The primary emphasis in this section of Matthew's Gospel is Jesus' instruction of His disciples to prepare them for the future.
Matthew evidently included this instruction because the marriage relationships of His disciples were important factors in their effective ministries. Jesus clarified God's will for His disciples that was different from the common perception of His day. He dealt with the single state as well as the essence of marriage and the subjects of divorce and remarriage.
19:3 The Pharisees again approached Jesus to trap Him (cf. 12:2, 14, 38; 15:1; 16:1; 22:15, 34-35). This time they posed a question about divorce. In 5:31-32, Jesus had taught the sanctity of marriage in the context of kingdom righteousness. Here the Pharisees asked Him what divorces were legitimate. Perhaps they hoped Jesus would oppose Herod as John had done and would suffer a similar fate. The Machaerus fortress where Herod Antipas had imprisoned and beheaded John was nearby, east of the north part of the Dead Sea. Undoubtedly the Pharisees hoped Jesus would say something that they could use against Him.
Both the NASB and NIV translations have rendered the Pharisees' question well. They wanted to know if Jesus believed a man could divorce his wife for any and every reason. The Mosaic Law did not permit wives to divorce their husbands.
There was great variety of opinion on this controversial subject among the Jews. The Qumran community, for example, believed that divorce was not legitimate for any reason.708In mainstream Judaism there were two dominant views both of which held that divorce was permissible for "something indecent"(Deut. 24:1). Rabbi Shammai and his school of followers believed the indecency was some gross indecency though not necessarily adultery. Rabbi Hillel and his school interpreted the indecency more broadly to include practically any offense that a wife might have committed, real or imagined by the husband. This even included a wife not cooking her husband's meal to his liking. One of Hillel's disciples, Rabbi Akiba, permitted a man to divorce his wife if a prettier woman caught his eye.709Josephus was a divorced Pharisee, and he believed in divorce "for any causes whatsoever."710In many Pharisaic circles "the frequency of divorce was an open scandal."711
19:4-6 Jesus' citation of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 shows that He believed that marriage unites a man and a woman in a "one flesh"relationship. He was the Creator in view (v. 4) though He did not draw attention to that point (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16). The phrase "for this cause"(v. 5) in Genesis 2:24 refers to Adam's awareness that God had made Eve out of his bone and flesh, from him as well as for him. She was related to him in the most intimate sense. When a man and a woman marry, they become one flesh thus reestablishing the intimate type of union that existed between Adam and Eve before God separated Eve from Adam.
". . . the one flesh' in every marriage between a man and a woman is a reenactment of and testimony to the very structure of humanity as God created it."712
In view of this union, Jesus concluded, a husband and wife are no longer two but one (v. 6). God has united them in a "one flesh"relationship by an act of creation. Since God has done this, separating them with divorce is not only unnatural but rebellion against God. Essentially Jesus allied Himself with the prophet Malachi rather than with any of the rabbis. Malachi had revealed that God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16).
Jesus focused on the God-ordained and supernaturally created unity of the married couple. The rabbis stressed the error of divorce as involving taking another man's wife. Jesus appealed to the principle. He went back to fundamental biblical revelation, in this case Creation. He argued that marriage rests on how God made human beings, not just the sanctity of a covenantal relationship between the husband and the wife.713Marriage does not break down simply because one partner breaks his covenant with his or her spouse. God unites the husband and wife in a new relationship when they marry that continues regardless of marital unfaithfulness.
19:7 Jesus had not yet answered the Pharisees' question about how one should take the Mosaic Law on this subject, so they asked Him this question. Granting Jesus' view of marriage, why did Moses allow divorce? In the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage to which the Pharisees referred, God showed more concern about prohibiting the remarriage of the divorced woman and her first husband than the reason for granting the divorce. However the Pharisees took the passage as a command (Gr. entellomai) to divorce one's wife for any indecency. God intended it as only a permission to divorce, as the passage itself shows.
19:8 Jesus explained that the concession in the Mosaic Law was just that, a concession. It did not reflect the will of God in creation but the hardness of the human heart. Divorce was not a part of God's creation ordinance any more than sin was. However, He permitted divorce as He permitted sin because not permitting it creates worse situations.
"Moses regulated, but thereby conceded, the practice of divorce; both were with a view to (pros) the nation's (hymon) hardness of heart: since they persist in falling short of the ideal of Eden, let it at least be within limits."714
This is not saying that the Israelite who divorced his wife for the reasons God permitted committed sin, though he did. It is saying that the divorce option that God granted the Israelites testifies to man's sinfulness. Therefore one should always view divorce as evidence of sin, specifically hardness of heart. He or she should never view it as simply a morally neutral option that God granted, the correctness or incorrectness of which depended on the definition of the indecency. The Pharisees' fundamental attitude toward the issue was wrong. They were looking for grounds for divorce. Jesus was stressing the inviolability of the marriage relationship.
Notice in passing that Jesus never associated Himself with the sin in the discussion. He consistently spoke of the peoples' sin as theirsin or yoursin, never as oursin (cf. 6:14-15). This is a fine point that reveals Jesus' awareness that He was sinless.
What was the indecency for which Moses permitted divorce? It was not adultery since the penalty for that was death, not divorce (Deut. 22:22). However, it is debatable whether the Israelites enforced the death penalty for adultery.715It could not be suspicion of adultery either since there was a specified procedure for handling those cases (Num. 5:5-31). Probably it was any gross immoral behavior short of adultery, namely fornication, which includes all types of prohibited sexual behavior. Even though divorce was widespread and easy to obtain in the ancient Near East, the Israelites took marriage somewhat more seriously than their pagan neighbors.
19:9 Jesus introduced His position on this subject with words that stressed His authority: "I say to you"(cf. 5:18, 20, 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 8:10; 16:18, 28). His was the true view because it came from Him who came to fulfill the law. Matthew recorded only Jesus' words concerning a man who divorces his wife, probably because in Judaism wives could not divorce their husbands. However, Mark recorded Jesus saying that the same thing holds true for a woman who divorces her husband (Mark 10:12).716
There are four problems in this verse that account for its difficulty. First, what does the exception clause include? The best textual evidence points to the short clause that appears in both the NASB and the NIV translations, "except for immorality"or "except for marital unfaithfulness."717
Second, what is the meaning of porneia("immorality"NASB, "marital unfaithfulness"NIV, "fornication"AV) in the exception clause? Some interpreters believe it refers to incest.718However, there is no evidence of which I am aware that the Jews ever regarded an incestuous relationship as constituting marriage. Furthermore Paul used this word to describe prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:13 and 16. In other words, porneiadoes not mean just incest.
Others believe porneiarefers to premarital sex, in which case if a man discovered that his fiance was not a virgin he could divorce her.719Even though the Jews considered a man and a woman to be husband and wife during their engagement period, they were not really married. Consequently to consider this grounds for a divorce seems to require a redefinition of marriage that most interpreters resist.
Still others define porneiaas adultery.720However the normal Greek word for adultery is moicheia, which Matthew used back to back with porneiapreviously (15:19). Therefore they must not mean the same thing. It seems unlikely that porneiarefers to spiritual adultery in view of 1 Corinthians 7:12.
The best solution seems to be that porneiais a broad term that covers many different sexual sins that lie outside God's will. This conclusion rests on the meaning of the word.721These sexual sins, fornication, would include homosexuality, bestiality, premarital sex, incest, adultery, and perhaps others.
A third problem in this verse is why did Matthew alone of all the Synoptic evangelists include this exception clause, here and in 5:32, when the others excluded it? To answer this question we must also answer the fourth question, namely what does this clause mean?
Some scholars believe that Matthew simply added the clause himself to make what Jesus really said stronger. They assume that what Mark wrote represents what Jesus really said. This view reflects a low view of Scripture since it makes Matthew distort Jesus' words.
Another answer is that the exception clause does not express an exception. This view requires interpreting the Greek preposition epi("except") as "in addition to"or "apart from."However when me("not") introduces epiit always introduces an exception elsewhere in the Greek New Testament.
Another similar answer is that the exception is an exception to the whole proposition, not just to the verb "divorces."722In this case the porneiais not involved. We might translate the clause as follows to give the sense. "Whoever divorces his wife quite apart from the matter of porneia and marries another commits adultery."Thus in this view, as in the one above, there is no real exception. The main problem with this view, as with the one above, is its unusual handling of the Greek text. One has to read in things that are not there.
A fourth view is that when Jesus used the Greek verb apolyo("divorces") He really meant "separates from"and so permitted separation but not divorce.723Therefore there can be no remarriage since the marriage bond is still in tact. However in verse 3 apolyoclearly means "divorce"so to give it a different meaning in verse 9 seems arbitrary without some compelling reason to do so.
Other interpreters believe Jesus meant that in some cases divorce is not adulterous rather than that in some cases divorce is not morally wrong.724In the case of porneiathe husband does not make her adulterous; she is already adulterous. However the text does not say he makes her adulterous or an adulteress; it says he makes her commit adultery. If the woman had committed porneia, divorce and remarriage would not make her adulterous. However divorce and remarriage would make her commit adultery. The major flaw in this view is that in verse 9 it is the man who commits adultery, not his wife.
Probably it is best to interpret porneiaand the exception clause as they appear normally in our English texts. Jesus meant that whoever divorces his wife, except for some gross sexual sin, and then remarries someone else commits adultery (cf. 5:32).
"On any understanding of what Jesus says . . ., he agrees with neither Shammai nor Hillel; for even though the school of Shammai was stricter than Hillel, it permitted remarriage when the divorce was not in accordance with its own Halakah (rules of conduct) (M[ishnah] Eduyoth4:7-10); and if Jesus restricts grounds for divorce to sexual indecency . . ., then he differs fundamentally from Shammai. Jesus cuts his own swath in these verses . . ."725
Divorce and remarriage always involve evil. However just as Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of man's heart, so did Jesus. Yet whereas Moses was indefinite about the indecency that constituted grounds for a divorce, Jesus specified the indecency as gross sexual sin, fornication.726
Why then did Mark and Luke omit the exception clause? Probably they did so simply because it expresses an exception to the rule, and they wanted to stress the main point of Jesus' words without dealing with the exceptional situation. Since Matthew wrote for Jews primarily, he probably felt, under the Spirit's inspiration, that he needed to include the exception clause for the following reason.
Jesus' specification of marital unfaithfulness as the sole ground for divorce conflicted with the law's requirement that the Jews should stone those unfaithful in marriage. Jesus was also abolishing the death penalty for marital unfaithfulness by taking the position He took. He was teaching that His hearers could deal with marital unfaithfulness through divorce rather than through execution, though divorce was only a divine concession and not His preference. The subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews in view of Old Testament and rabbinic teaching on this subject.
19:10-12 Some scholars who believe that Jesus meant to discourage remarriage in verse 9 interpret the disciples' statement in verse 10 as evidence that they understood Him in this light.727If a person has to remain unmarried after he divorces, it would be better if he never married in the first place. However this is probably not what Jesus meant in verse 9. The evidence for this is His reference to eunuchs in verse 12 as well as the inferiority of this view as explained above.
Probably the disciples expressed regret because Jesus had come down more conservatively than even Rabbi Shammai, the more conservative of the leading rabbis. Jesus conceded divorce only for sexual indecency, as Shammai did, but He was even more conservative than Shammai on the subject of remarriage. He encouraged the disciples not to remarry after a divorce involving sexual indecency whereas Shammai permitted it. His encouragement lay in His clarification that marriage constitutes a very binding relationship (vv. 4-6). The disciples thought that if they could not divorce and remarry, as Hillel or even Shammai taught, they would be better off remaining single.
Jesus responded that not everyone can live by the strict verdict that the disciples had just passed in verse 10, namely never marrying. He did not mean that it is impossible to live with the standards He imposed in verses 4-9. If He meant the latter, He eviscerated all that He had just taught. Some could live by the strict verdict that the disciples suggested, namely eunuchs whom God graciously enables to live unmarried.
Jesus identified three types of eunuchs (v. 12). Some eunuchs were born impotent or without normal sexual drive and therefore remained unmarried. Other eunuchs were eunuchs because others had castrated them, most notably those eunuchs who served in government positions where they had frequent access to royal women. Still other eunuchs were those who had chosen an unmarried life for themselves so they could serve God more effectively. Thus in answer to the disciples' suggestion that Jesus' encouragement to remain unmarried presented an unreasonably high standard (v. 10), Jesus pointed out that many people can live unmarried. For those so gifted by God it is better not to marry. Those who can accept this counsel should do so.
However neither Jesus nor the apostles viewed celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Heb. 13:4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). They viewed it as a special calling that God has given some of His servants so they can be more useful in His service. Eunuchs could not participate in Israel's formal worship (Lev. 22:24; Deut. 23:1). However they can participate in the kingdom and, we might add, in the church (Acts 8:26-40; 1 Cor. 7:7-9). Evidently there were some in Jesus' day who had foregone marriage in anticipation of the kingdom. Perhaps John the Baptist was one, and maybe some of Jesus' disciples had given up plans to marry to follow Him (cf. v. 27). Jesus definitely was one for the kingdom's sake.
To summarize, Jesus held a very high view of marriage. When a man and a woman marry, God creates a union that is as strong as the union that bound Adam and Eve together before God separated Eve from Adam. Man should not separate what God has united. However, even though God hates divorce He permits it in cases where gross sexual indecency (fornication) has entered the marriage. Jesus urged His disciples not to divorce, and if they divorced He urged them not to remarry. However, He did not go so far as prohibiting remarriage. He encouraged them to realize that living unmarried after a divorce is a realistic possibility for many people, but He conceded it was not possible for all. A primary consideration should be how one could most effectively carry on his or her work of preparing for the kingdom.728
Matthew did not record the Pharisees' reaction to this teaching. His primary concern was the teaching itself. He only cited the Pharisees' participation because it illustrated their continuing antagonism, a major theme in his Gospel, and because it provided the setting for Jesus' authoritative teaching.
Another incident occurred that provided another opportunity for Jesus to emphasize the importance of childlike characteristics in His disciples (cf. ch 18).
19:13 It was customary for people to bring their children to rabbis for blessings.729The Old Testament reflects this practice (Gen. 48:14; Num. 27:18; cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3). The disciples rebuked those who brought the children to Jesus for doing so (Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15). The evangelists did not reveal why the disciples did this. However the fact that they did it revealed their need for Jesus' exhortation that followed. They were not behaving with humility as Jesus had previously taught them to do (ch. 18). Moreover Jesus' teaching about the sanctity of marriage (vv. 4-6) did not affect how they viewed children. The Jews cherished their children but viewed them as needing to learn, to be respectful, and to listen.
19:14-15 Jesus welcomed the children. This attitude is harmonious with His attitude toward all the humble, dependent, needy, trusting, and vulnerable people who came to Him. Furthermore children coming to Him symbolized people with the characteristics of children coming to Him. Jesus did not want to discourage anyone like them from coming to Him. He did not say the kingdom belonged to children but to people who are similar to children. Children provided anexcellent object lesson that Jesus used to illustrate the qualities necessary for entering and serving in the kingdom.
The difference between this lesson and the one in chapter 18 is that there the focus was on the childlike quality of humility that is so important in a disciple. Here Jesus broadened the lesson to include other childlike characteristics all of which are important.
Again someone approached Jesus with a question that provided an opportunity for Jesus to give His disciples important teaching (cf. v.3).
There is a theological connection between this section and the former one. The death of Jesus provided the basis for God's gracious dealings with believers in His Son. This connection is clear to Matthew's readers because Matthew selected his material as he did, but the disciples probably did not see it when Jesus revealed it.
20:17 Matthew's reference to Jesus' going up to Jerusalem reminds the reader of the climax toward which the conflict between the religious leaders and Jesus was heading. Of course, Jerusalem was up topographically from most places in Israel, but the idea of going up there was metaphorical as well since Jerusalem was the center of national life. The rejection of Messiah is, of course, one of the main themes in Matthew's Gospel. The writer did not say that Jesus had begun moving toward Jerusalem, only that He prepared His disciples further for that next important step.
20:18-19 Jesus was taking His disciples up to Jerusalem for the Passover celebration there. While there, the Son of Man would somehow be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, His antagonistic opponents. This implied a betrayal. They would condemn Him to death. This implied legal proceedings. He would fall under the control of the Gentiles who would ridicule, torture, and crucify Him. The Romans were the only Gentiles with authority to crucify. The Jews did not have this power under Roman rule. Three days later Jesus would be raised up to life.
This was Jesus' third and most specific prediction of His death (16:21; 17:22-23; cf. 12:40; 16:4; 17:9). He mentioned for the first time the mode of His death, crucifixion, and the Gentiles' part in it. Jesus' ability to predict His own death was another indication of His messiahship. His willingness to proceed toward Jerusalem in view of what lay before Him shows that He was the Suffering Servant obedient even to death on a cross.
"These three passion-predictions are the counterpart to the major summary-passages found in the second part of Matthew's story (4:23; 9:35; 11:1). The function they serve is at least twofold. On the one hand, they invite the reader to view the whole of Jesus' life story following 16:21 from the single, overriding perspective of his passion and resurrection. On the other hand, they also invite the reader to construe the interaction of Jesus with the disciples throughout 16:21-28:20 as controlled by Jesus' concern to inculcate in them his understanding of discipleship as servanthood (16:24-25; 20:25-28)."742
This pericope shows that the disciples did not understand what Jesus had said (cf. Luke 18:34).
"Despite Jesus' repeated predictions of his passion, two disciples and their mother are still thinking about privilege, status, and power."743
20:20 Evidently James and John approached Jesus with their mother who voiced the request for them (cf. Mark 10:35). The reason they took this approach was not significant to the Gospel writers though it suggests some reticence on the part of James and John. Evidently they believed Jesus would be more favorable to their mother's request than to theirs perhaps because Jesus had been teaching them to be humble. Their kneeling implied respect but not necessarily worship.
20:21 The request evidently grew out of what Jesus had said about the Son of Man sitting on His throne of glory and the disciples judging the 12 tribes of Israel (19:28). The right and left hand positions alongside Jesus suggest positions of prestige and power in His kingdom. Note that the disciples viewed the messianic kingdom as still future. The fact that they would make this request shortly after Jesus had again announced His death shows how little they understood about His death preceding the establishment of the kingdom. They did not understand the need for the Cross much less Jesus' resurrection, ascension, and an inter-advent period.
20:22 The disciples and their mother did not realize that the Cross must precede the crown. To share the crown they would have to share the Cross. Since they did not know what that involved for Jesus they could hardly appreciate what it would mean for them (cf. 5:10-12; 10:37-39). The "cup"in Old Testament figurative usage refers to judgment or retribution (cf. Ps. 75:8; Isa. 51:17-18; Jer. 25:15-28). Jesus used this figure to represent the divine judgment that He would have to undergo to pay for the sins of humanity. The disciples evidently thought that all He meant was popular rejection.
20:23 Jesus answered the disciples on their own terms. They would experience popular rejection. James would become the first apostolic martyr (Acts 12:2) and John would suffer exile (Rev. 1:9), but Jesus would not determine who will sit on His right and left in the kingdom. The Father, under whose authority Jesus served, had already determined that (cf. Mark 10:40).
20:24-27 James and John's request evidently offended the other disciples because they were hoping for those positions. Greatness in the kingdom was still much on their minds despite Jesus' teaching on humility and childlikeness (cf. 18:10).
"The fact that the other disciples were angered at James and John shows that they were in heart and spirit no better than the two brothers. . . . They all wanted the first place."744
Jesus proceeded to contrast greatness in the pagan Gentile world with greatness in His kingdom. He did not criticize the abuse of power that is so common in pagan governments. Rather He explained that the structure of power that exists in pagan governments would be absent in His kingdom. In pagan governments people who promote themselves over others get positions of leadership. However in Jesus' kingdom those who place themselves under others will get those positions. In pagan governments those are great who get others to serve them, but in Jesus' kingdom those who served others will be great. To make His point even clearer Jesus used "servant"(Gr. diakonos) in verse 26 and then "slave"(Gr. doulos) in verse 27.
20:28 Jesus presented Himself, the Son of Man, as the supreme example of a slave of others. He would even lay down His life in the service of others, not just to help them but in their place. As Messiah, Jesus had every right to expect service from others, but instead He served others.
"To be great is to be the servant (diakonos) of many; to be first is to be the bond-servant (doulos) of many; to be supreme is to give one's life for many."745
The Greek word lytron("ransom") was a term used frequently in non-biblical Greek to describe the purchase price for freeing a slave.746This word connotes a purchase price whenever it occurs in the New Testament.747"For"(Gr. anti) indicates the substitute nature of Jesus' death.748The "many"for whom He would die could be the elect or all mankind (cf. Isa. 52:13-53:12). Other passages seem to favor the interpretation that by His death Jesus made all people savable. However only the elect experience salvation and enter the kingdom (e.g., John 3:16; Eph. 1:4-7). This is one of the great Christological and soteriological verses in the Bible. It is also the first time that Jesus explained the reason He would die to His disciples.
"The implication of the cumulative evidence is that Jesus explicitly referred to himself as Isaiah's Suffering Servant . . . and interpreted his own death in that light . . ."749
Even on the way to give His life a ransom for many Jesus continued to serve, as this pericope shows. Rather than delivering Himself from the fate He foresaw, He mercifully and compassionately delivered others from their afflictions.
20:29 Jesus and His disciples left Jericho at the north end of the Dead Sea and proceeded west up the Judean wilderness toward Jerusalem for the Passover feast (cf. v. 17). Great crowds continued to follow Jesus, undoubtedly to benefit from His healing ministry. The road was probably full of Jews making their way to Jerusalem for the feast.
20:30 Probably the blind men were begging (cf. Mark 10:46).750They cried out to Jesus for help appealing to Him as the Son of David for mercy (cf. 9:27; 21:9). This title expressed their belief that Jesus was the Messiah.751They wanted Jesus to heal them (v. 33).
20:31-34 Matthew's version of this healing stresses Jesus' compassion that overcame the opposition of the crowds to provide healing for these men (cf. 19:13-15). When Jesus previously healed two blind men in Galilee, He commanded them to tell no one about the healing. He did not do that here because it was now unnecessary to conceal His identity. Jesus would soon publicly proclaim His messiahship in the Triumphal Entry (21:1-11). The healed blind men immediately followed Jesus. This was the proper response for people who had come to see who Jesus was. These believers in His messiahship became disciples.
It is significant that these men where physically blind but spiritually perceptive regarding Jesus' identity. The other disciples had recently demonstrated their own spiritual imperceptibility (vv. 17-23). Jesus had taught them that insight into messianic truth came only from divine revelation (16:17).
"The sight' of these blind men discloses the blindness' of Israel's sight."752
"The giving of sight to the blind is a dramatic miracle that points to the dawning of the era of messianic fulfillment. The Son of David is present among his people. And as he compassionately delivers them from their literal darkness, so he continues on his way to Jerusalem, where in his sacrificial death he will deliver all of humanity from an even greater darkness--that of the bondage to sin and death. . . . This healing pericope thus may be seen as the gospel in a microcosm."753
This was the last public miracle that the evangelists recorded Jesus' doing before His death. Even though the nation as a whole rejected Jesus, individuals continued to believe that He was the Messiah. The postponement of the kingdom did not rule out personal salvation for anyone who believed. They would enter the messianic kingdom by resurrection at the Second Coming (Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2). For this reason Jesus continued to present Himself to Israel as her Messiah in the Triumphal Entry. This miracle is a prelude to that presentation in Matthew's Gospel.
