John Calvin Commentary Matthew 19:9

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery." — Matthew 19:9 (ASV)

But I say to you. Mark relates that this was spoken to the disciples privately, when they had come into the house; but Matthew, omitting this circumstance, presents it as part of the discourse. The Evangelists frequently omit some intermediate occurrences because they consider it sufficient to summarize the main points. Therefore, there is no difference, except that one explains the matter more distinctly than the other. The substance is this: though the Law does not punish divorces which are contrary to God’s original institution, yet he is an adulterer who rejects his wife and takes another. For it is not within a man’s power to dissolve the marriage bond, which the Lord wishes to remain inviolate; and so the woman who occupies the bed of a lawful wife is a concubine.

But an exception is added: for the woman, by fornication, cuts herself off from her husband like a rotten member and sets him free. Those who search for other reasons ought justly to be disregarded, because they choose to be wiser than the heavenly Teacher.

They say that leprosy is a proper ground for divorce, because the contagion of the disease affects not only the husband but also the children. For my own part, while I advise a devout man not to touch a woman afflicted with leprosy, I do not declare him free to divorce her. If it is objected that those who cannot live unmarried need a remedy, so that they may not burn, I answer that what is sought contrary to the Word of God is not a remedy.

I also add that if they surrender themselves to be guided by the Lord, they will never lack continence, for they follow what He has prescribed. One man will develop such a dislike for his wife that he cannot endure her company: will polygamy cure this evil? Another man’s wife will suffer from palsy or apoplexy, or be afflicted with some other incurable disease; should the husband reject her under the pretext of his own incontinency? We know, on the contrary, that none of those who walk in His ways are ever left without the Spirit’s assistance.

For the sake of avoiding fornication, says Paul, let every man marry a wife (1 Corinthians 7:2). He who has done so, though he may not achieve his desire, has done his duty; and, therefore, if anything is lacking, he will be supported by divine help. To go beyond this is nothing else than to tempt God.

When Paul mentions another reason, namely, that when, through a dislike of godliness, wives happen to be rejected by unbelievers, a godly brother or sister is not, in such a case, liable to bondage (1 Corinthians 7:12, 15), this is not inconsistent with Christ’s meaning. For Paul does not there inquire into the proper grounds for divorce, but only whether a woman continues to be bound to an unbelieving husband after she, through hatred of God, has been wickedly rejected by him and cannot be reconciled to him in any other way than by forsaking God. Therefore, we need not wonder if Paul thinks it better that she should part from a mortal man rather than be in conflict with God.

But the exception which Christ states appears to be superfluous. For if the adulteress deserves to be punished with death, what purpose does it serve to talk about divorces? However, as it was the husband's duty to prosecute his wife for adultery to cleanse his house from disgrace, regardless of the outcome, the husband who convicts his wife of unchastity is here freed by Christ from the marriage bond.

It is even possible that among a corrupt and degenerate people, this crime often went unpunished; just as in our own day, the wicked leniency of magistrates makes it necessary for husbands to divorce unchaste wives, because adulterers are not punished.

It must also be observed that this right belongs equally and mutually to both husband and wife, as there is a mutual and equal obligation of faithfulness. For, though in other matters the husband holds superiority, regarding the marriage bed the wife has an equal right: for he is not the master of his own body; and therefore, when he, by committing adultery, has dissolved the marriage, the wife is set free.

And whoever shall marry her that is divorced. This clause has been very poorly explained by many commentators. They have thought that generally, and without exception, celibacy is enjoined in all cases when a divorce has taken place; and, therefore, if a husband should divorce an adulteress, both would be under the obligation to remain unmarried. It is as if this freedom to divorce meant only not to sleep with his wife, and as if Christ did not clearly grant permission in this case to do what the Jews were accustomed to do indiscriminately at their pleasure. It was therefore a gross error; for, though Christ condemns as an adulterer the man who shall marry a wife that has been divorced, this is undoubtedly restricted to unlawful and frivolous divorces. Similarly, Paul enjoins those who have been so dismissed

to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to their husbands,
(1 Corinthians 7:11);

That is, because quarrels and differences do not dissolve a marriage. This is clearly evident from the passage in Mark, where specific mention is made of the wife who has left her husband: and if the wife shall divorce her husband. This does not mean that wives were permitted to give their husbands a certificate of divorce, unless to the extent that the Jews had been contaminated by foreign customs. Rather, Mark intended to show that our Lord condemned the then-universal corruption where, after voluntary divorces, both parties entered into new marriages; and therefore Mark makes no mention of adultery.