Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 19

He departed from Galilee — This verse covers a considerable interval of time. The Gospels of Luke and John provide the details to fill in this gap. From Luke, we get the outlines of what has been called our Lord’s Peraean ministry, as it was “beyond the Jordan” (Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:30). From John, according to the arrangement of the best harmonists, we learn of His visit to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2) and again for the Feast of the Dedication (John 10:22).

Keeping these facts in mind will shed light on the following narrative. The journey from Galilee to Perea, as indicated in Luke 17:11, appears to have led our Lord through Samaria.

Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason? (See the note on Matthew 5:32). The teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, to the extent it was known, had already provided a clear answer to the Pharisees' question.

However, it is quite conceivable that this teaching had not reached them. If it had, they may have wished to test His consistency, wanting to see if He still sided with the stricter school of Shammai rather than the more lenient school of Hillel. The incident with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11), if it is correctly placed in the timeline, might also have given rise to doubts and rumors. Would the one who dealt so mercifully with the adulteress sanction divorce even in that case, or would He declare the marriage bond absolutely unbreakable? Or did His apparent tolerance for her indicate a lower standard for marital obligations? In any case, they might hope to bring Him into conflict with either the stricter or the more popular school of legal experts.

As an illustration of the cultural context, the Jewish historian Josephus records divorcing two of his own wives for relatively trivial reasons (Life, sections 75-76). In his history, he also speaks of “many causes of all kinds” as justifying separation (Antiquities 4.8.23). We do not know on what grounds Herod Antipas had divorced the daughter of Aretas, but it is quite probable that here, as in other instances, the Herodian party was working with the Pharisees.

Here in Perea, they likely hoped that the Teacher would either shrink from stating His convictions or express them in a way that would provoke the tetrarch’s wrath, just as John the Baptist had done. In either case, they would have gained an advantage against Him.

Have you not read...? —The answer to the question is found not in the words of a code of laws, but in the original facts of creation. That represented the idea of man and woman as created for a permanent relationship to each other, not as left to unite and separate as appetite or caprice might prompt.

And said, For this cause — In Genesis 2:24 the words appear as spoken by Adam; but words so uttered, prompted by the Holy Spirit and stamped with divine sanction, could well be regarded as an oracle from God, the expression of a law of His appointment.

What therefore God has joined—Strictly interpreted, these words go further than those in Matthew 5:32 and appear to forbid divorce under all circumstances. They are, however, the expression of the principle that should underlie laws, rather than the formulated law itself. As such, they assert the true ideal of marriage without making provision, as was made before, for that which violates and annuls the ideal.

It is remarkable that the essence of marriage is made to depend not on laws, contracts, or religious ceremonies, but on the natural fact of union. Strictly speaking, that union constitutes, or should constitute, marriage. The sin of all illicit intercourse—whether in adultery, concubinage, or prostitution—is that it separates this union from the relations and duties that the divine order has attached to it, making it minister simply to the lusts of a person's lower nature.

The evil of any system that multiplies the availability of divorce is that it treats as temporary what was designed to be permanent, reducing marriage, so far as it goes, to a partnership that lasts only for as long as it is pleasing. This may, in some stages of social progress, be the lesser of two evils, as the following verses indicate; but it does not cease to be an evil. The efforts of all teachers and legislators should be directed toward raising the standard of duty rather than acquiescing in its debasement.