Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 19:2-8

"and great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. And there came unto him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful [for a man] to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made [them] from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away? He saith unto them, Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it hath not been so." — Matthew 19:2-8 (ASV)

St. John Chrysostom: The Lord had previously left Judea because of their jealousy, but now He kept more to it, because His passion was near. Yet He did not go up to Judea itself, but to the borders of Judea, from where it is said, “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee.”¹

Rabanus Maurus: Here, then, He begins to relate what He did, taught, or suffered in Judea. First, beyond the Jordan to the east, and afterward on this side of the Jordan when He came to Jericho, Bethphage, and Jerusalem, from which it follows, “And came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan.”

Pseudo-Chrysostom: As the righteous Lord of all, He loves these servants in such a way that He does not despise those.

Rabanus Maurus: It should be known that the whole territory of the Israelites was called Judea to distinguish it from other nations. But its southern portion, inhabited by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was called Judea proper to distinguish it from other districts in the same province, such as Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and the rest.

It follows, “And great multitudes followed him.”

Pseudo-Chrysostom: They were escorting Him, like young children of a father going on a long journey. And He, setting out like a father, left them pledges of His love—the healing of their diseases—as it is said, “And he healed them.”

St. John Chrysostom: It should also be observed that the Lord is not always delivering doctrine or always working miracles, but at one time does this, and at another time turns to that. This was so that by His miracles, faith might be given to what He said, and by His teaching, the benefit of the things He did might be shown.

Origen of Alexandria: The Lord healed the multitudes beyond the Jordan, where baptism was given. For all are truly healed from spiritual sickness in baptism, and many follow Christ as these multitudes did, but not rising up as Matthew did, who arose and followed the Lord.

St. Hilary of Poitiers: He also cures the Galileans on the borders of Judea, so that He might admit the Gentiles to the pardon for sin that was prepared for the Jews.

St. John Chrysostom: For indeed, Christ healed people in such a way as to do good both to them and, through them, to many others. For the healing of these people was an occasion for others to know God—but not for the Pharisees, who were only hardened by the miracles.

From this it follows: “And the Pharisees came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”

St. Jerome: They did this so they might catch Him, as it were, on the horns of a dilemma, so that whatever answer He gave would be open to criticism. If He allowed a wife to be put away for any reason and another to be married, He would seem to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. If He answered that she may not be put away for any reason whatsoever, He would be judged to have spoken impiously and to have contradicted the teaching of Moses and of God.

St. John Chrysostom: Observe their wickedness even in the way they pose their question. The Lord had previously discussed this law, but they now ask Him as though He had said nothing about it, supposing He had forgotten what He had previously taught on this matter.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: But just as you know someone is sick when you see them constantly seeking out physicians, so also when you see a man or woman inquiring about divorce, you know that the man is lustful and the woman is unchaste. For chastity finds pleasure in marriage, but sinful desire is tormented by it as if under slavish bondage. And knowing they had no sufficient reason to give for putting away their wives, except for their own immorality, they invented many different causes.

They were afraid to ask Him for what cause a man could divorce, lest they be restricted to fixed and certain causes. Therefore, they asked if it were lawful for every cause. They did this because they knew that sinful appetite knows no limits and cannot contain itself within the bounds of one marriage; rather, the more it is indulged, the more it is inflamed.

Origen of Alexandria: Seeing the Lord tempted in this way, let none of His disciples who are appointed to teach think it strange if they are also tempted by some. However, He replies to His tempters with the doctrines of piety.

St. Jerome: But He frames His answer in such a way as to evade their snare. He brings in the testimony of Holy Scripture and the law of nature, opposing God's first declaration to this second one: “He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?”

This is written in the beginning of Genesis. It teaches that second marriages are to be avoided, for He did not say “male and females”—which is what is sought by putting away the first wife—but “male and female,” implying only one bond of marriage.

Rabanus Maurus: For by the wholesome design of God, it was ordained that a man should have in the woman a part of his own body and should not look upon her as separate from himself, knowing she was formed from him.

Pseudo-Chrysostom: If, then, God created the male and female from one flesh so that they should be one, why from that point on were they not born as man and wife in a single birth, as is the case with certain insects? It is because God created male and female for the continuation of the species, yet He is always a lover of chastity and a promoter of continence. Therefore, He did not follow this pattern in all creatures, so that if a man chooses to marry, he may know the nature of the husband-and-wife relationship according to the original order of creation. But if he chooses not to marry, he is not forced to do so by the circumstances of his birth. This prevents his continence from becoming the ruin of another who was unwilling to be continent. For this same reason, God forbids that one spouse should separate from the other if the other is unwilling.

St. John Chrysostom: But not by the law of creation alone, but also by the practice of the law, He shows that they ought to be joined one to one and never separated: “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.”

St. Jerome: In the same way, He says “his wife,” not “wives,” and adds expressly, “and they twain shall be one flesh.” For it is the reward of marriage that one flesh—namely, in their offspring—is made from two.

Glossa Ordinaria: Or, “one flesh,” that is, in carnal union.²

Pseudo-Chrysostom: If, then, a man shall leave his father and mother because his wife is made from him and they are both from one flesh, then there should be even greater affection between brothers and sisters, for they come from the same parents, while a husband and wife come from different ones. But this argument goes too far, because the ordinance of God is more powerful than the law of nature. For God's precepts are not subject to the law of nature, but nature bends to the precepts of God. Also, brothers are born of one set of parents so that they might seek out different paths, but the husband and wife are born of different parents so that they might merge into one.

The order of nature also follows the appointment of God. For affection in humans is like sap in trees. The sap ascends from the roots into the leaves and passes out into the seed. Therefore, parents love their children but are not loved by them in the same way, for a man's desire is not toward his parents but toward the sons he has fathered. This is what is meant by the saying, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.”

St. John Chrysostom: See the wisdom of the Teacher. When asked, “Is it lawful?” He did not immediately say, “It is not lawful,” lest they be troubled, but instead established His point through a proof. For God made them male and female from the beginning, and not only joined them together but also commanded them to leave father and mother. He did not command the husband merely to approach his wife, but to be joined to her, showing by this manner of speaking the inseparable bond. He even added a still closer union, saying, “And they twain shall be one flesh.”

St. Augustine of Hippo: Since Scripture testifies that these words were spoken by the first man, yet the Lord here declares that God spoke them, we should understand that because of the ecstasy that had come upon Adam, he was enabled to speak this as a prophecy.³

Remigius of Auxerre: The Apostle saysⁱ that this is a mystery in Christ and the Church; for the Lord Jesus Christ left His Father when He came down from heaven to earth; and He left His mother, that is, the synagogue, because of its unbelief; and cleaved to His wife, that is, the Holy Church, and they two are one flesh, that is, Christ and the Church are one body.

St. John Chrysostom: When He had brought forward the words and facts of the old law, He then interpreted it with authority and laid down a law, saying, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” For just as those who love one another spiritually are said to be one soul—“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul” (Acts 4:32)—so a husband and wife who love each other according to the flesh are said to be one flesh. And just as it is a wretched thing to cut the flesh, so it is an unjust thing to put away a wife.

St. Augustine of Hippo: For they are called one, either from their union, or from the derivation of the woman, who was taken out of the side of the man.⁴

St. John Chrysostom: He brings in God yet again, saying, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” showing that it is against both nature and God's law to put away a wife. It is against nature because one flesh is divided, and it is against God's law because God has joined them and forbidden them to be separated.

St. Jerome: God has joined them by making man and woman one flesh; this, then, man may not separate, but only God. Man separates them when the first wife is put away out of desire for a second. God, who also joined them, separates them when, by mutual consent for the service of God, we have our wives as though we had them not.ⁱ

St. Augustine of Hippo: Behold, now it is proved to the Jews from the books of Moses that a wife may not be put away. For they thought they were acting according to the purpose of Moses' law when they put them away. From this, we also learn by the testimony of Christ Himself that it was God who made it this way and joined them male and female. When the Manichaeans deny this, they are condemned for resisting the Gospel of Christ.⁵

Pseudo-Chrysostom: This declaration on chastity seemed harsh to these adulterers, but they could not answer the argument. However, they would not submit to the truth but took shelter in Moses, just as people with a bad case flee to a powerful person, so that where justice is lacking, his influence may prevail. “They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”

St. Jerome: Here they reveal the clever objection they had prepared, although the Lord had not given His own judgment but had recalled to their minds ancient history and the commands of God.

St. John Chrysostom: If the Lord had been opposed to the Old Testament, He would not have contended on Moses' behalf in this way, nor would He have tried to show that Moses' teaching was in agreement with the ancient scriptures. But the unspeakable wisdom of Christ answered and made an excuse for Moses in this way: “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives.” By this, He clears Moses from their charge and turns it all back on them.

St. Augustine of Hippo: For how great was that hardness? Not even the requirement of a bill of divorce—which gave time for just and prudent men to try to dissuade them—could move them to renew their marital affection. And with what cleverness do the Manichaeans blame Moses for severing marriages with a bill of divorce, while commending Christ for, on the contrary, confirming their strength? In fact, according to their impious teaching, they should have praised Moses for separating what the devil had joined and found fault with Christ, who strengthened the devil's bonds.

St. John Chrysostom: Finally, because what He had said was severe, He returned to the original law, saying, “But from the beginning it was not so.”

St. Jerome: What He says is to this effect: Is it possible that God would so contradict Himself as to command one thing at first, and later defeat His own ordinance with a new statute? Do not think so. Rather, since Moses saw that the first wives were being put to death or treated badly out of a desire for second wives who were richer, younger, or more beautiful, he chose to permit separation rather than allow the continuation of hatred and murder. Observe, moreover, that He did not say God permitted you, but Moses did, showing that it was, as the Apostle speaks, a counsel of man, not a command of God.ⁱ

Pseudo-Chrysostom: Therefore, He rightly said that Moses permitted, not commanded. For what we command, we always desire. But when we permit something, we yield against our will because we do not have the power to fully restrain the evil wills of men. He therefore permitted you to do evil so that you might not do worse. Thus, in permitting this, he was not enforcing the righteousness of God but was removing the appearance of sin from a sin, so that while you did it according to his provision, your sin would not seem to be sin.

1. Hom., lxii
2. interlin.
3. Gen. ad lit., ix. 19
4. City of God, book xiv, ch. 22
5. Cont. Faust., xix, 29