“Until Death Do Us Part”

Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12

Presented to: Dr. Fuhrman

Course: Bib 4023

Joshua Wingerd

April 8, 2015
 Wingerd 1

Introduction:

Matthew 19:3-12 occurs in the middle of Jesus’ final period of ministry. It occurs between

His second and third predictions of His death (17:22-23; 20:17-19). Matthew 19:1-2 introduce

the section by giving some brief background and transitional material.

Jesus had previously been in Capernaum (17:24), and no more travel itineraries are given

until 19:1 which explains that Jesus moved on from Galilee into Judea: moving from north to

south in Palestine. He is deliberately making His way towards Jerusalem,1 and He will finally

arrive there in 21:1-10. As usual, large crowds are following Jesus, and He is showing His

compassion and healing them. While this is going on, verse 3 explains that some Pharisees

approach. While it is not explicitly mentioned in the text, it is very possible that these Pharisees

came down from Jerusalem. They want to test Him; they want to make Him look like a fool in

front of the crowds. But, Jesus will show Himself to be too smart for that kind of trickery.

David Garland points out that Matthew shapes this whole section (19:1-20:16) to show “the

distinction between what the gospel explicitly requires from all and the specific demands which

for reasons of personal vocation or sheer spiritual prudence it may make on individuals . . . [The

seven paragraphs in the section] oscillate between what is applicable to all and what is pertinent

only to some.” As far as the passage under discussion is concerned, 19:3-9 is applicable to all,

but 19:10-12 is only applicable to some. 2 This greatly elucidates how to divide the text. Jesus

here teaches that marriage is universally for life, divorce is only allowed for immorality,

and the few who can practice celibacy for the sake of the kingdom should accept it and live

in light of it.

1
Craig Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 288.
2
David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, Ga: Smyth &
Helwys Pub, 2001), 201.
 Wingerd 2

Interpretation:

Jesus’ teaching on marriage, divorce, and celibacy begins when some Pharisees come to

Jesus to test him. The word used for “test” comes from the Greek peiravzw, which can carry both

the meaning of “I make an attempt” and “I test [someone].”3 Many commentators want to

understand this approach by the Pharisees as an attempt against Him. “Here the temptation is to

contradict the Torah (cf. v. 7).”4 In Matthew’s gospel, the Pharisees have been plotting to kill

Jesus ever since He healed the man with the withered hand in 12:10-14. With the understanding

being that this question from the Pharisees is meant to tempt Jesus to disregard the law so they

can have Him murdered on that account, and, given the account of John the Baptist’s death in

14:3-12, which was initiated by his speaking out about Herod’s marriage to his brother’s wife, 5

Matthew’s use of peiravzw clues us into the fact that the Pharisees are questioning Jesus “with

the hostile intent of bringing about His downfall.” 6 If He was to trap Himself in His words, the

Pharisees trust that Herod would have no problem dispatching Him as he had previously done to

John, and it would remove the rock from their shoe that was Jesus.

In order to understand just what the Pharisees were here trying to do, it is necessary to get

some historical context surrounding the question of divorce in Palestine when Jesus was walking

the earth. In Jesus’ day, there was a scholarly debate between the school of Hillel and the school

of Shammai. Both schools viewed divorce as lawful,7 because “[t]he issue was not divorce itself,

3
Heinrich Seesemann, “pei`ra, peiravw, peiravzw, peirasmov", ajpeivrasto", ejkpeiravzw” in TDNT, vol. 6
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 23.
4
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, International Critical
Commentary (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004), 8. Cf. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia (Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 2001), 489; “Matthews description of it as ‘tempting’ thus reveals to the readers that the
Pharisees are far removed from God’s will and are satanic (cf. 4:1, 3).”
5
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
W.B. Eerdmans, 2005), 768.
6
Heinrich Seesemann, TDNT, vol. 6, 28.
7
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 9.
 Wingerd 3

the right to which they took for granted, but rather the justifiable grounds for divorce.”8 Their

debate centered on the phrase in Deuteronomy 24:1 that reads, “he has found some indecency in

her,” translated from the Hebrew rb*D* tw^r=u# (“indecent thing”). According to the Mishnah, “The

House of Shammai say, ‘A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it

in unchastity, since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deut. 24:1).’

And the house of Hillel say, ‘Even if she spoiled his dish, since it is said, Because he has found

in her indecency in anything.’”9 Hillel emphasized “anything,” and Shammai emphasized

“indecency.”10 Morris says that it is likely that originally it was not speaking of adultery because

adultery is explicitly condemned and given the death penalty in Deuteronomy 22:22. 11

It is important to understand at least one issue in the Hillel-Shammai debate. The main point

of contention is the originally intended meaning to the word tw^r=u# (“indecent”). It comes from

the Akkadian root word that means “nakedness” which could lend a hint at the original intention

in Deuteronomy. The verbal form of the Hebrew is used in two ways: “lay bare,” or “pour out.”

One Hebrew scholar explains that it is not two distinct meanings, but rather, “we are dealing

instead with modifications of the root’s basic meaning ‘be naked, empty’ so as to mean ‘lay

bare,’ ‘pour out,’ or ‘empty,’ depending on the object.”12 However, the best way to understand

the passage in question is that it “is to be interpreted as ‘anything which the husband found

8
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
1995), 547.
9
Jacob Neusner, trans., The Mishnah: a new translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 487.
III,Gittin,9:10,A-D. Emphasis in original.
10
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 489.
11
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans, 1992), 480.
12
J. Gamberoni, “hr*u*” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1986), 344.
 Wingerd 4

distasteful in his wife other than her adultery’; it does not refer to adultery, which incurs capital

punishment (22:22).”13

Luz argues that “Matthew . . . attaches no importance to [the debate between Hillel and

Shammai].”14 While it is true that Matthew does not explicitly write about the fact that Hillel and

Shammai had a divorce-cause debate going on, it is not hard at all to see Matthew hinting at this

background to the discussion by the phrase he adds to Mark. Mark’s gospel simply has the

Pharisees asking if divorce is lawful (Mark 10:2), but Matthew’s gospel adds the clause kataV

pa`san aijtivan which is somewhat ambiguous. It literally reads, “according to every cause,” 15

but it can be rendered either of two ways: “every reason whatever” or “for any reason (at all).” 16

Mark’s gospel has the Pharisees asking, “Is divorce lawful at all?” while Matthew’s gospel

makes them ask the question, “Is divorce lawful for any and every reason the husband sees fit to

put forward?” Nolland writes, “Given the exception clause to come in Mt. 19:9, it is the

refocused question that the Matthean account finally addresses.” 17 Since Hillel and Shammai

were famous schools of thought, and the people probably knew about them, Matthew did not

have to explicitly mention them; the thought would have been in the mind of his readers. “The

Pharisees may well have thought that it did not matter greatly which way Jesus answered; he

would offend many people whatever he said.”18 So they ask him if divorce is lawful for any

reason.

And Jesus had an answer for them. However, He does not answer them in the way they were

expecting. He points them to the Scriptures (which is exactly what they draw their next argument

13
Ibid., 347.
14
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 489.
15
Ibid., 768.
16
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 547.
17
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 768.
18
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 480.
 Wingerd 5

from), and in so doing He takes them back to the beginning. After spending verses 4-5 in

Genesis, He draws a concluding interpretation in verse 6.

Jesus goes back to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in order to answer the Pharisees. It is interesting to

note that Jesus introduces the Scripture by asking the Pharisees, oujk ajnevgnwte (“Have you not

read?”) which echoes a previous dispute with the Pharisees found in Matthew 12:3-5.19 When

comparing Matthew 19:1-9 to Mark 10:1-12 it is interesting to note that Matthew rearranges the

verses; Matthew jumps from Mark 10:3 to 10:6 and inputs 10:4-5 later. One commentator

explains that by doing this, “Matthew makes Jesus rather than the Pharisees give the first

quotation of the law. In other words, he immediately steps forward as the one who did not come

to destroy the law, but to fulfil and teach it.”20

While the Pharisees were looking for a specific answer to the meaning of a word from the

Mosaic law, Jesus follows a different rabbinic form of disputation: “‘the more original, the

weightier.’ This meant that what had happened as early as the creation narrative was weightier

than what Moses had said considerably later (though, of course, it did not do away with the

Mosaic regulation; that regulation was still part of the law and was to be respected, but it must be

interpreted in the light of the more original statement.” 21

There was nothing more original than creation. So the true answer to the Pharisees’ question

must go back to the originally established order which explains why Jesus asked them if they had

read the creation account; “[t]he rhetorical question invites contemplation of the creation and

reconsideration of the implications of Gen 1.27: did not God establish monogamy?” 22 “By

19
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 768. It is especially interesting to point out that this is in the
same sequence of events that leads to the Pharisees looking to kill Jesus. His repetition reminds the reader about
their response the last time He criticized the Pharisees’ study habits.
20
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 10.
21
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 481.
22
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 10.
 Wingerd 6

referring to the word of the creator and by using the formula ‘from the beginning’ (ajp’ ajrch`")

he emphasizes the special authority of the following words.”23

The Scripture that Jesus quotes says that the creator made them a[rsen kaiV qh`lu (“male

and female”). It is important to specify that these words are singular. God created one male and

one female who were then told to procreate and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). According to early

writers, including Philo, the human being created in Genesis 1 was thought to be androgynous,

which would mean that they are “intimately bound because it is only together that they are

human in the fullest sense of the word.”24 Whether or not this is the case is up for discussion,

especially given the fact that not every human being will be married, but it does make sense in

light of the fact that woman was taken from man (Genesis 2:22-23). “The quotation from Gen

2:24 that Matthew takes special pains to insert fits in with this understanding.”25

Jesus goes on and brings up Genesis 2:24. Marriage follows a pattern of a man leaving the

father and mother and being joined to his wife. There is a slight variation from the LXX text at

this point. One key difference is “the omission of aujtou`, ‘his,’ after patevra, ‘father,’ and

mhtevra, ‘mother’ (it is clearly implied).” 26 This is important given the proof that when it is said

that man will leave his father and mother there is a bit of shock value there. Jesus affirms that the

wife is “his” (related to the man) but not the parents to show the closeness of the new marital

relationship. “To leave one’s parents in antiquity was thought of as a most unnatural thing to do;

family ties were of the greatest importance. But the creation ordinance put the marriage ties

23
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 489.
24
Ibid., 489.
25
Ibid., 489.
26
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 548.
 Wingerd 7

above all other relationships, even family relationships. . . . Man and wife belong together, bound

more closely together than any other two persons.”27

Nolland explains that in Israelite culture, married couples normally lived close to the home

of the man’s parents which would mean that the “leaving” was not meant to be taken literally. He

cites Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham as saying that the best translation of the Hebrew

verb ‘zb is “forsakes”; “in traditional societies like Israel where honoring parents is the highest

human obligation next to honoring God, this remark about forsaking them is very striking.”28

The word used to describe the new relationship between a husband a wife when they are

married is kollhqhvsetai (“he is joined to”). It is very important to note that this word is in the

passive voice, so it would be incorrect to translate it, “he joins with his wife,” since an outside

agent is doing the joining. The one responsible for this joining is God (cf. 19:6). Interestingly

enough, the word carries the connotation “to glue together” and it is not terribly hard to see how

it came “to be used for intimate association in the form of sexual intercourse.”29 Jesus sees

marriage as the only proper place for sexual intercourse.

Genesis 2:24 concludes by saying that the two will become one flesh. “The physicality of

the sexual union is . . . taken up in this notion of becoming one flesh. But a larger psychosexual

unity is intended. One flesh is seen as a persistent state, not something localized in the act of

copulation.”30 Jesus understands the Scriptures to be explaining that marriage is a persistent state

of one flesh union. It is more than just two bodies that are joined together at various times of

sexual union, though that is part of it (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16); it speaks of two people who are

now basically one person for all practical purposes. “Marriage is more than a casual arrangement

27
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 481.
28
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 768.
29
Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “kollavw, proskollavw” TDNT, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 822.
30
Ibid., 768.
 Wingerd 8

for the convenience of the two parties. It is the closest of earthly unities, and must be understood

so.”31 This “one flesh” union cannot be limited to sexual union, or else they are only “one flesh”

in the times that they are coming together in that intimate way, and it would nullify Jesus’

argument that He is building in this section.

Finally Jesus is done quoting Scripture, and He begins to give His interpretation of it with

the word w{ste (“so that”). His interpretation of the marriage relationship with a man and his

wife depends on the fact that the “one flesh” union is not solely speaking about a sexual union. It

is important to remember what the Pharisees had asked before Jesus started speaking: “Is it

lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He starts answering by reiterating from the

scripture that the two married people are no longer two, but one new flesh. “It is a close and

binding union, the closest of unions known on this earth. It must accordingly be treated with

respect and even reverence.”32

Jesus gives the identity of the subject of the passive verb in Genesis 2:24. He clearly

explains that God is the one responsible for joining two people together in marriage. This can be

taken to mean that something mysterious happens at a wedding ceremony: the man and the

woman are made one flesh; two people attempt to make themselves one flesh when they partake

in extra-marital sex. The sexual act, as God’s gift to married people, is the physical expression

between two people of the underlying mysterious union that God pronounced over them the day

they were wed. The joining together of a man and his wife by God “does not denote merely the

sexual union that follows marriage, or the children conceived in marriage, or even the spiritual

and emotional relationship that it involves, though all are involved. . . . Rather it affirms that just

31
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 481.
32
Ibid., 482.
 Wingerd 9

as blood relations are one’s flesh and bone . . . so marriage creates a similar kinship relation

between man and wife.”33

Jesus lands His speech with a subliminal backhand. If God joins two people together, then it

follows that God was the one who ordained marriages in the first place, (which many of the

rabbis believed34) then Jesus is basically telling them to stop fighting against God by trying to

excuse divorce. “Jesus’ words set up an antithesis between God as the one who unites and the

married man as the one who all too often . . . separates.”35 Hagner explains Jesus’ conclusion by

saying that divorce must be prohibited because “it breaks what is a unique and holy union.”36

The Pharisees, however, are not happy with Jesus’ answer. Their objection rings with

references back to Matthew 15:1-9, where the commandments of men are elevated over the

commandments of God, and a closer look at exactly what they say will prove that they are

holding their own presuppositions too high. Their description of Moses’ statement uses the word

ejneteivlato (“he commanded”) which stands in sharp contrast to the word Jesus will use in verse

8. “The readers wonder what is going to happen, since they know that for Jesus the word of

Moses and the word of the creator cannot contradict one another (cf. 5:17).”37 Morris explains,

“[The Pharisees] go beyond Scripture, for Moses did not command divorce. He pointed to a

current custom and did something to regulate it.”38

The main point the Pharisees are trying to make here is: Why is there anything in the

Mosaic law about divorce if divorce is never permissible? as they had interpreted Jesus’

conclusion in verse 6. They point specifically to Deuteronomy 24:1 and ask why Moses wrote

33
G. J. Wenham quoted in W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC,
13.
34
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 490.
35
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 773.
36
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 548.
37
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 490.
38
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 482. Emphasis in original.
 Wingerd 10

that a man was to give his wife biblivon ajpostasivou (“a certificate of divorce”). Nolland wants

to argue that the focus here is no longer on the “any and every reason” debate that the Pharisees

had brought up in verse 3, but that the focus is on the certificate itself.39 The use of the

interrogative tiv (“why?”) at the beginning of the Pharisees’ question can easily be understood

simply to make their questioning run as follows: They ask if divorce is allowed for any reason;

Jesus says man should not separate what God has joined together; they ask why Moses

commanded a certificate of divorce to be given. The reason for this question is directly

connected to their initial question: If the marriage union is not to be broken, then why did Moses

say what he did? The Pharisees are still confident in the fact that there is surely some escape

clause. “The biblivon ajpostasivou . . . was a legal document that recorded the separation and

the reason for the separation, which enabled the divorced woman to enter into a new marriage.” 40

Jesus answers them again, and again takes His interpretation and understanding back to the

time before Moses. However, instead of completely throwing out Moses, He explains the

intention behind Moses’ words in Deuteronomy. Jesus’ overriding point throughout “is that the

new era of the present kingdom of God involves a return to the idealism of the pre-fall Genesis

narrative. The call of the kingdom is a call to the ethics of the perfect will of God (cf. the Sermon

on the Mount), one that makes no provision for, or concession to, the weakness of the flesh.” 41

While the Pharisees were quick to say that Moses ejneteivlato (“commanded”) divorce in

verse 7, Jesus here corrects them by saying that Moses ejpevtreyen (“permitted”) divorce

because of sinfulness. The word sklhrokardivan (“hardness of heart”) is the way Jesus chose to

describe sin. It “is a biblical, especially wisdom, term that in general refers to the inner

39
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 773. “‘For any and every cause’ was being defended by an
interpretation of part of Deuteronomy 24:1. But the appeal here is rather to the following clause, which deals with
the document used to implement divorce.”
40
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 548.
41
Ibid., 549.
 Wingerd 11

dimension of sin, particularly against God. It reflects an unwillingness to repent, being closed to

God, stubbornness.”42 Jesus wants them to never confuse commands with permissions, and while

He does not blatantly call them out on it, He clearly takes a stab at their twisting of Scripture.

In the Old Testament context, the law of divorce was a helpful thing for the woman

involved. Men were guilty of committing the sin that Jesus calls hardheartedness. A man would

send his wife away, and the divorced woman would have nothing to call her own (cf. the story of

Ruth and Naomi in Ruth 1, except the hypothetical woman’s husband in the divorce situation is

still alive). Her life depended on her finding a new man to take care of her. But, until divorce was

permitted, the old husband could prevent the woman from becoming involved with another man

because she was still officially married to the first man. This could be a great hindrance to the

woman’s wellbeing; he would claim her when she helped his case, and he could reject her when

she did not. Morris concludes,

Legally there was nothing she could do about it. When Moses took note of the ills that could

be done toward women and provided for divorce, he was giving repudiated wives a little

measure of protection. Until the husband gave the wife a ‘certificate of divorce’ she was still

his wife, and he owed her the duty that any husband owed his wife. When he had given the

certificate, she was no longer his wife and he had no claim on her. Her position might still

be difficult, but at least she was freed from any arbitrary reclaiming of her by her former

husband.43

This is why, according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, the divorce was to be final. There was no

way for the original husband to ever remarry the woman. Moses did not want the woman to ever

42
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 490. Cf. W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According
to Saint Matthew, ICC, 14: “There is no need to distinguish between hardness of heart towards God and hardness of
heart towards others.”
43
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 483.
 Wingerd 12

have to face potential disgrace by the same man again. What Jesus (and Matthew, by

implication) is trying to explain, is that “the word of Moses as a simple concession is not of

equal value with the [C]reator’s word.”44

That thought leads directly into the rest of verse 8. Jesus references again the original plan

by using the phrase ajp’ ajrxh`" (“from the beginning”). He had previously used the same phrase

in verse 4 when he explained that from the beginning the creator made them male and female,

and then proceeded to describe the original plan. “A sharp contrast is drawn between the creation

pattern and the Mosaic permission; the permission is not rescinded but treated as second best.” 45

Jesus is going out of his way to say that while divorce was helpful for a while, it is not to be seen

as the ultimate answer to all marital problems; He wants to show the difference between the

created intent and the perverted interpretation. The early church preacher, Chrysostom, explained

the created intent, “If God had wanted Adam to dismiss this wife and marry another, when he

made one man, he would have made many women. But as it is, he shows both by the manner of

her creation and the form of the commandment that one man must dwell with one woman

continually and never break off from her.”46

Then Jesus, in a way almost parallel to that found in Matthew 5:32, announces that He is

going to show the heart of the law. He says levgw deV uJmi`n (“Now I say to you”), which “has

adversative force; over against the Mosaic provision for divorce because of hard hearts Jesus sets

his own verdict.”47 Jesus begins by saying that divorce is legitimate on only one ground (which

goes against the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1), and then He concludes his discussion with

the Pharisees by describing the outcome of any other type of divorce.

44
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 490.
45
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 774.
46
Chrysostom, quoted in Manlio Simonetti, Matthew 14-28, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 91.
47
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 483.
 Wingerd 13

Nolland argues that this verse is not a natural conclusion to this subsection,48 and while it

does seem out of place given verse 6 and the truth that man should not try to separate what God

has joined together, the discussion below will shed some light on the unity of thought here. A

good way to understand this verse in connection with the previous is that debates about lawful

divorces “proceed from a view that marriage is a human device that may easily be set aside. But

when we realize that it is God’s will for people, marriage must be seen in another light.”49

Divorce and then remarriage “violates the creation ordinance and thus is no marriage. Jesus

leaves his hearers in no doubt but that marriage is meant to be for life.” 50 However, despite the

fact that marriage is for life, and despite the fact that Jesus only allows divorce for one very

specific reason—that reason being punished by death—Jesus shows immense grace in His

teaching by no longer holding up the death penalty for adultery.

Jesus says that anyone who divorces his wife not for sexual immorality and then remarries is

guilty of adultery. It is very important to note that neither Mark nor Luke contain the escape

clause for adultery; Matthew is the only gospel that contains it. Some want to say that since

Matthew is written to a primarily Jewish audience, the inclusion of the escape clause is due to the

fact that “divorce for adultery was imperative . . . many in first-century Judaism would have

thought divorce for adultery unavoidable.” 51 Some want to even go so far as to say that Jesus did

not even originally make the exception, but that Matthew added it to suit the needs of his

church. 52 Some want to connect it to Matthew 1:18-25 to say that the escape clause is there to

explain how Joseph (being “a righteous man”) could ever have gotten away with divorcing

48
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 775.
49
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 483.
50
Ibid., 483.
51
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 16-17.
52
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 484. “Some students hold that Jesus did not use the
words and that Matthew has inserted them because this was the custom in his church.”
 Wingerd 14

Mary. 53 Another view holds that Jesus is actually saying that not even for sexual immorality

should a man divorce his wife. 54

The Greek rendering of the phrase states o}" a]n ajpoluvsh/ thVn gunai`ka aujtou` mhV ejpiV

porneiva/ (“whoever might divorce his wife not upon sexual immorality”). This is to be

differentiated from the rendering in Matthew 5:32: oJ ajpoluvwn thVn gunai`ka aujtou` parektoV"

lovgou porneiva" (“the one who is divorcing his wife except for the reason of sexual

immorality”). Both renderings speak to the fact of sexual immorality (porneiva), which comes

from the word pevrnhmi (“I sell”), and is a broad word encompassing all forms of illicit sexual

expression; moiceuvw (“I commit adultery”) is encompassed by the word porneuvw (“I commit

sexual immorality”), but is by no means the extent of the word.55 However, regardless of what

the word means, and what Matthew 5:32 says, how should 19:9 be understood?

Hagner explains that, as far as the radical view that divorce is never allowed, Matthew

would have used mhdev (“not even”) instead of mhv (“not”) to give that meaning.56 However, upon

further thought, “whoever might divorce his wife not even upon sexual immorality” does not

make sense. If Matthew had made the particle mhv (“not”) into a dev (“even”) then the view would

hold water: “whoever might divorce his wife, even upon sexual immorality.” But, since the

statement stands as “whoever might divorce his wife not upon sexual immorality,” it is necessary

to see the mhv (“not”) as an exception to the main clause.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament explains that the meaning of the passage

is “not that the Christian husband, should his wife be unfaithful, is permitted to divorce her, but

53
Dale C. Allison Jr., "Divorce, Celibacy and Joseph (Matthew 1:18-25 and 19:1-12)," Journal For The Study
Of The New Testament no. 49 (March 1, 1993): 3-10.
54
Cf. the view presented in Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 549.
55
Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, “povrnh, povrno", porneiva, porneuvw, ejkporneuvw” TDNT, vol. 6
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 580-581.
56
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 549.
 Wingerd 15

that if he is legally forced to do this he should not be open to criticism if by her conduct his wife

has made the continuation of the marriage quite impossible.”57 However, as Hagner points out,

the escape clause “stands in tension [both] with the absolutism of v 6, [and] weakens the

argument of vv 7-8.”58

If it is true that in that time divorce for adultery was required,59 then there is no reason to say

that the sense is weakened; Jesus was speaking to Jews, and Jews must obey the Law. But, does

the same hold true for Gentiles? Must Gentile marriages where a partner is unfaithful end in

divorce? Based on Matthew 19:6, divorce does not seem to be commanded—cf. the story of

Hosea—but rather allowed as a last ditch effort if repentance is not present (cf. Matthew 18:15-

20). The point Jesus is trying to make is that the only exception to the permanency of marriage is

sexual immorality; if sexual immorality is not present, then there is no reason to get a divorce.

The end of verse 9 enhances the previous statement. Unfortunately, before diving into what

this specific phrase means, it is necessary to wade through a few variant readings. The typical

reading is translated “[whoever might divorce his wife] not upon sexual immorality and might

marry another commits adultery”; a second reading is translated, “[whoever might divorce his

wife] except for the reason of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery”; a third reading is

translated, “[whoever might divorce his wife] except for the reason of sexual immorality and

might marry another commits adultery.” 60 Which one is original?

The second reading very likely comes straight from Matthew 5:32, “where the text is

firm.”61 The third reading attempts to combine Mark 10:11—Matthew’s source62—and Matthew

57
Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, TDNT, vol. 6, 592.
58
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 549.
59
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 483.
60
Kurt Aland, ed., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1983), 71.
61
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible
Societies, 1971), 38.
62
Ibid., 38.
 Wingerd 16

5:32—a previous discussion of the subject—so it is unlikely as well. The proposed original text

is that which is translated, “whoever might divorce his wife not for sexual immorality, and might

marry another, commits adultery.”

There is an interesting correlation when this is compared with Matthew 5:32. There it

explains that a man who divorces his wife not for sexual immorality causes her to commit

adultery if she is to remarry, which gives men responsibility to love their wives and not divorce

them for petty reasons. Jesus there lays the blame for the woman’s sin on the man. There are two

different focuses that Jesus is trying to get at between 5:32 and 19:9. In 19:9, Jesus is solely

speaking about the man’s guilt if he is to remarry after an unlawful divorce. “When a married

person engages in [porneiva/], Jesus says, then ‘hardness of heart’ has come into the picture again

and, the marriage having been irreparably destroyed, then divorce is permissible.” 63 If a man’s

wife (or a man himself) is not guilty of immorality, then divorce and remarriage perpetuates

adultery, but if a man’s wife (or a man himself) is guilty of immorality, then the innocent person

should be free to remarry.

Thus Jesus concludes His discussion with the Pharisees, they disappear, and Jesus begins

speaking with His disciples. They have apparently been in the background since verse 3, and at

this junction they take center stage. They begin the discussion by making an observation to Jesus

based on His discussion with the Pharisees (verse 10), and then He corrects their thinking and

elaborates even more (verses 11-12).

The disciples were listening very carefully to what Jesus had been saying to the Pharisees.

They caught the drastic nature of marriage that He had proposed: one man, one woman, for life,

except in the case of sexual immorality, and divorce was only an option if immorality became

known. Instead of exalting in monogamy, which should be the result of the previous teaching,
63
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 484.
 Wingerd 17

the disciples show their density by exalting celibacy. 64 Pre-arranged marriages were the norm in

this time period, and the disciples likely saw it to be too big of a risk to end up with a wife who

was “deficient” in some way, 65 so they quickly jump to saying, “No divorce? That is crazy! It is

better to never marry.”

But Jesus is quick to respond to their statement with yet another teaching on the subject.

Matthew’s use of the particle dev (“but”) in introducing it announces a contrast between what the

disciples said and what Jesus is going to say. His explanation contains the verb cwrevw (“I

accept”) three times, once at the beginning, and twice at the end, which forms a handy little

inclusio around His teaching. Not everyone can accept this portion, while, in contrast, He expects

everyone to accept His teaching on marriage and divorce in 19:3-9, but for the ones that can

accept the point of verses 11-12, He encourages them to do so.

There is a question as to the validity of tou`ton (“this”) describing toVn lovgon (“the

saying”). Metzger explains, “On the one hand, since the general tendency of scribes is to make

the text more explicit . . . the shorter reading . . . has a certain presumption in its favor. On the

other hand, however, the ambiguity of the reference of tou`ton in the context . . . may have

prompted some scribes to delete the word.”66 It is probably better in this case to take it as

original, and to have it refer to the statement made by the disciples.67

With this being the case, Jesus admits to the disciples that not everyone is able to remain

celibate for the duration of their life. If most humans were able to do this, the command in

Genesis 1:28 to multiply and fill the earth would have been pointless. “Jesus does not challenge

64
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 19.
65
Craig S. Keener, Matthew, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1997), 299.
66
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 39.
67
This understanding, which makes the most sense to me, is what makes the interpretation from here on fall
away from the common evangelical interpretation of this verse. I may be wrong here, but hear me out, and please
show me why I am mistaken, if I am.
 Wingerd 18

the disciples’ assessment of the difficulty of abiding by his high standards . . . He admits that the

alternative of non-marriage is one that not all will be able to accept. . . . If by the world’s

standards and the standards even of the Pharisees, the prohibition of divorce is unacceptable, so

perhaps more so is the alternative of no marriage.” 68

Jesus goes on to say that while most cannot accept the disciples’ statement, some have been

given the ability to accept it. The end of verse 11 uses the verb devdotai (“it has been given”)69

and the end of verse 12 contains the participle oJ dunavmeno" (“the one who is able”). These

words are directly connected, and in between them is talk about eunuchs. The teaching about

eunuchs, then, must be related to those who are able to accept a teaching because they have been

given the ability to accept it.70

The word eujnou`coi (“eunuchs”) in its literal sense refers to men who have been castrated.

Interestingly enough, “In the OT the castration of both men and animals is forbidden; it

contradicts the divine will in creation.”71 The simple fact that Old Testament law forbade

castration probably hints that Jesus’ meaning when he speaks about eunuchs is less than literal.

He describes three kinds of eunuchs. “The saying about eunuchs exhibits a pattern typical of the

wisdom tradition: the first two lines relate concrete facts about the everyday world and serve to

introduce or illustrate the third line, which proclaims a truth—much less concrete—from the

moral or religious sphere.” 72

68
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 549-550.
69
Craig L. Blomberg, "Marriage, divorce, remarriage, and celibacy : an exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12," Trinity
Journal 11, no. 2 (September 1, 1990): 183. “Δέδοτοα represents a divine passive and is cognate to words for
"gifts." But one should probably not read in any technical sense of "gift" or "calling" here, merely divine
empowerment.”
70
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20, Hermeneia, 500. I do not necessarily agree with his reasoning and final
conclusion, but I do agree that only some are able to accept it.
71
Johannes Schneider, “eujnou`co", eujnoucivzw” TDNT, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 766. Cf.
Genesis 1:28 for the divine will.
72
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 22.
 Wingerd 19

Whether or not this small “parable” can be properly be claimed as part of the “wisdom

tradition,” is up for debate, but for the sake of fairness, two possibilities will be presented for

each of the three types of eunuchs, and then a final concluding paragraph will give this author’s

conclusion. The main difference between the three is that the first two eunuch types do not have

a choice but to be eunuchs, and the third group makes the conscious choice to be a eunuch.

The first type of eunuch is the one who comes from the womb as a eunuch. If they are born

in this way, they certainly are not choosing to be a eunuch. Most want to understand this as those

“born with defective male organs or one who had otherwise been rendered impotent by the

circumstances of his birth.” 73

It is entirely possible, given the sure fact that people were born this way, that Jesus is still

tying this whole discussion back to the marriage and divorce question. If He is, which is the

likeliest explanation due to it being in the same pericope, then this describes a group of people

who are able to accept the disciples’ statement about singleness being better than lifetime

marriage to one woman. These would be the people who are born with the “gift” of celibacy,

whether or not they are legitimately impotent sexually, though Blomberg would be quick to point

out that “no technical language of ‘gifts’ or ‘calling’ appears here.” 74

The second type of eunuch is the one who is made a eunuch by people. This person, as well

as the first, does not have a choice but to be a eunuch. It would literally refer to men who have

been castrated by others to be able to be in “certain high positions in a royal court.” 75 The

Ethiopian that Philip speaks to in Acts 8 is a prime example of the popularity of this kind of

eunuch in the ancient world.

73
Ibid., 22.
74
Craig Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary, 294.
75
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 550.
 Wingerd 20

If Jesus is still tying this whole discussion back to marriage and divorce, which makes the

most sense given its placement within the pericope, then it is necessary to first recall the four

types of people that this section has described: 1) married forever, 2) married, but divorced for

non-legitimate reasons, 3) married, but divorced for a legitimate reason, 4) and those never

married. If those born eunuchs are those who have no desire to be married, they easily fall within

the fourth category. But what about those who are made eunuchs by others?

It is entirely possible that this type of eunuch is being referred to by Jesus to speak of those

people who have been divorced for “unlawful” reasons and are now unable to marry again,

because to marry again would be to commit adultery. For this reason, men have castrated them

(compare 19:6 where men the guilty party told not to attempt marital separation), and they now

have no choice in the matter; they cannot remarry, and they also are (read: should be) able to

accept the disciples’ statement in verse 10.

The third type of eunuch is the one who chooses on his own accord to become a eunuch.

Jesus “cannot have had in view literal physical castration. He would have a horror of this like all

true Jews. He is thinking rather of those who for the sake of the kingdom of God voluntarily

renounce the sexual life and marriage.”76 Origen in the early church took this statement literally

and actually castrated himself. 77 The emphasis on this group that differs them from the other two,

is that these ones are able to choose on their own where they stand as far as celibacy goes. “[J]ust

as there are men who for one reason or another have been castrated, so also there are people

whom God enables to live celibate lives even though they are physically capable of sexual

relations.”78

76
Johannes Schneider, “eujnou`co", eujnoucivzw” TDNT, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 768.
77
It is ironic, since he was so popular for his allegorical interpretations, that he would choose Matthew 19:12
to take literally. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 485.
78
Craig L. Blomberg, "Marriage, divorce, remarriage, and celibacy: an exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12," 185.
 Wingerd 21

Given the four groups that were outlined above, this group could include both those who are

not yet married (and may choose to never be, despite desperately wanting to be) and those who

have been divorced for a lawful reason who could legitimately remarry, but decide not to for the

sake of the kingdom. “Precisely because the vision of marriage that Jesus promotes is so

permanent, some people will sense the challenge to forego the possibility of marriage for the

sake of the call of the kingdom of heaven.” 79

However, many people who have never been married still go on and eventually get married

and practice the teaching of verses 3-9. In addition, some people who have been divorced

because the spouse brought immorality into the marriage have decided to remarry. These two

examples comprise the ones who cannot accept Jesus’ statement. Even though “rabbinic law

knew of demands which could not be established because not all were able to abide by them,” 80

Jesus still encourages those who can accept it to accept it. “The kingdom thus can take priority

over the interpretation of Gen 1:28 as the obligation to marry and have children. If Jesus, like

John the Baptist . . . expected the imminent end of the age, the idea of celibacy would take on a

less objectionable aspect.”81 Tie this into Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 22:23-33, specifically verse

30, and it becomes clear that marriage is not the main point in the future kingdom of heaven, so

it need not be here either. Service to Christ is the point (cf. 19:27-29). “There is no one path of

service, but whatever a person’s calling is, grace will be given so that that calling may be

fulfilled.”82

79
John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC, 781.
80
W.D. Davies, and Dale C. Allison Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, ICC, 26.
81
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, 550.
82
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, PNTC, 486.
 Wingerd 22

Conclusion:

With the concluding view on the second and third type of eunuchs being those divorced but

not able to remarry, or free to choose to remarry, a question of application is sure to come up. “It

is thus no coincidence that in Matthew Jesus’ teaching on marital commitment directly follows

his teaching on forgiveness (18:21-35).”83 This must be explicitly explicated because there must

be a measure of grace given to the people who call themselves disciples of Christ. If a believer

cannot forgive another believer (especially if the wrong is not even against the person who will

not forgive, as it likely would be in this case), then Jesus’ words in Matthew 18:35 cry out to be

heard. People who were divorced prior to following Christ, who were then remarried, need not

divorce the new spouse, because that would only perpetuate sin. Followers of Christ must be

quick to forgive their fellow believers, even though sin is serious and Jesus holds divorce to be

almost equal to fighting against God (cf. 19:6).

It is also important to note that spousal abuse falls under the porneiva/ (“immorality”) clause,

because it breaks the one flesh union of intimacy that marriage is meant to create. Thus there is

no reason to force the wife of an abusive husband to remain in the marriage. Jesus would allow

for their divorce, and for remarriage, should the woman desire to do so.

In conclusion, Jesus’ main point throughout this teaching is simple: if married, the disciple

of Christ must love his/her spouse and only his/her spouse; if single (for whatever reason:

divorce, never-yet-married, death-of-spouse), he/she must be committed to the kingdom, and

consider whether or not a lifetime of commitment to the kingdom, at the expense of a marriage,

has been asked of him/her. “Jesus thus strikingly repudiates the typical Jewish prejudice against

83
Craig S. Keener, Matthew, IVP New Testament Commentary, 294.
 Wingerd 23

celibacy (excluding the Essenes), even while he advocates a stricter faithfulness to one's spouse

than Judaism officially promoted among those already married.”84

84
Craig L. Blomberg, "Marriage, divorce, remarriage, and celibacy: an exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12," 185.
 Wingerd 24

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt, ed. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. New York, NY: United Bible Societies,
1983.

Allison, Dale C, Jr. "Divorce, Celibacy and Joseph (Matthew 1:18-25 and 19:1-12)." Journal For
The Study Of The New Testament no. 49 (March 1, 1993): 3-10. ATLA Religion Database
with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 7, 2015).

Blomberg, Craig L. "Marriage, divorce, remarriage, and celibacy : an exegesis of Matthew 19:3-
12." Trinity Journal 11, no. 2 (September 1, 1990): 161-196. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 7, 2015).

___________. Matthew. New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3.
International Critical Commentary. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004.

Garland, David E. Reading Matthew : A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, Ga:
Smyth & Helwys Pub, 2001. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April
8, 2015).

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 1995.

Keener, Craig S. Matthew. IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1997.

Kittel, Gerhard, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-1976.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8-20. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York, NY: United
Bible Societies, 1971.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.

Neusner, Jacob. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Niehr, H. “hr*u.* ” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes

Botterweck & Helmer Ringgren, translated by David E. Green, vol. 11, 343-349. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.
 Wingerd 25

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

Simonetti, Manlio. Matthew 14-28. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.