Mat 19:1-12 | RWP | e4.org | He departed ( μετηρεν ). Literally, to lift up, change something to another place. Transitive in the LXX and in a Cilician rock inscription. Intransitive in and here, the only N.T. instances. Absence of οτ or κα after κα εγενετο , one of the clear Hebraisms in the N.T. (Robertson, Grammar , pp. 1042f.). This verse is a sort of formula in Matthew at the close of important groups of λογια as in ; ; . The borders of Judea beyond Jordan ( εις τα ορια της Ιουδαιας περαν του Ιορδανου ). This is a curious expression. It apparently means that Jesus left Galilee to go to Judea by way of Perea as the Galileans often did to avoid Samaria. Luke ( ) expressly says that he passed through Samaria and Galilee when he left Ephraim in Northern Judea ( ). He was not afraid to pass through the edge of Galilee and down the Jordan Valley in Perea on this last journey to Jerusalem. McNeile is needlessly opposed to the trans-Jordanic or Perean aspect of this phase of Christ's work.

‏ Matthew 19:1-12

He departed ( μετηρεν ). Literally, to lift up, change something to another place. Transitive in the LXX and in a Cilician rock inscription. Intransitive in 13:53 and here, the only N.T. instances. Absence of οτ or κα after κα εγενετο, one of the clear Hebraisms in the N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1042f.). This verse is a sort of formula in Matthew at the close of important groups of λογια as in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53.

The borders of Judea beyond Jordan ( εις τα ορια της Ιουδαιας περαν του Ιορδανου ). This is a curious expression. It apparently means that Jesus left Galilee to go to Judea by way of Perea as the Galileans often did to avoid Samaria. Luke (Lu 17:11) expressly says that he passed through Samaria and Galilee when he left Ephraim in Northern Judea (Joh 11:54). He was not afraid to pass through the edge of Galilee and down the Jordan Valley in Perea on this last journey to Jerusalem. McNeile is needlessly opposed to the trans-Jordanic or Perean aspect of this phase of Christ's work.

Pharisees tempting him ( Φαρισαιο πειραζοντες αυτον ). They "could not ask a question of Jesus without sinister motives" (Bruce). See 4:1 for the word ( πειραζω ).

For every cause ( κατα πασαν αιτιαν ). This clause is an allusion to the dispute between the two theological schools over the meaning of De 24:1. The school of Shammai took the strict and unpopular view of divorce for unchastity alone while the school of Hillel took the liberal and popular view of easy divorce for any passing whim if the husband saw a prettier woman (modern enough surely) or burnt his biscuits for breakfast. It was a pretty dilemma and meant to do Jesus harm with the people. There is no real trouble about the use of κατα here in the sense of προπτερ or because of (Robertson, Grammar, p. 509).

Shall cleave ( κολληθησετα ). First future passive, "shall be glued to," the verb means.

The twain shall become one flesh ( εσοντα ο δυο εις σαρκα μιαν ). This use of εις after ειμ is an imitation of the Hebrew, though a few examples occur in the older Greek and in the papyri. The frequency of it is due to the Hebrew and here the LXX is a direct translation of the Hebrew idiom.

What therefore God hath joined together ( ο ουν ο θεος συνεζευξεν ). Note "what," not "whom." The marriage relation God has made. "The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation" (Bruce). The word for "joined together" means "yoked together," a common verb for marriage in ancient Greek. It is the timeless aorist indicative ( συνεζευξεν ), true always.

Bill ( βιβλιον ). A little βιβλος (see on 1:1), a scroll or document (papyrus or parchment). This was some protection to the divorced wife and a restriction on laxity.

For your hardness of heart ( προς την σκληροκαρδιαν υμων ). The word is apparently one of the few Biblical words (LXX and the N.T.). It is a heart dried up ( σκληρος ), hard and tough.

But from the beginning it hath not been so ( απ' αρχης δε ουκ γεγονεν ουτως ). The present perfect active of γινομα to emphasize the permanence of the divine ideal. "The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force" (Vincent). "How small the Pharisaic disputants must have felt in presence of such holy teaching, which soars above the partisan view of controversialists into the serene region of ideal, universal, eternal truth" (Bruce).

Except for fornication ( παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" ( ποιε αυτην μοιχευθηνα ) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" ( κα ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχατα ). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in 5:32. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort ( μη επ πορνεια, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term ( πορνεια ) which is technically adultery ( μοιχεια from μοιχαω ορ μοιχευω ). Here, as in 5:31f., a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in 5:31, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

The disciples say unto him ( λεγουσιν αυτω ο μαθητα ). "Christ's doctrine on marriage not only separated Him τοτο χαελο from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve" (Bruce).

The case ( η αιτια ). The word may refer to the use in verse 3 "for every cause." It may have a vague idea here = ρες, condition. But the point clearly is that "it is not expedient to marry" ( ου συμφερε γαμησα ) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have ανθρωπος and γυνη contrasted rather than ανηρ and γυνη.

But they to whom it is given ( αλλ' οις δεδοτα ). A neat Greek idiom, dative case of relation and perfect passive indicative. The same idea is repeated at the close of verse 12. It is a voluntary renunciation of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. "Jesus recognizes the severity of the demand as going beyond the capacity of all but a select number." It was a direct appeal to the spiritual intelligence of the disciples not to misconceive his meaning as certainly the monastic orders have done.