# 74: 12-3-19 1

Matthew 19:1-12

As the ministry of Jesus in Galilee drew to a close, we have seen the focus of Jesus turn from the Jewish
crowds to some intensive instruction of His disciples. He was preparing them for the time when He would
no longer be with them.

As true disciples, they must be willing to take up their cross, and follow Jesus; to become servants of all; to
seek out the lost, and gather them into the kingdom; to administer God’s authority, among His people; and
to forgive everything, always, for the sake of harmony and unity.

Were the disciples ready for this? We see time and again that they were not. It would take the death and
resurrection of their beloved Master to break open their hearts to His vital words - and then His Spirit
would drive those words home, to the very core of their being.

But at this time, the disciples are still not yet receptive to the vital mission of Jesus, even as they have
begun to journey with Him toward Jerusalem.

We continue in chapter 19 with the first two verses.

19:1-2 The “sayings” that Jesus finished refers to His teaching of His disciples about restoring relations in
the disciple community, and about forgiveness. This teaching was given in Galilee.

We read that Jesus came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. Now in that day, Judea didn’t extend
beyond the Jordan; that was the province of Perea, part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. But Judea often
was used to mean anything in the southern part of Israel. So Matthew would have been referring here to the
region on the east bank of the Jordan River.

Now, based on the events in Matthew’s gospel, it might seem to us that Jesus came to this region directly
and immediately after He left Galilee. But that impression is based on the teachings of Jesus that Matthew
is highlighting, in his gospel.

Looking at the gospels of Luke and John, it appears that at least several months elapsed between when
Jesus left Galilee, and when He came to this region; and during that time, He traversed Samaria, Perea, and
even Judea.

Some of the Jews from Galilee would have continued with Jesus, during this time, while some would
certainly have returned home. Meanwhile, Jesus developed a following from the new regions into which
He came. No doubt, the people heard of His reputation for miraculous healing; and He healed all who were
brought to Him - as He always did (Mt 4:23-24, 8:16-17, 9:35, 12:15).

But there were some others who came to Jesus for quite a different purpose. Many of the religious rulers
viewed Jesus as a threat to their authority with the people - especially the scribes and the Pharisees.

We have seen several confrontations between these religious figures and Jesus during His ministry in
Galilee. These confrontations will escalate when Jesus comes to Jerusalem - the base of their power.

19:3 We take it that these Pharisees might have been local, or they might actually have come to Jesus from
Jerusalem. They came to test Him - the idea is that they were doing so, with ill intent.
# 74: 12-3-19 2

Here was that teacher from Galilee that they had heard so much about - flocked by multitudes of the
common people, who were so taken by His words and His works. So these Pharisees sought to put Jesus
on the spot, concerning a controversial subject: divorce. These self-appointed experts on the Law wanted
to know, how does Jesus interpret the Law of Moses, concerning divorce?

Now, these Pharisees were not asking Jesus if divorce is lawful, in the first place. Their question presumes
that divorce is lawful. They are asking if it is lawful in every case; no matter what the situation.

Notice that they speak of a man divorcing his wife; but not the other way around. Although Roman law
permitted a wife to divorce her husband, Jewish courts gave the wife no such recourse. Only a Jewish man
could initiate a divorce. The Pharisees were asking, could the man do it for any reason whatsoever?

In Jesus’ day, there were two rabbinical schools of thought that were in vogue. The school of Shammai
tended to be more strict in its interpretation of the Law. Shammai taught the Law of Moses to mean that a
man could divorce his wife only if she committed adultery.

But the school of Hillel interpreted the Law of Moses more liberally. Their argument was based on the
relative silence of the Law, on the subject of divorce - for the Law said almost nothing about it. Therefore,
the school of Hillel maintained that the Law allowed a man to divorce his wife for any offense whatsoever;
even if he just didn’t like her anymore.

Which school do you think was more popular with the Jewish men? The school of Hillel - that said they
could divorce their wife even if she burnt the toast!

Now, the Pharisees who had come to see Jesus may well have sensed that God was not really that
permissive. But if Jesus sided with the school of Shammai, it would put Him in bad light with the common
people. On the other hand, if Jesus agreed with the school of Hillel, the Pharisees could paint Him as a
lawbreaker - or at least, as a teacher who was lax concerning the Law of Moses.

So which school did Jesus side with? Shammai or Hillel? Neither. Instead, to give these Pharisees the
right answer, Jesus takes them back in time, before the Law - all the way to the beginning.

19:4-6 “Have you not read?” Jesus asked the Pharisees. Of course they had read; and they had
memorized. But did they understand the meaning of what was writtten?

Jesus takes the Pharisees back to the beginning - when the Creator made the heavens, the earth, and all that
is in them. Let’s go back, to see it for ourselves. Turn to Genesis chapter 1.

[Genesis 1:1, 26-28, 2:7, 21-24]

1:1 Before the beginning was God - preexistent; self-existent; eternal. In the beginning, God created -
Elohim brought the entire universe into existence out of nothing at all; at one moment - the beginning of
time, of space, of matter, of energy - the entire physical universe. Over the next six days, Elohim shaped
His creation; forming and filling it, just by His Word.

And what was the final act of creation? The creation of mankind.

1:26-28 It’s in verse 27 that we find the part that Jesus quoted to the Pharisees, from the LXX: He “made
them male and female”. What was Jesus emphasizing, then? That God created mankind as male and
female; mankind is composed of two complementary parts.
# 74: 12-3-19 3

They are complementary in their bodies, aren’t they? You have the male sex, and the female sex. But this
design of God also has bearing on their being; men and women are different, not just on the outside, but on
the inside. And this design of God also has bearing on their role in society, as we shall see.

In this summary statement, in Genesis chapter 1, we see the male and the female, in their equality - equally
created in the image of God, equal in their responsibilities to God, which He gave to both of them - the
male and the female.

In Genesis chapter 2, we have the details of the creation of mankind.

2:7 So the man was formed first; later that same day, the woman was taken from the man, to have her own
separate existence. We read of this in verse 21.

2:21-22 They were one; then God made them male and female, two; but to fulfill God’s purpose - to be
fruitful and multiply, and to fill the earth - they would have to become one again, through the marriage
union.

So marriage is fundamental to the fulfillment of God’s purpose, for mankind - to fill the earth with sons of
God. Notice that it was the LORD God Himself who “married” them; He brought the woman to the man.
God did the joining. It is after this that we find the next statement the Jesus gave to the Pharisees, in verse
24.

2:24 Jesus had quoted the LXX; different wording, but the same ideas. Notice that this is a commentary on
the marriage union; we know that because there were no fathers or mothers yet! The wording of Jesus
shows us that it is God’s commentary, on marriage - which Moses recorded.

The Hebrew word we find here translated “joined” literally means glued, or cemented together. The idea is
that marriage is a permanent bond; a bond stronger than the bond to father and mother. The bond is so
strong that the male and the female are no longer two, but one; one flesh.

The idea is more than physical; their lives become wholly intertwined; inextricably woven together in this
new union, in which the male and the female each has a complementary role which completes a new whole
one; one flesh; husband and wife.

It is on the strength of the marriage bond that a new family is formed; the building block of human society,
from which come the subjects for God’s kingdom (Mal 2:14-15).

[Return to Matthew 19]

So then - Jesus said. The conclusion of the matter is that husband and wife are no longer two; they are one
flesh. And God Himself ordained it to be so; He Himself designed them male and female; and through the
marriage union, He Himself joined them together as one. No one has the right to separate what God has
joined together, as one.

What was Jesus saying to the Pharisees? That divorce is never right; never. God hates divorce (Mal 2:16).
Divorce always leaves two broken people in its wake; a broken man, and a broken woman. That’s
inevitable; because they became one flesh, in the marriage union. Broken people; broken families; broken
society. Jesus was saying that divorce was never part of God’s plan for mankind; only marriage is.
# 74: 12-3-19 4

But the Pharisees didn’t recognize that Jesus had answered them. Jesus was saying that God ordained
marriage for man; not divorce - and therefore their question had the wrong focus, to begin with. Their
occupation should have been with God’s ideal; not man’s failure.

But instead, the Pharisees saw in the words of Jesus what they thought to be a contradiction - a
contradiction with the Law of Moses. And so of course they pounced on it.

19:7 We need to first understand this counter-question of the Pharisees. First of all, when they speak of
Moses, they don’t mean Moses as a person; the individual. “Moses” was a way of referring to the Law of
Moses. Was Moses the author of the Law? No; the LORD was; it was given to Moses, for Israel, and
became known as the Law of Moses; or just “Moses”, as here.

So when the Pharisees spoke of Moses commanding to give a certificate of divorce, they are saying the
Law of Moses commanded it; in effect, that the LORD commanded it. The certificate of divorce was to be
given by a husband to his wife.

And just what was a certificate of divorce? It was a document which stated that the wife was being
dismissed by her husband; it certified that she was not an adulteress; she had merely come into her
husband’s disfavor. The certificate of divorce was to allow the opportunity for the woman to remarry, after
her first husband put her away; that is, divorced her.

The Pharisees were questioning Jesus as to why the LORD would command a certificate of divorce to be
given to a woman, if divorce was not allowed in the first place. Such a certificate would suggest that
divorce must be lawful - which contradicted what Jesus said about marriage.

Now, the Pharisees could only be citing one passage of the Law, which speaks of this certificate of divorce.
We find it in Deuteronomy chapter 24. Let’s go back and take a look at it together.

The Law concerning the certificate of divorce is found in the first four verses. It’s one long run-on
sentence, and it is citing only a very specific case. I’m going to read the whole sentence at once.

What I want you to notice is that what God commands in this matter is based on certain conditions. Notice
all of the conditional statements - “when”; “if”; “and” - before we come to what God commands “must not”
be done - for it is an abomination to Him. Please follow along with the NKJV, on your sheet. We’ll discuss
the KJV translation in a moment.

[Deuteronomy 24:1-4] So what is it that the LORD is commanding here? That a husband who has
divorced his wife must not take her back, if she has married another man, and the second husband has died
or divorced her. A very specific case!

This is an abomination before the LORD. Why? Because the first husband had separated what God had
joined together, and then he had rejoined himself with the wife he divorced, making a sham of marriage.
An abomination is a particularly heinous sin, one which has a corrosive effect on others. The defilement of
marriage by such an unholy rejoining would have a destabilizing effect on all of society.

Now based on this passage, the Pharisees were saying that the Law commanded the man to give a
certificate of divorce. But is that true? No.
# 74: 12-3-19 5

The certificate of divorce is just one of the qualifying conditions: “When a man takes a wife and marries
her; and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he perceives some uncleanness in her - that’s
something he detests (v. 3) - and he writes her a certificate of divorce” … etc. It’s a condition; not a
command. The KJV erroneously translates this as “then let him write her a bill of divorcement”, but there is
no command, in the Hebrew.

There is never a mention in Scripture of the LORD commanding the Jews to give a certificate of divorce. It
is only mentioned here, as a condition to the concluding command. What does this suggest? That the
LORD was not the originator of the certificate of divorce; that it was a man-made invention. The LORD
has never condoned divorce; in this passage, we see that He just sought to regulate it, in the Law that He
gave to Israel.

[Return to Matthew 19]

So we see that those who interpreted the Law gave it a meaning the LORD never intended - as the
Pharisees did, who were questioning Jesus - suggesting that the LORD commanded certificates of divorce,
in the Law. How convenient - to sanction man’s sin by codifying it in God’s Law! But Jesus would have
none of it.

19:8-9 Notice in the response of Jesus the different verb that He used. The Pharisees had said that Moses
commanded; Jesus says instead that Moses permitted. So what does this mean?

The LORD has established marriage as a sacred union, between one man and one woman. But then man
brought sin into the world. Sin is rooted in self-will, which puts its own interests and desires before those
of God - and of other human beings. It hardened men’s hearts, so that they were unwilling to serve God,
and to serve one another, in love.

Selfishness inhibits husband and wife from fulfilling their complementary roles, in marriage, generating a
lack of stability. And selfishness encourages husband and wife to look outside of the marriage, for their
fulfillment - further destabilizing the marriage.

Because of their hardness of heart, due to sin, God permitted divorce - because He gave man freedom of
choice, and would not take it away from him. But it was never what God intended for man; God intended
the good of marriage.

Then Jesus gave His authoritative word, in the matter - one which He had given before, when He spoke to a
multitude of Jews, in Galilee (Mt 5:31-32). The LORD would not take away man’s freedom to choose
divorce. But if it is done for any other reason than for sexual immorality on the part of the wife, the
husband is guilty of adultery, if he remarries; and the man who marries the woman is also guilty of
adultery.

Why would the two men be guilty of adultery? It can only be because the LORD views the first marriage
as intact - despite the so-called certificate of divorcement. I guess it wasn’t worth the paper it was written
on!

So Jesus was saying that the only case in which a man was permitted to divorce and remarry was for sexual
immorality on the part of his wife - her infidelity, presumably with another man. Why would this be?
Because this sin would have already caused the dissolution of the marriage union; in such a case, the
husband was completely innocent, and allowed to remarry.
# 74: 12-3-19 6

Now, we might think that this puts Jesus in agreement with the school of Shammai, who advocated divorce
only in the case of the wife’s adultery. But that is not so. Even this stricter school of thought suggested
that divorce in select cases is “lawful”. Jesus was saying that God ordained only marriage for mankind;
divorce is strictly a human contrivance, because of man’s lawlessness.

As we continue, we discover that the disciples have been present for this debate with the Pharisees, and
now offer an opinion of their own.

19:10 Can you hear a note of humor in what the disciples said, in response to the statement of Jesus? But
what they said is also very telling. It tells us that divorce was not uncommon, in Jewish society at that time;
and that it was viewed as a right of the husband.

Not only were husbands alone allowed to initiate the divorce; the husband became the judge in the case.
They simply dismissed their wives, for what they considered to be a good reason; sending them out of the
house.

You can see how this would put wives at a terrible disadvantage, resulting in great disparity within the
marriage relationship. How sad, when we consider the marvelous complementary equality that the LORD
had intended, for marriage! And what about the motivation of the two, within the marriage? It shifts from
mutual support and love, to selfish manipulation and fear.

What the disciples were essentially saying here is that it would be better not to marry at all, if there could
be no divorce - that is, no escape clause in the marriage contract. Or said more simply, staying married is
incredibly hard. It is, isn’t it? It takes the Lord, to have a successful marriage.

But Jesus uses the response of the disciples to bring out a more serious point - one He wishes them to
ponder.

19:11-12 Jesus began by saying to His disciples, “All cannot accept this saying”. What saying? What
Jesus had to say, about divorce? Or what the disciples then said about marrying? We can tell which Jesus
meant by what He speaks of next: eunuchs.

Eunuchs cannot have sexual relations, and therefore do not marry. This points to Jesus responding to what
the disciples said: “it is better not to marry”. They intended those words humorously; but Jesus wants
them to think about what they said, a little more deeply - and in a different way.

Jesus speaks of three kinds of eunuchs. There are those who are eunuchs from their mother’s womb; men
who are born without the ability to have sexual relations; by nature. There are those who have been made
eunuchs by men, referring to men who have been emasculated, or castrated. This was an ancient practice
among Gentiles in eastern courts, especially for those men who were to serve in the harems, or women’s
quarters.

Those two types of eunuchs are evident. But what is this third category that Jesus mentions? Eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs - for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. We know Jesus is not speaking of self-
mutilation, here; what does He mean? He simply means that such men choose to refrain from sexual
relations; that is to say, they choose not to marry.

Now, we have to remember that Jesus is speaking to His disciples, who are all Jews. In Jewish society of
that day, marriage and family were taken for granted as the norm; even the expected role, of Jews within
their society. That is to say then that a lifestyle of celibacy would have been considered abnormal.
# 74: 12-3-19 7

Was Jesus advocating celibacy, here? Yes and no. First of all, it is celibacy with a purpose - for the
kingdom of heaven’s sake. We must distinguish celibacy from monasticism, which involves more than
remaining unmarried; it is a complete withdrawal from society. Jesus is speaking only of remaining
unmarried; being celibate, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

So how does celibacy benefit the kingdom? By allowing the one practicing it to dedicate himself more
fully to serving the Lord; without any division of his time, or his energies, or his devotion, which marriage
would require.

Secondly, Jesus indicated that celibacy is only for “those to whom it has been given”. Who would be the
one to do that giving? God would; celibacy is a gift. In fact, the apostle Paul qualifies it as a spiritual
grace.

Turn to First Corinthians chapter 7. Paul was encouraging the believers in Corinth to remain as they were,
when they first came to know the Lord; if they were already married, to remain married; but if they were
single, to remain single - to serve the Lord, right where they were, in life.

The chapter begins with a question that Paul is answering, on the part of some in Corinth who were
thinking that abstinence is, in itself, a good thing - a stoic notion.

[First Corinthians 7:1-7; 32-33]

7:1 The question concerned if it was good for a man not to touch a woman. The idea is sexual abstinence.
Paul makes it clear that is not good, if you’re married.

7:2-5 Those who are already married should have normal sexual relations. But then Paul makes it clear
that he is not saying marriage is for everyone.

7:6-7 Paul is saying, this is a concession to those who have sexual desires - which are the majority of
people. Paul did not have that need, and viewed this as a gift from God; the word “gift” is charisma, a
spiritual grace.

Some believers are graced to remain single; some are graced for marriage. Both are spiritual graces; two
different graces. Paul ends on a practical note.

7:8 He is saying, understand how God has graced you! Marriage is good, for those so graced; we have seen
that in Genesis, as God’s design to fulfill His purpose to fill the earth with His sons. But God has other
purposes, which are better served by singleness - such as the spread of the gospel. And later in the passage,
Paul indicates why.

Skip down to verse 29.

7:29-33 The one who is single can fully devote his time and energies to the Lord’s work; and as Paul said,
the time is short. Paul himself was so graced, and realized the benefit of it. Marriage and singleness each
have benefits; each is needed to fulfill the Lord’s purpose. One is not better than the other. The key is what
the Lord has for you.

[Return to Matthew 19]

# 74: 12-3-19 8

Now, those words about eunuchs would have made the Jewish disciples of Jesus cringe - even though they
could perceive He didn’t mean it for them, literally. In the Law, eunuchs were specifically prohibited from
entering the assembly of the LORD (Deut 23:1) - in that day, the temple. The idea is that they were
excluded from the congregation of Israel, and from their ceremonial worship. Eunuchs were the object of
pity, if not of horror, in Jewish society.

But wasn’t that just what the disciples would experience, if they were to take up their cross, and follow
Jesus? They would have to follow Jesus outside the norm of Jewish society; outside of the Jew’s religious
form of worship; and they would become outcasts, among their own people.

To follow Jesus would be to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven - with single-hearted
devotion to their Lord. And for the true disciples of Jesus, they would do more than accept it; they would
embrace it.

Reading: Matthew 19:13-30; Mark 10:13-31; Luke 18:15-30.

He who made them at the beginning - that’s Elohim, the Creator.

Jesus counters one proof text by appealing to another. Jesus appealed to God’s original purpose in creation.
# 74: 12-3-19 9

Jesus goes to the original creation, to the situation of created humanity before sin entered the world. First
text: the complementarity of male and female within God’s created order. God designed humanity in two
sexes; Then combined with Gen 2:24, LXX: those two sexes meant to come together in a indissoluble
union of one flesh, a union which takes precedence over even the close relationship of a man with his
parents. Depicted in the vivid metaphor in Genesis of glueing or welding. Permanent attachment. In the
Genesis context the one flesh image derives from the creation of the woman out of the man’s side to be
bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. In marriage that original unity is restored. For a unique purpose;
fruitful union.

Design for families; building blocks of society; of a kingdom.

Two parts recalled. He made them male and female. One man, one woman. Purpose together? To be
fruitful, multiply and fill the earth - with sons of God. And, for this reason a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

Why is Jesus joining these two verses together? One states the original intent of creating them male and
female. Man was to be in God’s image, created male and female, in order to be fruitful, multiply and fill the
earth. Subdue it and have dominion. God’s co-regents.

Created as one; then the woman taken from the man, as separate being; then brought back to the man, to be
joined as one in marriage, fruitful union.

Why didn’t God just create a male and a female? Showed their need for the other, their completeness
through their union. And the fruitfulness of that union, by which God’s purpose for them was to be
fulfilled. That’s how God designed it.

But man brought sin into the world. Death came in, through sin. Strong desires for self; for fulfillment
outside of the purpose of God. God’s design, spoiled by man’s strong desires for self. The marriage union,
with its completeness, and intimacy, and union, and fruitfulness, spoiled by sexual immorality and divorce.
Brokenness; selfishness; disunion; separation; barrenness.