Matthew 19

¹ Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. ² And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. ³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” ⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” ⁸ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” ¹⁰ The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” ¹¹ But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. ¹² For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

On October 26, 2022, Cara Buckley, writing for The New York Times, wrote:

First it was cake smeared on the Mona Lisa in Paris, then tomato soup splattered across a van Gogh in London, and then, on Sunday, liquefied mashed potatoes hurled at a Monet in a museum in Potsdam.

What these actions shared, aside from involving priceless art and carbs, was the intentions of the protesters behind them. Desperate to end complacency about the climate crisis and to pressure governments to stop the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, they said they had resorted to such high profile tactics because little else has worked.

None of the paintings were harmed, as all were encased in protective glass.[i]

You have perhaps seen the videos of these acts of vandalism occurring in various museums. The images have caused me to catch my breath with each one! In Buckley’s article, two protestors squat beneath a stained and desecrated Monet having superglued their hands to the walls and floors beneath it. Or, at least they appear to have desecrated the Monet. As Buckley points out, “None of the paintings were harmed, as all were encased in protective glass.”

It is a fascinating picture: a priceless work of art befouled and covered by soup or some other substance, and yet the original remains unharmed.

This is as apt a picture of marriage as one is likely to find. We have soiled it, stained it, and sought to cover it up with all manner of distortion and perversion and violence and redefinition. And yet, the original does remain beneath the muck.

In Matthew 19, the Pharisees want to talk about the muck, the ways we ruin marriage, but Jesus wants to talk about the priceless original beneath!

Jesus confirms the Edenic ideal: one man and one woman joined by God and thereby becoming one flesh.

The Jews of Jesus’ day were caught up in a great and long-standing argument about when divorce was allowable. The primary text they considered was Deuteronomy 24.

¹ “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, ² and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, ³ and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, ⁴ then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

And in that text the primary phrase that was debated was “if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her…” Frank Stagg explains:

            The schools of Shammai and Hillel debated the meaning of “some indecency.”…The school of Hillel chose to base its exegesis upon the word “thing” and thus found a proof text for making anything serve as the ground of divorce. To the school of Hillel the “thing” [“some indecency” can literally be rendered “the nakedness of a thing”] could be…the wife’s burning of the food, the husband’s seeing a woman who pleased him better, or the wife’s causing her husband to eat something that had been tithed…Whatever its intention, it is certain that in the time of Jesus the school of Shammai took the strict view that divorce is permissible only on ground of the wife’s adultery and that the school of Hillel took the liberal view that a man could divorce his wife for any cause.[ii]

It was out of this background that the Pharisees approach Jesus in Matthew 19 in an attempt to draw Him into controversy.

¹ Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. ² And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. ³ And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

Let us notice two things. First, the Pharisees want to talk about the soup covering the original. They want to talk about divorce, the thing that goes wrong with the masterpiece called marriage. Secondly, they are implicitly calling Jesus to reflect on Deuteronomy 24, the text that lay behind their long debate about divorce. With this in mind, note Jesus’ response:

⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

First, that “Have you not read…” is a powerful indictment. He is calling out their approach to scripture. His next words reveal what is wrong with their approach: “…that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female…”

Ah! They want to talk about divorce on the basis of the law in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus wants to talk about marriage on the basis of God’s original ideal from Genesis 1 and 2!

They want to discuss the can of soup we throw on the masterpiece. Jesus wants to talk about the masterpiece!

Before the divorce law there was the original, the masterpiece, the ideal! We may call this the Edenic ideal, the ideal manifested in Eden. And what is that ideal? Jesus tells us:

⁴ He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

There it is:

• One man.

• One woman.

• Joined by God.

• Becoming one flesh.

This is the ideal of marriage!

Preachers need to remember this, especially when preaching on a text like this. The great question is not first and foremost, “What is a permissible divorce?” The great question is rather, “What is this beautiful masterpiece called marriage!”

Do not ge t lost in the marring of the painting until you have marveled at the original! The original design, the divine ideal, the great gift is a miracle: God making two people one flesh through the blessing of their union in marriage!

Jesus acknowledges the fallen reality but calls us back to the Edenic ideal.

Then Jesus decides to indulge their question of marriage, but only after He has reminded them of the beauty of marriage!

⁷ They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

Michael Card makes an interesting observation here. He writes:

            In verse 7 the Pharisees seek to return to the topic of divorce. Why did Moses make the provision for divorce if the two are one? It is almost as if they have been drawn into the discussion and are no longer trying to test Jesus but really want to know what he thinks.[iii]

Maybe so. Regardless, they had to have detected that they were perhaps in a precarious situation attempting to debate Jesus on Scripture! Whatever is going on in their heads at this point, Jesus responds in a fascinating manner.

⁸ He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹ And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Note once again that Jesus alludes to the ideal, to the original masterpiece: “but from the beginning it was not so.” He positions the Mosaic allowance of divorce in human sinfulness which stands over and against the beauty of God’s original intent.

It is interesting to note that the word used in verse 9 is porneiai and that there is another word for “adultery,” moicheuai, that is not used here. However, as New Testament scholar Frank Stagg pointed out, “[t]he two words came to be used interchangeably” and its not overly clear in which sense Jesus uses it here. Stagg observes that the word porneiai might refer to “premarital unchastity” and therefore might be said more accurately to be a basis for what we call “annulment” than for what we call “divorce.” Or the word could mean “prostitution.” Others observe that there are arguments to be made for linking porneiai with incest in this particular usage. Or, as noted, it could have been used synonymously with moicheuai, “adultery,” which is how some of our modern translations translate it today.[iv] Craig Blomberg, a careful New Testament scholar, argues that porneiai “should be taken as referring to adultery or related sexual sins…”[v]

Regardless, it should be noted that Jesus takes a conservative view on divorce. It is interesting to note than in Mark 10’s version of this, no exception is allowed.

² And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” ³ He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” ⁴ They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” ⁵ And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ⁷ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ⁸ and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. ⁹ What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ¹⁰ And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹ And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, ¹² and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Some see a so-called “Pauline exception” in 1 Corinthians 7.

¹² To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. ¹³ If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. ¹⁴ For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. ¹⁵ But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. ¹⁶ For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

All of this has led, as you might imagine, to no end of controversy. Is a Christian ever allowed to divorce? Is it only for adultery? Adultery and abandonment? What about abuse? What about when our callings as Christians conflict with one another (i.e., the call to remain married conflicting with the call to protect one’s children from abuse)?

On and on the questions go.

Can we perhaps say this: that whatever exceptions there may be, Jesus did not take a cheap and easy view of the issue and instead continued to press and exalt the masterpiece that marriage is supposed to be?

Let us plead the mercy and grace of God over divorces illegitimately enacted. Let us realize and thank God that the blood of Christ covers divorces ill-conceived. But let us also call one another to a high view of marriage and a renewed determination not to walk away from our spouses for reasons that are clearly unsanctioned by scripture. Let us also treat one another with care as we attempt before God to interpret rightly His word, understanding the complexity of this particular issue in light of the biblical materials.

Biblical marriage should neither be denied to those who are called to it nor forced upon those who are not.

To Jesus’ position on divorce and marriage, the disciples respond with something bordering on despondency, if not despair.

¹⁰ The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

One gathers that the disciples were hoping that Jesus would align himself moreso with the school of Hillel, the school of thought that allowed more exceptions. They conclude that “it is better not to marry.” Jesus’ response is most fascinating.

¹¹ But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. ¹² For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Jesus rejects their negative appraisal outright. Here again He is pressing the Edenic ideal and the goodness of God’s gift of marriage. No, we must not write marriage off because marriage can be challenging at times. Instead, we must once again see the beauty of the masterpiece beneath the marring of the masterpiece. But neither does Jesus say that all must marry. To address this, Jesus draws on the image of the eunuch. He presents three different kinds of “eunuchs” (three different kinds of those who do not marry).

• Eunuchs from birth.

• Eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men.

• Eunuchs who have made themselves thus for the sake of the kingdom.

It should be clear that Jesus is not necessarily speaking here of literal eunuch, men who have been castrated, though He likely is referring to these in the second example.

We should perhaps view “eunuchs from birth” as those who, for whatever reasons, seem not to have any disposition toward or desire for marriage or the act of marriage. Surely there are those among us who are quite at peace living as single people and, so long as sexual sin is not indulged, why should these be pressed to marry or made to feel like second class citizens in the church? After all, Paul was likely not married. One might just make the claim that God used Paul in a pretty amazing way!

We should perhaps see “eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men” as the traditional image of the eunuch: the court official castrated so as to, in theory, render him safe for service around the queen and other females of the court. Philip the deacon encountered one such eunuch, an Ethiopian, in Acts 8.

And still others have decided to make themselves eunuchs “for the sake of the kingdom.” This would seem to be those who may actually feel some inclination to marry, or who could marry and be happy, but who, for some calling that God has placed on their lives, have chosen instead a life of celibate service for the kingdom. Let us hastily add that imposed celibacy does not fit under this third category. It fits more naturally in the second and should be condemned. There is no justification for the church to impose celibacy. But there might be those who choose this.

In short, we should say that Biblical marriage should neither be denied to those who are called to it nor forced upon those who are not. We should return to the Edenic ideal and celebrate the goodness of marriage. We should push against the easy divorce culture that has gripped too many churches. But we should avoid any response to divorce that removes the hope of mercy and forgiveness for those who wrongly divorce. Lastly, I believe we should recognize that there legitimately is some complexity surrounding this issue, especially in how we understand the alleged exceptions.

Regardless, we dare not end on such a note. Let us rather glory in the great gift and miracle of marriage! Through God’s grace, two can become one. This can be a painful process, true, but God will work a great work if both husband and wife will submit themselves to Him and His will for our lives.

 

[i] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/climate/art-climate-protests-monet.html

[ii] Frank Stagg. “Matthew.” General Articles, Matthew-Mark. The Broadman Bible Commentary. Vol. 8 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1969), p.187.

[iii] Michael Card. Matthew. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), p.170.

[iv] Frank Stagg. 188–89.

[v] Craig Blomberg. Matthew. The New American Commentary. General Editor David Dockery. Vol. 22 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), p.292.