;
1 Sam 12:12-13). To be able to exercise some restraint over human
injustice, Moses' civil laws regulated some institutions rather
than seeking to abolish them altogether: divorce, polygyny, the
avengers of blood, and slavery (Keener 1992b:192-96). Jewish lawyers
themselves recognized that God had allowed some behavior as a concession
to human weakness (Daube 1959).
Nevertheless, Jesus' opponents here assume that whatever the law
addresses it permits (Mt 19:7). Jesus responds that Moses permitted
this merely as a concession to Israel's hard hearts, implying that
his questioners who exploit this concession also have hard hearts.
Thus in Matthew (in contrast to Mark) the Pharisees even exploit
Moses' concession as a command (Gundry 1982:380). American slaveholders
were similarly sure that the practice of slavery in biblical times
proved the Bible's approval of slavery (Sawyer 1858), the same way
Muslim slaveholders applied the Qur'an (Gordon 1989:xi; B. Lewis
1990:78). Some husbands today twist biblical teachings to justify
abusing their wives (see, for example, Alsdurf and Alsdurf 1989).
And some churches use Jesus' words in this very passage-words that
may have been meant to protect an innocent Jewish wife from being
wrongfully divorced by her husband (Kysar and Kysar 1978:43; France
1985:280; M. Davies 1993:54)-to batter innocent parties in divorces.
Human nature has changed very little in two millennia.
An Exception for the Innocent Party (19:9)
God's ideal was always that we should avoid divorce; the preservation
of a marriage depends on both wills, however, and one partner can
sometimes end a marriage unilaterally against the other's will (see
comment on 1:19). Roman law permitted either party to divorce the
other; Jewish law permitted the husband to divorce the wife, regardless
of the wife's wishes (Keener 1991a:51).
Matthew mentions an exception to the general rule about divorce:
except for marital unfaithfulness, or literally (and more ambiguously)
except for porneia, sexual immorality. The NIV probably rightly
interprets the sense for this context, which provides a specific
exception for those already married. When Matthew speaks of this
exception, his readers very probably would have understood this
as a legal charge (as in Quint. 7.4.11; Suet. Julius 6, 74), hence
as referring to unfaithfulness; thus, for example, the wife's adultery
exempted the husband from returning her funds to her (Safrai 1974-1976b:790).
Jewish and Roman law both required divorce for these grounds (Safrai
1974-1976b:762; see comment on 1:19). Matthew's audience would thus
probably interpret these words in line with the typical meaning
of "infidelity," namely, sexual unfaithfulness to the
marriage, as grounds for divorce. Mark and Luke probably could assume
such an exception without explicitly stating it (Carson 1984:418).
As France puts it (1985:124): To repudiate a wife after she had
committed adultery was therefore simply the recognition that the
marriage had already been terminated by the creation of a new union.
. . . The Matthaean exceptive clause is . . . making explicit what
any Jewish reader would have taken for granted when Jesus made the
apparently unqualified pronouncements of Mark 10:9-12.
I believe that most other views of porneia in this text fail to
treat Matthew's specific cultural setting adequately (taking into
account the "charge") beyond their own proposal. Most
of these views also give porneia ("immorality," "infidelity")
a more restricted meaning than it normally bears unless explicitly
qualified, which it is not here (as noted by many commentators,
such as Hagner 1993:124). They also miss how such a term (used in
its unqualified, general sense) would function in a usual legal
context (see above). Most views other than the infidelity view imply
that Matthew permits divorce only when the original marriage is
not valid, but divorce was unnecessary in the case of invalid marriages;
further, such marriages were not common enough to warrant Matthew's
mention.
"Except for infidelity" may modify Jesus' statement about
divorce rather than remarriage (Heth and Wenham 1984:117; G. Wenham
1984 and 1986; compare against this position Murray 1953:39-43),
but if it does, it does so precisely because in Jesus' graphic statement
it is the validity of the divorce that is in question. No one permitted
remarriage if a divorce was invalid, but a valid divorce by definition
included the right to remarry, as is attested by ancient divorce
contracts (see, for example, m. Gittin 9:3; CPJ 2:10-12, 144; Carmon
1973:90-91, 200-201) and the very meaning of the term (besides sources
in Keener 1991a, see, for example, Jos. Ant. 4.253; Blomberg 1992:111).
Jesus' point is at any rate not to break up second and third marriages
(even for guilty parties)-as if the hyperbolic element in his graphic
statement might be missed-but to underline in no uncertain terms
the sanctity of marriage and our solemn responsibility to preserve
it when this is at all possible. Thus most conservative Christian
writers acknowledge some cases where divorce and remarriage are
permitted (for example, Dobson 1986:68; Adams 1980:86-87).
Remaining Single Is Sometimes the Price of
Following Jesus (19:10-12)
The disciples are concerned about the danger of marrying without
an escape clause, and Jesus responds to their question (Carson 1984:418-19;
France 1985:282). Parents arranged marriages, and in Galilee at
least prospective spouses could not spend time alone until after
the wedding (Safrai 1974-1976b:756-57; Finkelstein 1962:1:45). Then,
more so than today, marriage partners could not know in advance
how their spouse would turn out. To marry without the possibility
of divorce in a painful marriage seemed worse than not marrying
at all! Responding to this objection, Jesus replied that some would
indeed be better off not marrying; perhaps because of the intensity
of their calling, it would be difficult for them to find a compatible
spouse who would share their commitment (this is not only an ancient
situation).
Jesus' remark about celibacy is graphic and would certainly seize
the attention of Jewish listeners; Jewish people did not allow eunuchs
into the covenant (Deut 23:1; though compare Is 56:4-5; Tannehill
1975:136-37). Although some sectarians in the wilderness may have
preferred celibacy, mainstream Jewish society regarded marriage
and childbearing as solemn responsibilities (Keener 1991a:72-78).
A metaphor of such shame and sacrifice testifies to the value of
the kingdom of God for which anyone would pay such a price (Tannehill
1975:138-40). By embracing both shame and temporary self-control,
Joseph to a lesser extent models the nature of this demand (1:25;
compare 1 Cor 7).
13-22
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him
to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples
rebuked those who brought them.
14Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not
hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
The Rich Young Man
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good
thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied.
"There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life,
obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
19Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery,
do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and
mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What
do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your
possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in
heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had
great wealth.
Explanation: The Kingdom Belongs to Children (19:13-15)
Jesus here reiterates his teaching in 18:1-6, which his disciples
have apparently forgotten (compare again 21:15). Like their culture,
they think "children should be seen and not heard." Children
were low-status dependents; they had to trust adults and receive
what they provided (compare Best 1976:133-34). Disciples did not
want their teacher interrupted (2 Kings 4:27; Diog. Laert. 7.7.182),
and Jesus' disciples did not want these children, low in status,
to deter Jesus from more important matters (Mt 19:13).
Later, lest Jesus be delayed in his mission to Jerusalem, crowds
tried to silence blind beggars (20:31). It seems that in both 19:13
and 20:31, as in the parallel passages in Mark, disciples and crowds
alike fail to understand what Jesus' kingdom is really about-caring
for the weakest, rather than engaging in political or military triumphalism.
The Cost of Discipleship (19:16-22)
If the kingdom belongs to children (19:13-15)-those who receive
the kingdom as humble dependents (18:1-6)-then someone accustomed
to being powerful and supporting dependents might find it difficult
to enter the kingdom (compare 5:20; 7:14; 18:8; 25:46). This is
the illustration with which 19:16-24 confronts us: wealth and status
make perfect surrender to God's will more difficult, because we
think we have more to lose.
Many examples of faith in the Bible are acts of desperation; few
are the acts of self-satisfied individuals. Ultimately one who would
receive the kingdom must not only obey like a trusting child but
also relinquish worldly possessions and cares, acknowledging the
absolute authority of our King.
Those Who Want Eternal Life Must Obey God's Commands (19:16-20)
The good thing the man must do is show his fidelity toward God's
covenant by obeying his laws. These laws were part of first-century
Jewish culture, and the young man is convinced that he has kept
them, as many of us have avoided breaking the laws of our society
(compare Odeberg 1964:60). But if he is really ready to submit to
the yoke of God's kingdom, he must also become a follower of Jesus
and submit to Jesus' demands. That he is unwilling to spare all
his goods to help the poor will soon bring into question whether
he really loves his neighbor as himself (vv. 19-22).
Jesus Summons Disciples to Absolute Commitment (19:21-22)
The commandments listed in verses 18-19 are humanward, summarized
in the decree Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18); by adding
these words from 22:39, Matthew underlines this point. Yet if God
alone is good (19:17), the man is lacking in some way (he himself
admits it in v. 20, allowing Jesus to echo in 19:21 the call in
5:48 to "perfect obedience"). Now the man's allegiance
to the Godward love commandment (22:37-38) is tested: does he serve
God or money (6:24)? Loss of our wealth or fear of how our needs
will be met can test us in this way (6:19-34); the needs of the
poor can test us in the same way, as here. Love for God demands
a true love for neighbors that not only avoids harming them but
actively serves them. The young man wants a teacher (19:16); he
does not want a Lord who demands sacrifice (20:20-28).
By "going" (19:21; also 8:4; 20:4; compare 10:6; 28:19)
and abandoning all else (compare especially 13:44), the man could
have "followed" Jesus, that is, become his disciple (compare
4:19; 8:22; 9:9; 16:24). The kingdom demands more than merely keeping
many commandments; if we recognize Christ as our King, we must surrender
to him everything we have and are (compare L. Johnson 1981:17).
Whether he then allows us to use some of what he has given us is
his choice. Disciples do not always lose all possessions upon conversion-but
they lose all ownership of them, for they themselves belong to a
new ruler.
Jesus generally called his own chief disciples (Mt 4:19, 21). Yet
on some occasions prospective disciples did approach him (8:19);
as here, Jesus sometimes thrust them aside-probably, like some other
ancient teachers, to test the would-be student's real willingness
to become a learner (as in Diog. Laert. 6.2.21, 36; 7.1.22; compare
Sipre Num. 115.5.7). When Jesus turned away prospective disciples
with heavy demands, he probably intended the same as some other
teachers did: disciples must count the cost, repudiate their prior
assets and recognize the incomparable value of his teaching.Persistent
seekers throughout the Gospels display the appropriate response:
the Canaanite woman (Mt 15:25-28), the blind men (20:31-34), the
Gentile centurion (8:7-13) and Jesus' own mother (Jn 2:3-9). Jesus'
sorrow over the unwilling disciple (Mk 10:23-25) indicates that
he hoped not to turn inquirers away but rather to make them genuine
disciples, which they could become only if they counted the cost
and chose the narrow way of following him.
When we tell prospective disciples today, "Just ask Jesus to
forgive your sins and you can go to heaven," we are not telling
the whole truth of the gospel. Jesus is available for the asking,
but accepting Jesus means accepting the reign of God and God's right
to determine what we do with our lives. When we invite our Lord
to free us from sin, we are inviting him to rule our life; and while
we may yet fall short in submission to his will, we must actively
acknowledge his right to determine our lives, acting on the knowledge
that he has begun to transform us by his Spirit. If we accept Jesus'
terms of unconditional surrender to him, however, he promises an
unlimited supply of what truly matters (Mt 19:23-30).The wealthy
would-be disciple was not the only person whose attachment to possessions
proved a challenge to his commitment to Christ. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer,
martyred by the Nazis, pointed out, the difference between us and
the rich man in the story is that Jesus stood before him and did
not allow him to reinterpret the Master's words in a more convenient
manner. Bonhoeffer claims that the man's honesty in rejecting Jesus'
command was better than disobedience that pretends to be obedience
today (1963:88). He compares a boy told by his father to go to bed;
the boy has studied theology, however, so he is now intelligent
enough to reason, "Father tells me to go to bed, but he really
means that I am tired, and he does not want me to be tired. I can
overcome my tiredness just as well if I go out and play." But
a child offering such arguments to his father would likely meet
with language or an experience he would have to interpret more literally,
as would a citizen with her government-or a disciple who reasons
away God's demands (Bonhoeffer 1963:90).
23-30
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth,
it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again
I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and
asked, "Who then can be saved?"
26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,
but with God all things are possible."
27Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you!
What then will there be for us?"
28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal
of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne,
you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging
the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses
or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields
for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit
eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who
are last will be first.
Explanation: Sacrifice and Reward (19:23-30)
Jesus had promised a man treasure in heaven if he followed him (v.
21; compare 6:20); the man preferred to keep his treasure on earth
(19:22). The well-to-do young man of 19:16-22 was like many "First
World" Christians today. We want God to affirm that we are
religious enough without costing us anything more than we have already
been offering him. We trust only tentatively the value of heaven's
kingdom and hence are prepared to sacrifice only little for it;
but one who is not sufficiently convinced of the gospel's truth
to sacrifice everything (compare 13:44-46) will not prove worthy
of it. This is not to say that we are justified by our merit-we
must receive the kingdom like a child (19:13-15). But genuine, saving
faith is practically shown not by merely reciting a prayer but by
living consistently with what we profess.
Jesus promises to more than make up for our sacrifices; do we believe
him enough to sacrifice whatever our calling demands? As Craig Blomberg
(1992:301) comments: "This entire episode should challenge
First-World Christians, virtually all of whom are among the wealthiest
people in the history of the world, to radical changes in their
personal and institutional spending."
The Powerful Can Scarcely Enter the Kingdom at All (19:23-24)
Jesus apparently employs a common figure of speech when he speaks
of a camel passing through a needle's eye (see Abrahams 1924:208;
Dalman 1929:230). As much as we want Jesus to have said something
else, he said that the rich and powerful could barely enter the
kingdom at all. This statement shocked the sensibilities of the
disciples even more than verse 10 had; they share the values of
Jesus' enemies (Rhoads and Michie 1982:91-92; Mt 16:23). Presumably
because many of their contemporaries viewed wealth as a mark of
God's blessing (for example, Ep. Arist. 204-5; m. Qiddusin 4:14),
the disciples may have assumed that Jesus' standard for people who
were not rich was even stricter. If not the rich, who then can be
saved? (19:25). Yet because God alone is good (v. 17), salvation
by merely human means is impossible for anyone.
Jesus Promises the Kingdom to Whoever Follows
Him (19:25-30)
The disciples emphasize that they have forsaken all to follow Jesus,
and he does not dispute their claim (vv. 27-28; 4:22). Nevertheless,
even once we have committed our lives to him, we must watch and
pray to be ready for still other tests. Faced with loss of possessions,
the rich young man walked away (19:22); faced with possible death,
Jesus' disciples would later abandon him and flee (26:56).
Because families may oppose Christ's call to discipleship, a true
disciple must be prepared to abandon not only possessions but also
family (19:29; compare 8:21-22; 10:21, 34-37) for Christ's name
(compare 5:11; 10:22; 24:9). Jesus himself (12:46-50; 13:55-57)
and probably many in Matthew's Jewish Christian audience had suffered
rejection by their families, a pain felt much more severely in that
culture than in ours.
The modern Christian emphasis on family values is important, but
we must beware lest family become idolatry: for instance, parental
opposition or concern for our children is not an adequate excuse
to reject God's call to the mission field. In response to such sacrifices
God multiplies our resources (19:29) precisely because in the kingdom
we find a new and larger family than the one we have left behind,
and as a family true believers share their resources with one another
(Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; Kee 1977:109-10; Tannehill 1975:147-52).
This assumes that the church will live like the community of God's
kingdom, that his will may be done on earth as it is in heaven.
While such words may have encouraged early faith missionaries (Trocma)
1975:203; Rhoads and Michie 1982:92), they just as readily address
a persecuted church (Heb 10:34).Specifically to these twelve who
forsook their livelihoods to follow Jesus' call, Jesus promises
that they will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel
(Mt 19:28). That Jesus would reward his loyal followers would not
have surprised them; they seem to have expected as much (16:16,
21-22; 20:20-22). Thus when the Son of Man sits on his glorious
throne (19:28; compare 25:31; for "glory," 24:30) those
who have followed him in his humble estate will rule (a common sense
of "judge"; compare, for example, Judg 4:4; 10:3; 12:7-14;
15:20; 1 Macc 9:73) Israel's twelve tribes. Indeed, Jesus probably
chose exactly twelve disciples with such a connection in mind; see
comment on 10:1.
In Matthew's context the lesson extends beyond the Twelve (5:19;
20:23): those who sacrifice now and become least in this age will
inherit the place of honor in the coming age (19:30-20:16; 19:30
and 20:16 function as an inclusio, bracketing the enclosed parable).
The disciples' reward in the kingdom will be commensurate with their
sacrifice.
