Commentary on Matthew 19:1-12
by Dr. Knox Chamblin
THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE. 19:1-12.
I. THE INTRODUCTION. 19:1-2.
19:1a marks the close of Jesus' fourth great discourse. This statement is identical
to 7:28a, at the close of the discourse which Mt 18 most closely resembles. Jesus now departs from Galilee (v. 1b) to begin his final journey to Judea and Jerusalem, a journey which climaxes with his Triumphal Entry (21:1-11) and culminates in his death and resurrection - as he again prophesies en route (20:17-19). For the time being, Jesus enters "the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan," i.e. into Peraea, a district of Transjordan. Given the foregoing discourse, 19:2 reminds us (1) that Jesus' ministry includes healing as well as teaching (cf. 4:23-25; 9:35; and chs. 5-7 vis-a-vis chs. 8-9), and (2) that despite Jesus' present concentration on the disciples (to whom the preceding discourse is exclusively addressed), he still has compassion on the needy multitudes.
II. JESUS AND THE PHARISEES. 19:3-9.
A. The Pharisees' First Question. 19:3.
As previously, the Pharisees' intent is hostile (cf. 16:1, where peiraz© is again
used). Their question serve two purposes.
1. The theological purpose. The Pharisees' hostility towards Jesus and their case against him, have been building for some time. Within Mt, they first express their displeasure towards Jesus when they see him dining with tax collectors and sinners (9:10-13). When on a certain Sabbath they see him both tolerating and doing what they consider unlawful, displeasure escalates into a murderous plot (12:1-14). Then ensue the controversies over Beelzeboul (12:22-37), the sign from heaven (12:38-42, and law and tradition (15:1-9). Given that background, the Pharisees' present question may be viewed as a clever means of helping the "large crowds" (19:2) to see what they themselves have long known - that Jesus is a dangerous enemy of Moses, and therefore of God. Furthermore, they seek to force Jesus to become entangled in current controversy over the proper interpretation of Mosaic Law. Behind their question, with its phrase "for any and every reason" (kata pasan aitian), is the debate between the stricter Shammaites and the more lenient Hillelites over the meaning of Deut 24:1 (cf.
comments on 5:31-32); see the question of 19:7.
2. The political purpose. Jesus' answer might also expose him as the
enemy of Herod Antipas. (Later the Pharisees join forces with the Herodians
against Jesus, 22:15-16.) Peraea (Jesus' current locale) lay within the tetrarchy of Herod - the Herod who divorced his first wife (the daughter of the Nabataean king Aretas IV) in order to marry Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (cf. 14:3-4; and F. F. Bruce, New Testament History, 28-29). The Pharisees may well be hoping (i) that Jesus' answer will underscore John's own preaching on the subject of divorce (14:4), (ii) that Herod will learn of this, be confirmed in his belief that Jesus is John redivivus (14:1), and proceed to treat Jesus as he had treated John, and (iii) that they (the Pharisees) will thus be rid of an increasingly dangerous adversary.
B. Jesus' Initial Response. 19:4-6.
1. Jesus appeals to the Torah. Jesus appeals to his antagonists' supreme
written authority. The Pharisees draw attention to Deuteronomy (v. 7), Jesus to
Genesis. The term Torah might refer either to the first five books of the Hebrew
Bible (the "Pentateuch"), or to the Mosaic Law which they contain. For instances
of nomos ("law") in the former sense, see e.g. Mt 5:17; 7:12; in the latter sense,
12:5; 15:6.
2. Jesus appeals to the Creation Narrative. He speaks of God as "the
Creator" (v. 4; for reasons favoring ktisas, "created," over poissas, "made," see
Metzger, TC, 47). His words "from the beginning" (ap' archss, 19:4, 8) recall
Gen 1:1, "In the beginning" (LXX, En archs). He then quotes both Gen 1:27
("made them male and female") and 2:24 ("For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh").
Thus Jesus (1) focuses on God's intent for his creatures before the Fall (Gen 3);
(2) founds 2:24 upon 1:27 (as Jesus quotes 2:24 directly after 1:27, the words "for this reason," v. 24a, call attention to 1:27 rather than to 2:23 - which latter v.,
however, is also founded on 1:27; cf. Carson, 412); (3) underscores the unity of
husband and wife (1:27 teaches that "man" consists of "male and female" - for
which reason the husband leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife, 2:24); and (4) draws from the chapter which speaks of the metaphysical equality of the man and the woman (Gen 1) as well as from the one which speaks of the woman's functional subordination (Gen 2).
3. Jesus declares all divorce unlawful. The Pharisees asked whether divorce was lawful "for any and every reason" (v. 3). Jesus, rather than taking sides in the debate between Shammai and Hillel, states categorically: "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (v. 6). Jesus' unqualified statement shows the Pharisees' question to be irrelevant. It is not a matter of distinguishing between right and wrong reasons for divorce; judged by the standard of Gen 2:24, there is no valid reason for divorce. Such an action is always unlawful, for by its very nature it severs the marital bond which God has established. The Pharisees' next question shows they understand Jesus' meaning.
C. The Pharisees' Further Question.
19:7. "'Why then,' they asked, 'did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?'" (a reference to Deut 24:1). The Torah seems to teach that divorce is both unlawful (Gen 2:24) and lawful (Deut 24:1).
D. The Meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1.
1. The structure of the passage. Deut 24:1 is but an introduction to a
one-sentence paragraph, which runs through v. 4. RSV (but not NIV) correctly
represents vv. 1-4 as a single sentence. It is, moreover, a conditional sentence:
vv. 1-3 are the protasis, and v. 4 the apodosis. The opening "if" (ki) of v. 1
governs all the clauses of vv. 1-3 (which are linked together by conjunctive waws), in preparation for the main clause, v. 4, which begins "then her first husband...is not allowed to marry her again." For support of this reading of the structure, see John Murray, Divorce, 3-7; P.C. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 304.
2. The 'ervat davar, v. 1. This Hebrew expression is rendered "something indecent" in NIV (similarly RSV), "something shameful" in NEB, and
"some uncleanness" in KJV.
a. Terminology. The noun 'ervah means basically "nakedness, pudenda" (BDB, s.v.). (The Latin pudenda is the plural of pudendus, "shameful," and here denotes the genital organs.) The verb 'arah correspondingly means "to be naked, bare." The noun davar means "word, thing"; so 'ervat [construct of 'ervah] davar is literally "the nakedness of a thing" (BDB, ibid.).
b. Usage outside Deut 24:1. (1) 'Ervah. In most cases, the noun denotes the uncovering of the sexual organs (literally or metaphorically), for the purpose of sexual activity (Gen 9:22-23?; Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21; Ezek 16:36; 22:10; 23:18), or as a judgment upon sexual activity (Ezek 16:37; 23:10 [cf. v. 9], 29; cf. Hos 2:9b, with v. 10a), or as an act or a mark of shame (Gen 9:22-23?; Ex 20:26; Isa 20:4; 47:3; Lam 1:8). Otherwise 'ervah occurs only in Gen 42:9,12 (a land is naked, i.e. vulnerable); 1 Sam 20:30 (Saul denounces Jonathan's "shameful" betrayal of his family); Ezek 16:8 (Yahweh covers Jerusalem's nakedness); and Deut 23:14 (see below). (2) 'Arah. The verb speaks of "laying bare" or "pouring out" (i.e. laying bare by emptying) various things (see BDB, s.v. for references).
In view of the usage of 'ervah, the most noteworthy instances of the verb are
found in Lev 20:18-19 (of sexual activity) and Lam 4:21 (of the shame of
nakedness resulting from drunkenness). (3) 'Ervat davar. Besides Deut 24:1,
this expression occurs in the OT only in Deut 23:14, at the conclusion of a
paragraph (vv. 12-14) directing that toilet facilities be restricted to an area outside
the camp. It would be most unseemly to place such facilities within the camp, and
most indecent to leave human excrement unburied (even outside the camp); for the pure eyes of the holy God who "moves about" in the camp, must not behold
among his people "anything indecent." While this regulation is obviously not
concerned with sexual offenses, the present usage of 'ervah has a fundamental
kinship with the dominant usage, as noted under (1). Both human excrement and
the sexual organs ought to be covered over and hidden away. Both leaving
excrement open to view and bringing the sexual organs into view (except within
the prescribed bounds of marriage; cf. Gen 2:24, Song of Sol passim), are
shameful and indecent; both violate God's laws of purity.
c. Usage in Deut 24:1. Precisely what the words 'ervat davar would have denoted to Moses and the original readers of Deut, we cannot determine. The rabbinic debate over the term, testifies to the difficulty of recovering its exact meaning and the limits of its application. (It may even be that the exact limits of its application were unclear to the original recipients of Deut.
Nonetheless the present usage was designed to exert some control over divorce
proceedings: cf. 4. below.) In light of the above survey (b.) as well as the present
context, I conclude that the words 'ervat davar, as used here, refer principally
but not exclusively to sexual offenses (apud Murray, 12; James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective, 98-99). It is therefore appropriate to translate "something shameful or indecent" - terms which embrace offenses besides the sexual. I refrain from speculating about which particular non-sexual offenses might be comprehended by the term. However, concerning the relation of 'ervat davar to sexual offenses, further comment is necessary. The term does not embrace adultery, whether proven or suspected; for the former was punishable by death (Deut 22:22), and the latter was subject to the rite of bitter waters (Num 5:5-31), neither of which left room for divorce. Nor can the phrase embrace the sexually- related acts dealt with in Deut 22:13-29 (see Murray, 11).
Thus, insofar as sexual offenses are in view, the 'ervat davar might denote one or both of two things: (1) sexual misconduct, irregularity, or lewdness which fell short of intercourse (Carson, 413; Murray, 12); (2) the inability to bear children (Craigie, 305) - which, while not sexually immoral, might nonetheless cause offense to the husband (we recall that the Shah of Iran divorced his first wife when she failed to produce a male heir).
3. The purpose of the passage. Deut 24:1-4 does not command divorce
(see 4.) The principal purpose (as indicated by the structure, 1.) is to prohibit a
husband's remarriage to a woman whom he earlier divorced and who thereafter
was married to and divorced by (or separated by death from) another man. The
first husband is "not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled
[Hebrew hutama'ah, hotpaal of tama']" (v. 4a); his doing so "would be detestable
in the eyes of the LORD" (v. 4b). The woman's marriage to the second man is
similar to adultery (cf. the use of tama' in Lev 18:20) but not equated with
adultery (the woman and the second man are not stoned to death); hence the text speaks of "defilement" rather than "adultery." Especially significant is that the law does not prohibit the woman's marrying a third man, only her return to her first husband. This is a striking witness to the irreparability of the marital bond once divorce and remarriage to another have occurred. (The woman's "divorce and remarriage" must be considered together. A divorce without her subsequent
remarriage to another person, leaves the way open for her return to her first
husband; cf. 1 Cor 7:10-11.) Once the sacred inviolability of the first bond has
been violated by divorce and remarriage, the bond can never be made inviolable
again. The first marriage is like a priceless vase which, once shattered, can never be restored (cf. Murray, 14). Cf. Yahweh's words to Israel, Jer 3:1, "If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and marries another man, should he return to her again? Would not the land be completely defiled? But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers - would you now return to me?"
4. Supportive regulations. All are agreed that divorce itself is not
commanded in Deut 24:1-4, and that the principal purpose of the passage is to
prohibit remarriage, v. 4. Yet there is more to be said concerning vv. 1-3.
a. How extensive is the legislation? Craigie comments: "In precise terms, there is only one piece of legislation in this passage, that contained in v. 4a.... The protasis contains incidental information about marriage and divorce, but does not specifically legislate on those matters. The verses do not institute divorce, but treat it as a practice already known, which may be either a matter of custom or of other legislation no longer known" (Deuteronomy, 304-5). In my judgment, this is rather misleading. To be sure, divorce itself is presupposed as an existing practice. However, the issuing of the "certificate of divorce" is not merely
a presupposed custom but an integral part of the Mosaic regulation. In other