{"id":3158,"date":"2014-02-15T10:01:22","date_gmt":"2014-02-15T16:01:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/?p=3158"},"modified":"2025-07-01T07:16:32","modified_gmt":"2025-07-01T13:16:32","slug":"matthew-191-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/?p=3158","title":{"rendered":"Matthew 19:1-12"},"content":{"rendered":"

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings,\u00a0that\u00a0He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

2\u00a0And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

3\u00a0The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, \u201cIs it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for\u00a0just\u00a0any reason?\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

4\u00a0And He answered and said to them,\u00a0\u201cHave you not read that He who made\u00a0them\u00a0at the beginning \u2018made them male and female,\u2019<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

5\u00a0and said, \u2018For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh\u2019?<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

6\u00a0So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

7\u00a0They said to Him, \u201cWhy then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

8\u00a0He said to them,\u00a0\u201cMoses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

9\u00a0And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,\u00a0and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

10\u00a0His disciples said to Him, \u201cIf such is the case of the man with\u00a0his\u00a0wife, it is better not to marry.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

11\u00a0But He said to them,\u00a0\u201cAll cannot accept this saying, but only\u00a0those\u00a0to whom it has been given:<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

12\u00a0For there are eunuchs who were born thus from\u00a0their\u00a0mother\u2019s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven\u2019s sake. He who is able to accept\u00a0it,\u00a0let him accept\u00a0it.\u201d<\/span><\/em><\/h3>\n

This account is also found in Mark 10:1-12<\/span><\/a>.<\/h3>\n

Judea beyond the Jordan (v.1) \u2014 Peraea, east of the river. The events of this chapter took place during the Lord’s final journey to Jerusalem for His death.<\/h3>\n

The Lord responds (vs. 4-6) to the Pharisees’ question (v.3) by going back to Genesis 2:24<\/span><\/a> and showing God’s intent for marriage.<\/h3>\n

Have you not read (v.4) \u2014 They should have known the answer (and probably did, but didn’t want it).<\/h3>\n

The Mosaic Law permitted divorce when a wife proved faithless; but the Rabbinical interpreters after their wont disputed over this enactment. The school of Shammai, adhering to the letter of the Law, held that a wife should not be divorced except for unfaithfulness; whereas the school of Hillel, with a laxity very agreeable to the general inclination, allowed a husband to put away his wife “for every cause” \u2014 if he disliked her, if he fancied another woman more, if her cookery were not to his taste.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Pharisees would force Jesus to line up with one side or the other of the theological factions and so alienate a part of the crowd. Or perhaps, knowing already what Jesus thought about such questions, they wished to bring Him again into direct conflict with Herod Antipas. That wicked ruler was living with Herodias in open adultery. John had denounced their sin and lost his own head. If they could get Jesus to denounce openly this Herod and the wicked Herodias, they might succeed in doing away with Him soon.<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Mosaic law really permitted divorce only for the cause of unfaithfulness, but the popular conception among the Jews at the time of Jesus was that of the Rabbinical interpreters of the school of Hillel. Woman had become a mere chattel of man, subject to his inhuman and cruel treatment. The Pharisees understood well that if Jesus took the side of Shammai or the stricter view of divorce, He would alienate a greater part of the multitude.\u00a0\u2014 Pentecost, pages 354-355.<\/span><\/h3>\n

command (v.7) \u2014 Moses didn’t “command” divorce, he permitted (v.8) it.<\/h3>\n

hardness of your hearts (v.8) \u2014 Because the Israelites had disobeyed God’s law of marriage and had married Gentile wives, the line would have been corrupted. If the line were corrupted, Messiah could not come in Abraham’s line. It became necessary then to purify the nation to prevent the corruption of the line. Therefore divorce was permitted. This principle is well illustrated in Ezra 10:2-3, 11-14. Christ thus showed that divorce was not a part of God’s original law of marriage but was introduced because of Israel’s disobedience to the law. Thus the uncleanness of Deuteronomy 24:1 had to do with a corrupted bloodline. \u2014 Pentecost, page 357.<\/span><\/h3>\n

sexual immorality (v.9) \u2014 Pentecost has an interesting take on this which I think is worth considering. It’s hard to say whether the passage leads to this conclusion because it’s hard to say whether this is what the Lord’s audience would have naturally understood, but in light of other teaching the Bible about divorce, it makes sense to me.<\/h3>\n

The Greek word translated “marital unfaithfulness” [sexual immorality in the NKJV] is not the word for adultery but is the general word for immorality. Christ was referring to the Jewish marriage customs of His day. Marriage was begun by drawing a legal contract between the father of a man and the father of a woman, pledging them to each other. This marriage contract was called a betrothal. The couple were called husband and wife by virtue of that marriage contract. The marriage itself was not completed until at least twelve months after the betrothal contract was drawn up. But they were still referred to as husband and wife. Such was the relationship between Joseph and Mary when the angel announced that Mary would conceive a child. The twelve-month waiting period was deemed necessary because of the low state of morals of that day. That period gave sufficient time to reveal whether the woman was pregnant when the contract was drawn up. The interval also allowed time to see if she would become pregnant by an unfaithful act after being joined by contract to her husband. If the wife proved to be immoral, the marriage need not be completed; the contract could be broken by a divorce. However, so binding was the betrothal contract that it could \u00a0be broken only by the husband appearing before the judges to accuse the woman of immorality. Thus the contract could be broken. Such was Joseph’s decision when he discovered Mary’s pregnancy (Matthew 1:19<\/span><\/a>). It was in light of this context that Christ granted the exception (Matthew 19:9). If one who was betrothed to a wife found in the betrothal period that she was guilty of fornication, that is, that she was an immoral woman, the marriage need not be consummated; but it had to be dissolved by a divorce. Since the marriage had not been completed, the man was free to marry without becoming an adulterer. Thus Christ utterly repudiated the Pharisaic interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and He denied the right of divorce. He appealed to God’s original law of marriage by which a man and woman were inseparably united until that marriage was dissolved by death. Thus the only possibility of divorce allowed by Christ was a cancellation of a marriage contract during the Jewish betrothal period before the marriage had been completed. This evidently was the way the disciples understood our Lord’s instruction. They replied, “If this is the situation,” that is, if it is not possible for a man to put away his wife after marriage even though she proved to be an immoral and faithless wife, then “it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). \u00a0Clearly the disciples saw no possibility of obtaining a divorce with divine approval after marriage had been completed. Because the disciples recognized the low state of society and since it was utterly repugnant to them to be inseparably united to a faithless wife, they concluded it was best not to marry at all. Such a conclusion would not have been drawn if they had understood Christ to permit divorce after marriage.\u2014 Pentecost, pages 357-358.<\/span><\/h3>\n

__________<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

adultery (v.9) \u00a0\u2014 The Greek word translated “adultery” refers to the sin of a married individual against his partner. If divorce could dissolve a marriage, a remarriage could not be considered adultery. But since Christ proclaimed it to be adultery, the first marriage must be viewed as still standing in the sight of God. \u2014 Pentecost, page 357.<\/span><\/h3>\n

eunuch (v.12) \u2014 broadly, a man who doesn’t have sex. This can be because of a birth defect (first clause); because of surgery (second clause); or, by choice (third clause).<\/h3>\n

The Lord also spoke on divorce in Matthew 5:31-32<\/span><\/a>. I have included a long quote by Stam in that post which is worth reading on this subject.<\/h3>\n

I believe a divorced person can find grace and forgiveness in Christ. I also believe, however, that divorce is wrong because it is a violation of God’s plan, and that no justification for it can be found in Scripture.<\/h3>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings,\u00a0that\u00a0He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2\u00a0And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. 3\u00a0The Pharisees also came to … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-matthew"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3158"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3158\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9294,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3158\/revisions\/9294"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/versebyverse.carpelibra.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}