Matthew 19:3 Komentář

And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings,.... Concerning humility, avoiding offences, the methods to be taken in reproving offenders, and the forgiveness that is to be exercised towards them: he departed from Galilee; where he had chiefly preached and wrought his miracles, no more to return thither till after his resurrection: and came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; that is, to that country which was called "beyond Jordan", and bordered on Judea; coming still nearer and nearer to Jerusalem, where he had told his disciples, a little while ago, he must come, and suffer, and die. Rather, it should be rendered, "on this side Jordan", as also in Joh 1:28 for the coasts of Judea were on this side; so , is rendered in

The Pharisees also came unto him,.... Either from the places round about, or from Jerusalem: these came unto him, not for the sake of learning, or to be instructed by him; but as spies upon him, to observe what he said and did, and watch every opportunity to expose him to the contempt and hatred of the people; tempting him with a question about divorces, in order to ensnare him: and saying to him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? be it ever so trivial, as said the school of Hillell: for there was a difference between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillell about this matter; the former insisted that a man might not put away his wife but in case of uncleanness; but the latter allowed putting away for very trifling things; as if she spoiled her husband's food by over roasting, or over salting it; and, as one of the doctors say, if he found another woman that was more beautiful than her; see Gill on Mat 5:32. This question being now agitated in the schools, they artfully put to Christ; not for information, but with a view to reproach him in some way or other; and that he might incur the resentment of one party or another, as he should answer. They might argue thus with themselves, and hope to succeed in this manner; should he be on the side of the school of Shammai, which was the weakest side, and less popular, as they had reason to believe he would, he would then expose himself to the resentment of the school of Hillell, and all on that side the question; should he take the part of Hillell, he would make the school of Shammai his enemies; should he forbid putting away of wives, which Moses allowed, they would then traduce him as contrary to Moses, and his law, which could not fail of setting the people against him; and should he consent to it, they would charge him with contradicting himself, or with inconstancy in his doctrine, since he had before asserted the unlawfulness of it, but in case of adultery; and should he abide by this, they might hope to irritate the men against him, who would think their liberty granted by Moses was entrenched on; as, on the other hand, should he, according to the question, admit of putting away for every cause, the women would be provoked at him, who would be left to the uncertain humour and caprice of their husbands; so that either way they hoped to get an advantage of him.

But grant that these argumentations may be thought to be forced and founded on conjectures, if no dogmatic teachings have stood parallel with them which the Lord uttered in treating of divorce, which, permitted formerly, He now prohibits, first because "from the beginning it was not so," like plurality of marriage; secondly, because "What God hath conjoined, man shall not separate," -for fear, namely, that he contravene the Lord: for He alone shall "separate" who has "conjoined" (separate, moreover, not through the harshness of divorce, which (harshness) He censures and restrains, but through the debt of death) if, indeed, "one of two sparrows falleth not on the ground without the Father's will.

Seeing the Lord thus tempted, let none of His disciples who is set to teach think it hard if he also be by some tempted. Howbeit, He replies to His tempters with the doctrines of piety.

And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looks on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart." [Matthew 5:28] "And he that marries," says [the Gospel], "her that is divorced from her husband, commits adultery; and whosoever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery." [Matthew 5:32] Because Solomon says: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goes in to a married woman shall not be innocent." [Proverbs 6:27-29]

But not so to the Pharisees, but even for this self-same thing they become more fierce, and come unto Him tempting Him. For because they could not lay hold of the works that were doing, they propose to Him questions. O folly! They thought to silence Him by their questions, although they had already received certain proof of this power in Him. When at least they argued much about the Sabbath, when they said, "He blasphemeth," when they said, "He hath a devil," when they found fault with His disciples as they were walking in the corn fields, when they argued about unwashen hands, on every occasion having sewed fast their mouths, and shut up their shameless tongue, He thus sent them away. Nevertheless, not even so do they keep off from Him. For such is wickedness, such is envy, shameless and bold; though it be put to silence ten thousand times, ten thousand times doth it assault again. But mark thou, I pray thee, their craft also from the form of their question. For neither did they say unto Him, Thou didst command not to put away a wife, for indeed He had already discoursed about this law; but nevertheless they made no mention of those words; but took occasion from hence, and thinking to make their snare the greater, and being minded to drive Him to a necessity of contradicting the law, they say not, why didst Thou enact this or that? but as though nothing had been said, they ask, "Is it lawful?" expecting that He had forgotten having said it; and being ready if on the one hand He said, "It is lawful to put away," to bring against Him the things He Himself had spoken, and to say, How then didst Thou affirm the contrary? but if the same things now again as before, to bring against Him the words of Moses. What then said He? He said not, "tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" although afterwards He saith this, but here He speaks not thus. Why can this be? In order that together with His power He might show forth His gentleness also. For He doth neither always keep silence, lest they should suppose they are hidden; nor doth He always reprove, in order that He may instruct us to bear all things with gentleness.

(Chapter XIX. — Verse 1 and following) And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee and came into the borders of Judea, beyond the Jordan; and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause? He had come from Galilee to Judea; therefore, the faction of the Pharisees and Scribes questioned him, whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause, so that they may hold him in a trap as if he were caught in a syllogism, and whatever he answers, may be used against him. If he says that wives should be dismissed for any reason whatsoever, and other wives should be taken, he will appear to preach against chastity. But if he responds that not every reason warrants dismissal, he will be held guilty of sacrilege as if he were a transgressor of the law given through Moses and by Moses from God. Therefore, the Lord tempers his response so that their disciple may understand, citing sacred Scripture as evidence and opposing the natural law and the first intention of God with the second intention, which was granted not by the will of God but by the necessity of sinners.

That they might have Him as it were between the horns of a syllogism, so that, whatever answer He should make, it would lie open to cavil. Should He allow a wife to be put away for any cause, and the marriage of another, he would seem to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. Should He answer that she may not be put away for any cause whatsoever, He will be judged to have spoken impiously, and to make against the teaching of Moses and of God.

But, as when you see one much pursuing the acquaintance of physicians, you know that he is sick, so, when you see either man or woman enquiring concerning divorce, know that that man is lustful and that woman unchaste. For chastity has pleasure in wedlock, but desire is tormented as though under a slavish bondage therein. And knowing that they had no sufficient cause to allege for their putting away their wives, save their own lewdness, they feigned many divers causes. They feared to ask Him for what cause, lest they should be tied down within the limits of fixed and certain causes; and therefore they asked if it were lawful for every cause; for they knew that appetite knows no limits, and cannot hold itself within the bounds of one marriage, but the more it is indulged the more it is kindled.

O what mindlessness! They thought they would confound Christ by their questions, for if He said it was lawful to divorce one's wife for any reason, they would say to Him, "Why then did you say, Let not a man divorce his wife unless only she be an adulteress?" (Mt. 5:32). But if He said it was not lawful for a man to divorce his wife they would slander Him as a lawgiver at variance with Moses. For Moses had decreed that if a man hated his wife he should divorce her even without reasonable cause (Deut. 24:3).

And the Pharisees came to him tempting him. And in this they are reproved: because while the crowds followed, the Pharisees were plotting. Jeremiah 5:5: I will go to the great men, and will speak to them. Hence they approached saying, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? In them there appears first a malicious cunning, because they came to Christ to bring a charge against Christ; for either he would say that a wife should be put away, or not. If he said yes, he would seem to contradict himself, because he was a preacher of chastity. If he said no, we will accuse him, because this is against Moses the lawgiver. As Chrysostom says, they are convicted of incontinence, because if one gladly hears talk of separation from a wife, he is incontinent. Hence because they were speaking about divorce, they showed themselves to be incontinent. The Lord had given a cause for which a wife might be dismissed, namely on account of uncleanness; but they were asking not only about this cause, but whether for any cause whatsoever. Hence they wanted to have the free power of dismissing a wife.

FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE--DIVORCE. ( = Mar 10:1-12; Luk 9:51). (Mat 19:1-12) And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee--This marks a very solemn period in our Lord's public ministry. So slightly is it touched here, and in the corresponding passage of Mark (Mar 10:1), that few readers probably note it as the Redeemer's Farewell to Galilee, which however it was. See on the sublime statement of Luke (Luk 9:51), which relates to the same transition stage in the progress of our Lord's work. and came into the coasts--or, boundaries of Judea beyond Jordan--that is, to the further, or east side of the Jordan, into Perea, the dominions of Herod Antipas. But though one might conclude from our Evangelist that our Lord went straight from the one region to the other, we know from the other Gospels that a considerable time elapsed between the departure from the one and the arrival at the other, during which many of the most important events in our Lord's public life occurred--probably a large part of what is recorded in Luk 9:51, onward to Mat 18:15, and part of John 7:2-11:54.

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?--Two rival schools (as we saw on Mat 5:31) were divided on this question--a delicate one, as DE WETTE pertinently remarks, in the dominions of Herod Antipas.