John Calvin Commentary Matthew 19:7

"They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away?" — Matthew 19:7 (ASV)

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.

⁵⁹⁷ “Ils avoyent songe ceste calomnie pour l’avoir toute preste;” — “they had thought of this calumny, to have it all ready.”;” — “they had thought of this calumny, to have it all ready.”

⁵⁹⁸ “Ie repond, Qu’a parler proprement, il ne l’a pas permis: mais d’autant qu’il ne l’a pas defendu estroittement, il est dit qu’il l’a permis;” — “I reply, That, strictly speaking, he did not ;” — “I reply, That, strictly speaking, he did not permit it; but in so far as he did not strictly forbid it, he is said to have it; but in so far as he did not strictly forbid it, he is said to have permitted it.” it.”

⁵⁹⁹ Where the English version gives the words, ten commandments, the phrase in the original Hebrew is, עשרת הדברים, the ten words, (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4.) — Ed