For another, she may have remarried herself. First, to what statement does He refer, and, second, who are the men to whom that statement had been given? If one or both partners has divorce readily in their mind as a convenient option, divorce will be much more likely. b. It is unlikely that this new occasion would have contributed effectively to the desired effect, unless Herods name were explicitly mentioned in that context. Jesus simply called this man to be His follower; but for this man it meant leaving behind the riches he had set his heart upon. The number 3 location is even more confusing grammatically and conceptually. It is true that just as it is not proper to describe accidental homicide as murder, it is also true that it is not proper to describe divorce grounded in porneia as adulterous However, to argue that divorce is yet some other kind of sin would be as wrong as calling accidental homicide a moral offense. It is a unity of soul as well as of body: of sympathy, interest, purpose. (Bruce). Thus it is improper to say that all divorces that end in remarriage are adulterous. Jesus lays it down that there will be surprises in the final assessment it may be that those who were humble on earth will be great in heaven, and that those who were great in this world will be humbled in the world to come. (Barclay), ii. i. Perhaps for this reason Mark omits it. The major differences between the two Gospel accounts vis-a-vis the conflate reading seem to be four in number: 1. By using the principle that the prepositional phrase modifies the verb that precedes it, they object strenuously to any attempt to make it modify both parts of the protasis. "William Barclay's Daily Study Bible". 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. This is the only substantive response of the disciples to the saying of Jesus. To kill someone and cremate them is murder. (Spoken with regard to simplistic appeals to the lexicon in determining the meaning of a word) it is the context in which a word appears where it is used on the lips of a particular individual with a given meaning he intends to convey-all of this indicates to the reader how a word is being used. (I would add that the same warning is even more appropriate where syntax is involvedsince syntax often involves higher level interpretation than the mere meaning of a word.)357. II. The woman who intentionally has sex with another man sunders her marriage. To kill someone, if it was not by accident, and to cremate them is murder. To fail to forgive and restore certainly releases the guilty party from an obligation to remain unmarried, because it puts the guilty shoe onto the other foot. All these things I have kept from my youth: It is fair to ask if this man really had kept these commandments. Marriage is like a mirror; it reflects what we put into it. The third difference, the reversal clause, seems an oddity. If either party does, that party sunders the marriage by the divorce action. Pauline Epistles This raises an interesting consideration. 373 Cf. With these sayings, Jesus has properly and completely answered the test question of the Pharisees. Again by way of reference, the subjunctive mood shows some hesitancy, as if the action might not happen. Consequently theyare no longer two, but one flesh. The guilty becomes the innocent, and the innocent becomes the guilty. It shares this with the celibacy-of-the-divorced view, but has the benefit of being simpler. GenesisExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomyJoshuaJudgesRuth1 Samuel2 Samuel1 Kings2 Kings1 Chronicles2 ChroniclesEzraNehemiahEstherJobPsalmsProverbsEcclesiastesSong of SongsIsaiahJeremiahLamentationsEzekielDanielHoseaJoelAmosObadiahJonahMicahNahumHabakkukZephaniahHaggaiZechariahMalachiMatthewMarkLukeJohnActsRomans1 Corinthians2 CorinthiansGalatiansEphesiansPhilippiansColossians1 Thessalonians2 Thessalonians1 Timothy2 TimothyTitusPhilemonHebrewsJames1 Peter2 Peter1 John2 John3 JohnJudeRevelation, Select a Beginning Point But then, they doubtless thought they smelled the blood of victory. Minor Prophets In the divorce legislation, the this refers to the rules of marriage, which any who marry are expected to observe; there is no indication anywhere in the Bible that the ability to keep essential marital vows is a gift, unless it is a gift with which even fallen humans are born.396. The ironic approach has Jesus saying that of course there are some who do not need to pay attention to His teaching: eunuchs. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. Honor God with your marriage. This is to say, the problem is the divorce itself.372 So too here, it is not the remarriage itself that is the problem. Therefore, I do contend that the divorcing and remarrying are historically united in the hypothetical wrongdoing.377. Their question arose from Moses 's teaching in Deuteronomy regarding divorce. It is my thought that the Greek conjunction here reflects a similar use of the Hebrew vav (and) See TWOT, Vol. To do so would be to make a mockery of divine justice. What, then, is the full teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage? The word is a diminutive of , which originally means the inner bark of the papyrus, used for . Otherwise, it would not have been wrong for the party of the first part to go ahead and make a contract with the party of the third part. It is true that the Bible says that divorce and remarriage are adultery in Luke 16:18, but it is open to question exactly what that means. Even the guilty party who repents but is not forgiven is not to be identified with the divorce/remarriage prohibited by Christ. So, too, the statements in Luke and Mark may only be general rules. As for their own explanation, they feel that the Greek structure present in the verse may only properly be interpreted in their way, which later they refine to say that putting away for reasons other than unchastity is forbidden; and remarriage after every divorce is adulterous. This latter statement arises from their opinion that we are dealing with two conditional statements, one that is qualified and one that is unqualified or absolute.361. 5. The Gospels These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features. Hardly! 343 So John MacArthur in his tape series on divorce. i. Hundredfold is obviously not literal in a material sense; otherwise, Jesus promises a hundred mothers and a hundred wives. 19 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. Perhaps what I have said so far helps to explain the fourth of the points of significant difference: the different representations of Moses. In doing so, we wish to understand the message of each Gospel account in its own right and thereby understand why each included or omitted material from the original, longer reading. a. The prior material (Matt. It is an aside from the major point: the husband does not have a right to end his marriage.365. The religious leaders had reason to believe they had caught Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. His response is not as detailed as that already given. Matthew 19 | NKJV Bible | YouVersion How incredibly shortsighted to forgo the pleasures and profits of marriage simply because it is nearly impossible to get out of it! It is especially doubtful when they knew in their hearts that John (and presumably Jesus) was in accord with the Law. This interpretation does commend itself for insisting upon a connection to the saying of Jesus rather than the response of the disciples, but there is no reason to assume that the connection drawn is correct. The parable in the following chapter will illustrate this principle. 3. iii. context of Malachis prophecy (which condemned Jews who had divorced their Hebrew wives in order to marry women of the landchapter 2), my translation/ interpretation of kai as having the sense of for the purpose of marrying again is the interpretation of preference, though it is a rather rare use of and.. 1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. As the Lord has called you, walk in that place right now. Derretts view, highlighted by Heth/Wenham in an appendix to Jesus (pp. Thus, I believe that they are hasty in their conclusions. Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife: Divorce was a controversial topic in Jesus day, with two main schools of thought, centered around two of its most famous proponents. It is because of male hard hearts, not on behalf of them. Marcion could have been an inerrantist is such an approach is allowed! The New Testament This statement rings like a hammer upon their feeble words. The disciples will have a special role in the future judgment, probably in the sense of administration in the millennial Kingdom. Both tables of the law will test every person before God. (Matthew 19:4-6) Jesus first answer to the Pharisees: get back to marriage. On most understandings of the chronology of the life of Christ, this confrontation is thought to come after the Sermon, and likely after the confrontation over stewardship. For Mark to do so, when he has previously edited out a matter of discipline, should not be. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain. 28. Wealth And The Kingdom Of Heaven (Matthew 19:16-30) First, the term this statement is a significant unit in Matthews Gospel and elsewhere it always refers to the words of Jesus which He has just finished delivering.386 Second, they observe, with Quesnell, that it is not customary in Gospel writings for the disciples responses to Jesus teaching to be positively received by Christ.387 In the published version of Jesus and Divorce they altered this section. (Read Matthew 19:16-22) Christ knew that covetousness was the sin which most easily beset this young man; though he had got honestly what he possessed, yet he could not cheerfully part with it, and by this his want of sincerity was shown. He failed to observe the spirit both of the second and the first table. i. But I do not think this is a proper evaluation. 5 for a full discussion of the meaning of this term and a treatment of the different views that are held about its intended meaning. Cf. So the permission to divorce has nothing to do with condescending to wicked men, but everything to do with preserving innocent women.344. Study Guide for Matthew 19 by David Guzik - Blue Letter Bible 341-42 (see chap. Jesus didnt keep on speaking the saying, He was saying it once. Had they been interested in Herod, they would have asked Jesus if there was any reason a man was required to put away his wife. The Whole Bible Jesus, in His subsequent condemnation of them, sarcastically derided them for their failure to be proper teachers of the Law, though they considered themselves such (Matt. You can copy the order of your preferred Bible translations from the Bibles Tab to the Version Picker (this popup) or vice versa. At present there are three major interpretations of the eunuch saying that follows Jesus dialogue with the Pharisees and comprises His response to the reaction of His disciples. chap. ii. New International Version I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." New Living Translation And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adulteryunless his wife has been unfaithful." English Standard Version This view does not reflect negatively upon the institution of marriage. The only difference is that the specific objects of remarriage in Malachis day were illicit per se according to Exodus and Deuteronomy. The disciples suggest it would be better not to marry, at all, in that case. Paul will later (1 Cor. 3 and 4. Thus, Jesus could have said, If a woman divorces her husband, except on the grounds of abuse, and marries another, she commits adultery. But the issue of a womans grounds never came up and the Old Testament position rules. 19:12). The verse does not contain two independent statements, only one. Believing the Bible teaches that the one-flesh bond can be multiple (for the male) and broken (by willful breach of covenant), I reject Derretts theory. At no point is this more evident than in the eunuch saying, where the chauvinism of the disciples is quite pronounced. i. The New Testament 2 Large crowds followed him there, and he healed their sick. He did not come as a judge. The woman who was treacherously divorced could remarry without moral stigma, according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4.369. Jesus does not demand that forgiveness be given, or that the offended wait forever to hear a confession in order to get about the activities of everyday life. Further, the celebrated exception clauses are merely an application of the principle stated in the Old Testament Prophets that divorce is a tragic means of discipline to make the offending spouse come to his or her senses and be reconciled. One final thought on the matter: it is arguable that Heth/Wenham are essentially correct about the exception clause modifying the divorce and not the remarriage without granting them their cherished conclusion that remarriage is always adulterous. Simply put, it is the same as that of the Old Testament Law and the Prophets. So Israel did in their times of national revival. Commentary on Matthew 19:16-22. But what do you really know about goodness? The argument is clear: either Jesus was good, or he ought not to have called him good; but as there is none good but God, Jesus who is good must be God. (Spurgeon). Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. Matthew, on the other hand, includes a large section on discipline. The woman was to be exclusive to him but not the reverse. a. 375 In the sense of breaking the moral canons of covenant. 21:11, 26 f.) is not blunted by anything said by our Lord. They cite the frequency of such negating prepositional phrases modifying what comes before rather than what comes behind, but happily forget their own admission that there are perhaps no other instances quite like this one (a complex conditional with the negating phrase interrupting the conditions). Matthew, p. 416. That translation would be clear had the text used the tense called pluperfect. But it uses the simple perfect instead, which should be rendered from the beginning all the way up to the point of my speaking these words. To be more specific, I take this verb to be an intensive perfect. That form is the strong way of saying that a thing is.345 In other words, Jesus is not trying to distinguish between a dispensation up to Moses, followed by an hiatus, in turn terminated by Jesus present teaching, but rather a continuing divine attitude that runs clear from the beginning of creation up to the point of the Lords speechright through the time of Moses and the exercise of the Law! (Matthew 19:23-26) Riches as an obstacle to the kingdom. And the fact that the Lord has shifted His attention to them is clear. i. And, although the Scriptures never state that the second wife is guilty of adultery, we may presume that, if she is a party to the treachery, she is guilty of the same sin. ii. The bond is broken when the covenanted promises (to provide for the first wife) are not kept. But did the accounts preserved by Matthew 19 and Mark 10 arise from a single event? Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?. Matthew Henry Bible Commentary (complete) In this chapter, we have, I. Christ changing his quarters, leaving Galilee, and coming into the coasts of Judea (v. 1, 2). You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. Besides, he had unequivocal proof that these contributed nothing to his comfort, for he is now miserable even while he possesses them! Recognizing the value of consistent reflection upon the Word of God in order to refocus one's mind and heart upon Christ and His Gospel of peace, we provide several reading plans designed to cover the entire Bible in a year. 21:23 ff. 2. Jesus said firmly, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven' (v.22). b. 3 Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: "Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just . Matthew 19:7. Perhaps at this point it is worthy of note that a textual problem exists with the second conditional. Jesus was saying that the man who took advantage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and put away his wife was really guilty of the sin of adulterythough sexuality was not involved.353. In their eyes, this was the only safe answer: Moses did allow divorce. They fight among themselves over exactly what this right of the husband is, whereas God desires permanence. This verse raises many more questions, and much has been written about it by scholars. 18:21). Matthew 19:3-9 meaning | TheBibleSays.com Only divorce for immorality not followed by remarriage is not adulterous.. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. It is a study of alternative views of the exception clause as found in Matthew 19:9. Later yet, when they made one of their final attempts to discredit him, they again questioned Him about the Law (Matt. First, the questioning Pharisees are not identified as being of one party or another. 24:1-4 to find the places where the inspiration breaks! Note carefully that the entire section Matthew 18:15-35 is missing in Mark. Heth and Wenham want to make the point of committing adultery the remarriage. This does not exonerate the husband from the onus of sin, but only from the penalty of divorce. i. See both Chapter Four above, on the divorce teachings of the Old Testament prophets, and Heth/Wenhams own findings regarding the views of the early Church Fathers! Matthew 19:9New International Version. Such an assumption seems warranted subsequent to the fall of the Temple (A.D. 70), but J. Jeremias has shown that the divorce rate around that time was probably close to only 4 percent, hardly an overwhelming problem!339 Assuming that the Pharisees were aware of the popular view as evidenced by the prevailing rate of divorce, and assuming that the Pharisees were aware of Jesus conservative position on divorce as evidenced by the Sermon and by Luke 16, it would have been counter-productive to their goal of discrediting Jesus with the populace to have shown Him to be conservative like Shammai. . Instead, many rich people can do more good in the world by continuing to make money and using those resources for the glory of God and the good of others. Our website uses cookies to store user preferences. Those should not be forgiven and restored. Surely not. As to the responsibility of a man to sooner or later divorce the spouse as a matter of discipline, I shall have more to say presently. Jesus discerns a teachable (or is that rebukable) moment, and takes the initiative. i. Matthew is more specific and inclusive as a rule. Though polygamy was allowed under the Old Testament, it was never Gods best and men should have known so from looking at Genesis 2:24. d. What God has joined together: Jesus also reminded the Pharisees that marriage is spiritually binding before God. 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?". This means that the man will pay a reasonable amount of alimony and child support. In this case, the fact of a legal divorce does not displace the overall judgment that this woman and her new husband have been party in taking a mans wife (i.e., herself) for sexual purposes.407, Luke 16:18a, Matthew 19:9, and Mark 10:11 all reflect the Malachite oracle against unjustly divorcing a wife in order simply to marry another woman. This clause was discussed in the previous chapter. b. Prophets And it is to that matter, that is, the harmony of Jesus teaching on divorce, to the Old Testament. Even they themselves could not agree upon exactly what the grounds were. Alas for their argument. The first, granted by all scholars, is that Mark is a fast paced Gospel, designed that way, in all likelihood, so that it may function as a sort of catechetical tool, perhaps a manual on evangelism.401 His Gospel being a sort of primer focusing upon gospel issues, Mark considered the larger body of materials that were available to him and the other Gospel writers and edited out whatever material he thought superfluous to his task.402 It is my belief that Mark eliminated the exception clause for the sake of logical economy.403. Such a ploy is far more characteristic of the Pharisees. This alone tells us that this man had not perfectly kept the law, because he still knew that there was something missing in his life, prompting the question, What do I still lack? There was still something lacking in his life, reflecting something missing in his relationship with God. of Scripture. It is more than a matter of word count; it is the tip of a large iceberg. c. He laid His hands on them: With this, Jesus blessed the children. If such absolutistic, negative teaching were reaffirmed, they felt they could drive the wedge between Jesus and the Law, for the Law certainly did give the man the right to put his wife away, at least for adultery! Our answer is in one sense yes and in another no. (Matthew 19:21-22) Jesus tests him by the aspects of the Mosaic Law which deal with mans relationship to God. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. conservative Christian faith, which includes a firm belief in the inerrancy But many who are first will be last, and the last first.. 2. The Blue Letter Bible ministry and the BLB Institute hold to the historical, Matthew 19 NLT - Discussion about Divorce and Marriage - Bible Gateway They said that the man with a bad wife would never face hell, because he has paid for his sins on earth. Questions About Divorce (Matthew 19:1-12; Mark 10:1-12) The husband cannot raise some alleged right to exit the institution aside from his wifes previous breach. I believe otherwise. 24:1-4 and implicit in Exod. Whether she divorced him or was he was forced to end the legalities (as in Exodus) in such instances, the covenant was ended in the eyes of God when he abused her. There was a brother who preached very mightily, and who had won many souls to Christ, and it was revealed to him one night, in a dream, that in heaven he would have no reward for all that he had done. chap. Thus, if and when a man puts away his wife and marries another woman, he is committing adultery against the first wife. iii. As we noted in chapter 4, the reference to Abraham in the Malachi 2 passage affirms that these Hebrews could have taken these women as concubines (as Hagar had been), thus sort of half-wives, without moral stigma. The school of Rabbi Hillel understood uncleanness to mean any sort of indiscretion; even to the point where for some rabbis, burning a husbands breakfast was considered valid grounds for divorce. This view, called traditional by Heth and Wenham, is advocated by W. D. Davies and D. R. Catchpole.389 According to this view Jesus is agreeing with the disciples and issuing a call to celibacy. In other words, celibacy is elevated as a valid option for those who have not been given the gift of marriage (cf. He would be saved by works; yet he would not carry out his works to the full of the laws demand. But flesh in Hebrew thought represents the entire man, and the ideal unity of marriage covers the whole nature. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was Gods rule for minimizing the effects of treachery. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.. We shall not be rewarded, however, simply according to our apparent success. (Spurgeon), 2018 David Guzik No distribution beyond personal use without permission, The Whole Bible 3. Discussion about Divorce and Marriage. We have the parts, and, if we respect the integrity of the parts and their order, and try and blend them, presuming the least amount of redaction (thereby employing a form of the principle of parsimony), we may arrive at a conflate reading that is the base common to the traditions and perhaps well known to everybody involved in the writing of the New Testament. My own opinion is that these expositors have missed one of the more humorous texts in the New Testament. Therefore what shall we have? So Jesus said to them, Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. That would exclude Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to say nothing of David, Solomon, and Joseph of Arimathea. (Carson).
Homes For Sale In Ithaca, Mi,
How To Commute From Tondo To Sm Megamall,
Miss Stephanie Crawford Quotes With Page Numbers,
What Makes A Narcissist Leave You Alone,
Land For Sale In Atwater, Ca,
Articles M
