John Calvin Commentary Matthew 19

Have you not read? Christ does not indeed reply directly to what was asked, but He fully meets the question that was proposed. It is just as if a person now questioned about the Mass were to explain faithfully the mystery of the Holy Supper, and finally to conclude that those who venture either to add or to take away anything from the pure institution of the Lord are guilty of sacrilege and forgery; he would plainly overturn the pretended sacrifice of the Mass.

Now, Christ assumes as an admitted principle that at the beginning God joined the male to the female, so that the two made an entire man. Therefore, he who divorces his wife tears from himself, as it were, half of himself. But nature does not allow any man to tear his own body in pieces.

He adds another argument drawn from the less to the greater. The bond of marriage is more sacred than that which binds children to their parents. But piety binds children to their parents by a link that cannot be broken. Much less, then, can the husband renounce his wife. Hence it follows that a chain God made is torn apart if the husband divorces his wife.⁵⁹⁴

Now, the meaning of the words is this: God, who created the human race, made them male and female, so that every man might be satisfied with his own wife and not desire more. For He insists on the number two, as the prophet Malachi (Malachi 2:15), when he remonstrates against polygamy, employs the same argument: that God, whose Spirit was so abundant that He had it in His power to create more, yet made but one man, that is, such a man as Christ here describes. And thus from the order of creation is proved the inviolable union of one husband with one wife.

If it is objected that in this way it will not be lawful, after the first wife is dead, to take another, the reply is easy: not only is the bond dissolved by death, but the second wife is substituted by God in place of the first, as if she had been one and the same woman.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother. It is uncertain whether Moses represents Adam or God as speaking these words; but it is of little consequence to the present passage which of these meanings you choose, for it was enough to quote the decision which God had pronounced, though it might have been uttered by the mouth of Adam. Now, he who marries a wife is not commanded absolutely to leave his father; for God would contradict Himself if by marriage He set aside those duties which He enjoins on children towards their parents; but when a comparison is made between the claims, the wife is preferred to the father and mother. But if any man abandons his father and shakes off the yoke by which he is bound, no man will acknowledge such a monster;⁵⁹⁵ much less will he be at liberty to dissolve a marriage.

And the two shall be one flesh. This expression condemns polygamy no less than it condemns unrestrained liberty in divorcing wives; for, if the mutual union of two persons was consecrated by the Lord, the mixture of three or four persons is unauthorized.⁵⁹⁶ But Christ, as I stated a little while ago, applies it differently to His purpose: namely, to show that whoever divorces his wife tears himself apart, because such is the force of holy marriage that the husband and wife become one man. For it was not the design of Christ to introduce the impure and filthy speculation of Plato, but He spoke with reverence of the order which God has established.

Let the husband and wife, therefore, live together in such a manner that each shall cherish the other as if the other were half of their own self. Let the husband rule, so as to be the head, and not the tyrant, of his wife; and let the woman, on the other hand, yield modestly to his commands.

Why then did Moses order?⁵⁹⁷ They had thought of this slander, if Christ, as was more probable, should demand that a proper cause be shown in cases of divorce; for it appears that whatever God permits by His law—whose will alone establishes the distinction between good and evil—is lawful. But Christ disarms this falsehood and slander with the appropriate reply: that Moses permitted it because of their obstinacy, and not because he approved of it as lawful. And He confirms His view with the best argument: because it was not so from the beginning. He assumes that when God first instituted marriage, He established a perpetual law, which should remain in force until the end of the world. And if the institution of marriage is to be considered an inviolable law, it follows that whatever swerves from it does not arise from its pure nature, but from the depravity of men.

But it is asked, should Moses have permitted what was in itself bad and sinful? I reply that, in an unusual sense of the word, he is said to have permitted what he did not severely forbid;⁵⁹⁸ for he did not establish a law about divorces that would give them the seal of his approval. Instead, since the wickedness of men could not be restrained in any other way, he applied the most tolerable remedy: that the husband should, at least, attest to his wife’s chastity. For the law was made solely for the protection of women, so that they might not suffer any disgrace after being unjustly rejected. Therefore, we infer that it was a punishment inflicted on the husbands, rather than an indulgence or permission designed to inflame their lust.

Besides, political and outward order is widely different from spiritual government. The Lord has comprehended what is lawful and proper under the ten words.⁵⁹⁹ Now, since it is possible that many things for which every man’s conscience reproves and accuses him may not be questioned before a human tribunal, it is not surprising if those things are overlooked by political laws.

Let us take a familiar example. The laws grant us greater freedom in litigation than the law of charity allows. Why is this? Because the right cannot be granted to individuals unless there is an open door for demanding it; and yet the inward law of God declares that we should follow what charity dictates.

And yet, magistrates have no reason to use this as an excuse for their indolence if they voluntarily refrain from correcting vices or neglect what the nature of their office demands. But let private citizens beware of compounding the magistrates’ guilt by shielding their own vices under the protection of the laws. For here the Lord indirectly reproves the Jews who, not considering it enough that their stubbornness was allowed to pass unpunished, also implicated God as defending their iniquity. And if the rule for a holy and pious life is not always, or in all places, to be sought from political laws, much less should we seek it from custom.