Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 19

As with Jesus’ other discourses, Matthew concludes it with a formulaic saying . Jesus “left” Galilee and began to make his way toward Jerusalem, most likely traveling by way of Perea, on the east side of the Jordan, thus avoiding Samaria.

The large crowds and the many healings show that Jesus did in Judea what he had already done in Galilee. But the summaries of his ministry in this gospel (cf. 4:23; 9:35; 14:14; 16:30), along with showing how busy Jesus was, clearly demonstrate that he engaged in both a word and a deed ministry; he was a prophet and a mighty healer.

As with Jesus’ other discourses, Matthew concludes it with a formulaic saying . Jesus “left” Galilee and began to make his way toward Jerusalem, most likely traveling by way of Perea, on the east side of the Jordan, thus avoiding Samaria.

The large crowds and the many healings show that Jesus did in Judea what he had already done in Galilee. But the summaries of his ministry in this gospel (cf. 4:23; 9:35; 14:14; 16:30), along with showing how busy Jesus was, clearly demonstrate that he engaged in both a word and a deed ministry; he was a prophet and a mighty healer.

This first section on divorce, always a burning issue in church and society, has produced much discussion among commentators.

Pharisees are often found in Matthew’s gospel testing or opposing Jesus in some way (12:2, 14, 24; 15:1; 16:1; et al.). They hoped Jesus would say something to damage his reputation with the people or even seem to contradict Moses. Perhaps, too, they hoped that Jesus would say something that would entangle him in the Herod-Herodias affair so that he might meet the Baptist’s fate .

The question whether it is right for a man to divorce his wife “for any and every reason” hides an enormous diversity of Jewish opinion. In Qumran community, divorce was judged illicit in all circumstances. Regarding mainstream Judaism, on any understanding of what Jesus says in the following verses, he did not agree completely with either the rabbinical school of Shammai or that of Hillel (see comments on v.10; Mark 10:2).

The setting of the divorce question in this section is different from 5:31–32.

There divorce is set in a discourse that gives the norms of the kingdom and the sanctity of marriage; here it is set in a theological disputation that raises the question of what divorces are allowed.

Jesus aligns himself with the prophet Malachi, who quotes the Lord as saying, “I hate divorce” (Malachi 2:16), and also refers to the creation story. He cites Ge 1:27 and 2:24, implying that the two sexes should be united in marriage. The “one flesh” in every marriage between a man and a woman is a reenactment of and testimony to the very structure of humanity as God created it. Jesus concludes, then, that the husband and wife are no longer two but one, and that by God’s doing (v.6). Divorce is therefore not only “unnatural” but rebellion against God.

Jesus’ response sets forth two profound insights that must not be lost. (1) Although Jewish leaders tended to analyze adultery in terms, not of infidelity to one’s spouse, but of taking someone else’s wife, Jesus dealt with the sanctity of marriage by focusing on the God-ordained unity of the couple. (2) Jesus essentially appealed to the principle of Jewish exegesis: “The more original, the weightier.” Since marriage is grounded in creation, in the way God has made us, then it cannot be reduced to a merely covenantal relationship that breaks down when the covenantal promises are broken. But the argument in this instance leaves unanswered the question of how the Mosaic law is to be taken; and therefore the stage is set for the Pharisees’ next question.

Jesus aligns himself with the prophet Malachi, who quotes the Lord as saying, “I hate divorce” (Malachi 2:16), and also refers to the creation story. He cites Ge 1:27 and 2:24, implying that the two sexes should be united in marriage. The “one flesh” in every marriage between a man and a woman is a reenactment of and testimony to the very structure of humanity as God created it. Jesus concludes, then, that the husband and wife are no longer two but one, and that by God’s doing (v.6). Divorce is therefore not only “unnatural” but rebellion against God.

Jesus’ response sets forth two profound insights that must not be lost. (1) Although Jewish leaders tended to analyze adultery in terms, not of infidelity to one’s spouse, but of taking someone else’s wife, Jesus dealt with the sanctity of marriage by focusing on the God-ordained unity of the couple. (2) Jesus essentially appealed to the principle of Jewish exegesis: “The more original, the weightier.” Since marriage is grounded in creation, in the way God has made us, then it cannot be reduced to a merely covenantal relationship that breaks down when the covenantal promises are broken. But the argument in this instance leaves unanswered the question of how the Mosaic law is to be taken; and therefore the stage is set for the Pharisees’ next question.