The detailed periscope in Matthew 19: 3-12

The detailed periscope in Matthew 19: 3-12

Marriage was meant to be a divine institution, but in today’s contemporary society, unions have become worldly. By worldly, I mean that people are defining marriages to suit their needs. People are getting married everywhere without really understanding what they are getting into, and when it gets tough, they divorce because of nonbiblical reasons. Today Jesus’ teachings though radical, are considered to be inconvenient. In my precis, I covered the issue of marriage and divorce, as revealed in the Gospel of Matthew and Mark, in attempts to uncover the true definition of marriage and divorce. The detailed periscope in Matthew 19: 3-12 will be used in this explanation to discover biblical descriptions for marriage and divorce, stipulated grounds for divorce, and God’s original plan for humanity.

Outline of Matthew 19: 3-12

(Introduction) The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him (19: 3a)

1. The first question from the Pharisees: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for justany reason?” (19:3b)
2. Jesus’ response:And He answered and said to them, (19: 4a)
3. Rebuke “Have you not read (19:4b)
4. Reference to Gen 1: 27: that He who ^[a]made themat the beginning   ‘made them male and female,’ (19: 4c)

 and said, (19:5a)

1. Quotes Genesis 2:24: ‘For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother (19: 5b)

and be joined to his wife, (19:5c)

and the two shall become one flesh’? (19:5d)

1. Inference of 5b-d: So then, they are no longer two (19:6a)

but one flesh. (19:6b)

1. Inferences of 6a-b: Therefore, what God has joined together, (19:6c)

let not man separate.” (19:6d)

They said to Him, (19:7a)

1. The second question from the Pharisees: “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, (19:7b)

and to put her away?” (19:7c)

1. Jesus’ response: He said to them, (19:8a)
2. Reason: “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, (19:8b)
3. permitted you to divorce your wives, (19:8c)
4. contrast to 8a: but from the beginning, it was not so. (19:8d)

And I say to you, (19: 9a)

1. Inference: whoever divorces his wife, (19:9b)
   1. exception for 9b and 9d: except for sexual immorality, (19:9c)
2. and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” (19:9d)

His disciples said to Him, (19:10a)

1. Implied question by the disciples: “If such is the case of the man with his wife, (19:10b)

False inference of 19: 9b-9d: it is better not to marry.” (19:10c)

But He said to them, (19: 11a)

1. Jesus’ response to the disciples: “All cannot accept this saying, (19: 11b)

but only those to whom it has been given: (19:11c)

1. Reason: For there are ^[c]eunuchs who were born thus from theirmother’s womb,(19: 12a)

and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, (19:12b)

and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs(19:12c)

for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. (19:12d)

1. Conclusion: He who is able to accept it,let him accept ” (19: 12e)

This passage begins in Matthew 19, which is in the third section of the book of Matthew, marking the climax of Jesus’ life on earth. Jesus and the Pharisees are on a collision course. Since their ideas are diverted, there is no reconciling of their beliefs. This pericope is in the form of dialogue that follows the rabbinic proem Midrash. The Pharisees, therefore, come up to Jesus to trap him (v3) with a question that Jesus offers a preliminary answer (v4-6). The Pharisees inquire further on the issue with a counter-question(v7), and Jesus provides a counter reply (v8), and in verse 9, Jesus gives a climactic pronouncement. The next discussion is initiated by the disciples(v10) who respond to his teaching, and it is in the form of an objection to which Jesus wisely replies (v 11-12). To interpret and understand the application on Matthew’s discussion on divorce in this passage, there is a need to take into account the contextual indicators in the passage.

Matthew 19: 3-6

The verb testing is used in v3a to show attempts that Jesus’s opponents made to challenged him to say or do something that they could use against him (Mt 16:1, Mk 8:11, Mk 10:2, Lk 11:16). The pharisee’s motive was to trap Jesus, and this makes them dishonest.

Marriage among the Jews was considered a sacred duty. A man was expected to marry and bear children as a reflection of God’s glory. Though the Jews valued marriage, they viewed the women lowly, and this compromised the sanctity of marriage, and sadly, these compromises were made into law. While there were Jews such as Joseph (Mt. 1:19) who respected marriage, others did not honor it. Take the Samaritan woman; for example, had been married five times, and even the man she was living with at the time she had encountered Jesus was not her husband (Jn 4:18), yet she was familiar with the laws.

The term lawful used in v3b refers to the Torah. To divorce is to dissolve the union of marriage. Jesus is asked about the legality of divorce (v3b). It appears as though Jesus was being asked to choose between Shammai and Hillel’s views on the grounds for divorce. Hillel determined that a man could divorce his wife over any cause while the house of Shammai thought that divorce was unlawful except for adultery cases. Jesus had taught on divorce before in Galilee (Mt 5:31-32) and in Perea (Lk 16:18). It is possible that the Pharisees were aware of Jesus’ position but wanted him to declare it to incense the Jews who counted on the privilege of divorcing their wives. Maybe they wanted Jesus to teach something that contradicted his earlier doctrines hence accuse him of dissimulation. It could be that they wished to set Jesus against Herod and result in him being murdered as John the Baptist was. The Pharisees asked if it was right for a man to divorce his wife. In the Jewish setup, it was common for husbands to divorce their wives and not vice versa implying inequality.

In Matthew 19:4-6, the author modifies his Marcan source. While Matthew 19:3-12 and Mark 10: 2-12 can be considered parallel passages, Matthew having used the gospel of Mark as a source modifies it. He omits Jesus’ question regarding Moses’ law. His response can be considered Socratic. Jesus firmly rebukes the Pharisees and uses a counter-question to answer them (v4b). Jesus was trying to prove that the Pharisees did not read with understanding, and this must have infuriated them. Jesus paraphrased Gen 1:27 and asserts that God created men and women (v4c) in his likeness and establishes fundamental equality between spouses. Jesus goes ahead and quotes Gen 2:24, which outlines the process of marriage. The verb leave used in this phrase in v5b indicates the shift of loyalty from one’s parents to their spouses. The two would be joined (v5c) to become one (v5d) outlining their relationship as of importance. To be a couple is to join, unite sexually. Marriage is, therefore, the bonding of a man and a woman per the plan of God who instituted the institution of marriage.

In reflection to the flesh, one has to consider how different men are from women just as Adam was different from eve, yet God calls them to be one flesh (6b). Jesus used the term chorizo, which means separate or sunder (6d). This word is not synonymous with putting away one’s spouse. He does not deny divorce, but he is pointing out that it is wrong to separate or sunder those joined in marriage. Jesus reveals that the Pharisees should not be concerned with the grounds for divorce because God had intended for marriage to be indissoluble.

Matthew 19: 7-9

The Pharisees counter asked about the certificate of divorce that Moses commanded to be issued (v7b). Since their original aim failed, they now take a new method. “A certificate of divorce” to the Jewish people meant that a man gave up his claim over his wife and offered her a legal notice of divorce. The Pharisees probably drew conclusions that God gave the command on divorce, where uncleanliness was involved with the seventh commandment that states that one should not commit adultery (Ex 20: 17). They expected Jesus to tell them directly that they must not get divorced and if he had said that, they would have claimed that he was taking away from and teaching contrary to the Old Testament guidelines,

In Jesus’ response, the preposition “because of” (v8b) is used to introduce the reason, that in respect to “the hardness of your heart (v8b)” Moses, “permitted you to divorce your wives (v8c).” The hardness of hearts, in this case, refers to the low moral state of humans and their inability to observe God’s laws as instructed initially.  It is important to note that in the book of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, there is no command regarding men divorcing their wives. Jesus corrects them by using the verb “permit” rather than “command (v8c).”

Some people may question if God is no different from an unjust steward (Lk 16: 5-7). The text implies that God is responsible for the Pharisees’ unrighteous stewardship of the law for He God that divorce would take place and made a concession for people to do as they pleased. Why then would God condemn humans for that which he allowed to happen? God did not permit divorce to encourage it but to minimize abuse. He is trying to save innocent women from men who would willingly set them aside and sometimes even physically abuse them if forced to keep them. It is not about God condescending to the wants of wicked men but his desire to preserve women.

Jesus further uses the preposition “but” in to contradict the provision given by Moses, noting that it was not so from the beginning (v8d). The beginning is at the start of creation and brings us to the introductory words in the gospel of John (Jn 1:1-3). Jesus does not attempt to explain to the Pharisees how God’s word was to be read and interpreted. This part of the passage raises the question if God is opposing Moses in light of its interpretation. Now, God is unchanging; could this, therefore, mean that Moses imposed his ideas compromised the pure teachings? Jesus had no intention of dividing Moses from God. In any case, if he had, the Pharisees would have quickly noted it and used it against him. This was a pharisaic implication that divorce was not God’s plan, and Moses’ provisions had nothing to do with the alleged moral right to divorce one’s wife. The issue was in how Moses’ laws were interpreted.

Jesus asserts, stating, “And I say to you (v9a)”. This phrase is usually followed with a pronoun to indicate that it is Jesus speaking, and the words that follow are Jesus’ right view regarding the issue. v9b is a conditional statement that is to be accompanied by a result. The verb “divorces” is in aorist tense hence does not indicate if the action is continuous or momentary. The word “whoever” indicates a dependent clause. It has been used to agree with the verb divorce regardless of what the rest of the sentence states. In Judaism, a woman could not divorce her husband, but the man had the authority to do away with her. Being aware of Matthew’s audience helps us understand the difference between his account and that of Mark. Mark was addressing a Roman audience, and the Roman law permitted wives and husbands to divorce each other.

It is possible that a husband could intentionally divorce his companion. The exceptional clause “except for” is introduced in v9c let the reader know of those who were excluded from God’s rule and stating that divorce was allowed where the wife was accused of sexual immorality (v9c).  Matthew uses the word “porneia.” It is not clear what this word means. It has been translated as unfaithfulness, lewd conduct, fornication, and seems to apply only for the wife. Sexual immorality in Judaism referred to unlawful sexual intercourse and participation in degrees of marriage considered illegal, such as fornication as outlined by the casuistic law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. What is not clear here is when chorizo takes place: is it at the point of porneia or the point of divorce?

Jesus interprets uncleanliness in this text to mean sexual immorality. Some Jews thought that uncleanliness in a woman is anything that displeased her husband e.g., burning her spouse’s breakfast. The man was not obligated to divorce his wife. However, he could if she found no favor in his eyes because her sexual immorality troubled him greatly. If a wife did not have a hard heart, she would not indulge in immoral sexual acts and would not be divorced. Equally, if a husband is not hard-hearted, he would forgive his wife, and his wife would still find favor in his eyes. However, since both parties are heard hearted, and God was aware of this weakness, he granted permission for divorce.

Jesus pointed out the consequences of ungrounded divorce and remarriage(v9d). The pronoun “another” refers to a different wife that a man takes. The verb commits adultery has been used in the form whereby the subject acts on himself. A protasis is evident here where two conditions are mentioned: divorce and marry. These conditionals are subjunctive; though there is no certainty that they will occur, if they do occur, it will be the male carrying them out, and this helps identify the direction of his actions. This gnomic truth implies that the man’s actions are unjust since he is not divorcing because of porneia but because of his desire to take another wife. The verb commits adultery is in the present indicative tense, implying that the offense of infidelity is ongoing in the hypothesized current time. The position of the exceptional clause suggests that the groundless divorce and remarriage are but adultery. Adultery was considered a character failure, and this can explain why Jesus equated remarriage to it. If God did not recognize its breaking, then it is still valid.

Matthew 19:10-11

The disciples gave a false inference to Jesus’ teachings implying that it is better to avoid marriage considering the weight of its consequences (v10b-c). This implied question indicates that the disciples comprehended the magnitude of this covenant and commitment hence thought of the alternative to avoid such a binding act. The disciple’s response implies that they had accepted the certificate of divorce as a simple escape from a marriage they considered unhappy. Jesus responds by pointing out that celibacy was for those empowered by God(11b) and not just everyone (v11a). The preposition “for” is then used to indicate the person that God gave celibacy to.

Eunuchs are incapable of marriage. Jesus mentions three classes of eunuchs. There were born that way (v12a), the seris ḥamma.  In the ancient days, the terminology born eunuch was used to refer to men who were homosexual. Could it, therefore, be that one born eunuch is a gift from God? However, Jesus, in this case, was referring to their congenital impotence. There were the seris adam: those who have been made incapable of marriage by other men (v12b) e.g., through castration, and this practice was common in the past. Some men voluntarily denounced marriage and to serve God(v12d). it is evident that women in those days were not considered incapable of marriage

Jesus is confronting them with the consequences of avoiding marriage. Some of the disciples, e.g., Peter (Mt 8:14), were married. Eunuchs were not considered as men in Judaism and could not be admitted to God’s assembly. They could not perpetuate their bloodlines, yet men were supposed to ensure the continuation of their bloodlines. Did the disciples, therefore, prefer that to marriage? Celibacy requires high measures of self-control and restraint. The only people who can accept celibacy are eunuchs who are in the position both physically and mentally to abstain from marriage (v12e).

To the Jews, this teaching implied that Jesus did not come to do away with the law. Jesus just challenged how the Jews applied some sections of the Mosaic law and offered fulfillment in him. Rather than concluding, Jesus was implying that the Pharisees should have read the word of God to understand it as God had intended rather than applying it to suit their situations. Jesus, as the word, came to restore creation to glory, and the Jews refused to acknowledge this. Rather than starting with Moses, the Jews should have started from inception. The Jews should have learned to treat women as highly as they treated the men since both were created in God’s image though they have different roles that should be governed by love.

Application

Some people today will declare that marriage is marriage as long as the people involved love one another. Besides love being the greatest commandment, marriage is a divine institution. God created a man and a woman. If he had intended for marriages to be homosexual, he would have created two males or two females. If he wanted marriages to be polygamous, he would have created one man and given him the companionship of two or many women. It is, therefore, safe to say that the same-sex marriages being formalized, polygamous marriages on the rise today are unbiblical for God created two genders for each other. With love, empathy, sensitivity, and wisdom, churches should address marriages that are considered unbiblical.

Today there is a high rate of divorces throughout the world compared to previous centuries. The number of single mothers is high, an indication of failed marriages. Most people get into a marriage without fully understanding that it is a binding act. People in this generation must realize that marriage is a covenant, and by divorcing one is breaking that covenant. Couples should be reminded they are “one flesh” (v 6b) and should not be separated (v6d). Where possible, rather than dissolving the union, spouses should seek to restore it. Youths should be educated on life partner choices

Christians today are actively involved in divorces, like the Pharisees they are blinded by sin to acknowledge Jesus’ actual teachings; instead, they try to modify them to suit their situations to get alternatives out of marriage. If Christians could open their hearts to God’s word, they would be convicted to accept that there are ways through which they can overcome marriage challenges than walking out. The provisions given for divorce are meant to regulate the act rather than encourage it.

Today some people may also choose to be single but still desire those of the opposite gender and indulge in sexual activities. Celibacy is not for everyone. Those who cannot restrain themselves and keep away from desire should marry. One can still serve God in their married status. It is okay to be celibate to serve God, but if they cannot withstand such a life, it is better to marry than sin by coveting.

As illustrated in this explanation, marriage is a sacred institution whose ordinance can be traced back to creation and should be between a man and a woman. As part of protecting life, humans should preserve marriage and sexuality. While upholding marriage, the church and the society at large should focus on safeguarding spouses and their children from being endangered through sexual abuse, violence and brutality, and abuse of power within the marriage context. Where restoration is possible, spouses should consider that rather than dissolving their union. On such vital matters, Christians should turn to Biblical teachings rather than the laws of society.