Matthew 19:3

Tempting See on Matthew 6:13. For every cause The temptation turned upon the dispute dividing the two great Rabbinical schools, the one of which (that of Hillel) held that a man might divorce his wife for any reason which rendered her distasteful to him; and the other (that of Shammai) that divorce was allowable only in case of unchastity. The querists would be anxious to know which side Jesus espoused.

3 . Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? ] The words “for every cause” are omitted in Mark. In Matthew they contain the pith of the question: “Is the husband’s right to divorce his wife quite unlimited?” The school of Shammai allowed divorce in the case of adultery, the school of Hillel on any trivial pretext. 3–12 . The Question of Marriage and Divorce Mark 10:2-9 Matthew 19:10-12 are peculiar to Matthew. St Mark mentions the part of the conversation contained in Matthew 19:9 as having taken place “in the house,” Matthew 19:10-12 .

Matthew 19:3 . The Pharisees also — Who always had a watchful eye on his motions, and attended him with the most malignant designs, being now more especially irritated by the fame of his late miracles, which they had in vain endeavoured to suppress; came unto him, tempting him — With what they thought a very artful and insnaring question; and — That they might, if possible, find some reason to accuse him, or to discredit him, at least, among the people; they asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? — That is, for any thing which he dislikes in her. “The school of Hillel taught, that a man might put away his wife for any cause. The son of Sirach saith, ‘If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, give her a bill of divorce, and let her go.’ Sir 25:26 . Josephus saith, The law runs thus: ‘He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatsoever, let him give her a bill of divorce.’ And he confesseth, that he himself put away his wife, after she had borne him three children, ‘because he was not pleased with her behaviour.’ But the school of Shammah determined, on the contrary that the wife was only to be put away for adultery.” — Whitby. (Christ, it must be observed, “had delivered his sentiments on this subject twice; once in Galilee, Matthew 5:31 ; and again in Perea, Luke 16:18 .

It is probable, therefore, that they knew his opinion, and solicited him to declare it, hoping it would incense the people, who reckoned the liberty which the law gave them of divorcing their wives, one of their chief privileges. Or if, standing in awe of the people, he should deliver a doctrine different from what he had taught on former occasions, they thought it would be a fit ground for accusing him of dissimulation. But they missed their aim entirely; for Jesus, always consistent with himself, boldly declared the third time against arbitrary divorces, not fearing the popular resentment in the least.” — Macknight.

(3) Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? —See Note on Matthew 5:32 . So far as the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount had become known, it gave a sufficiently clear answer to the inquiry of the Pharisees. It is, however, quite conceivable that it had not reached the ears of those who now put the question, or, that if it had, they wished to test His consistency, and to see whether on this point He still held with the stricter rule of Shammai, and not with the laxer rule of Hillel. If the narrative of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11 be rightly placed (see Note on that passage). that might have given rise to doubts and rumours. Would He who dealt so pitifully with the adulteress have sanctioned divorce even in that case, or pronounced the marriage bond absolutely indissoluble? Or was His apparent tolerance of that offender indicative of a lower standard as to the obligations of marriage? In any case, they might hope to bring Him into conflict either with the stricter or the more popular school of casuists. An illustration of what has been stated in Matthew 5:32 may be found in the fact that the Jewish historian Josephus records how he had divorced two wives on grounds comparatively trivial ( Life, c. 75, 76), and speaks incidentally in his history of “many causes of all kinds” as justifying separation ( Ant. iv. 8, § 23).

We do not know on what grounds Herod Antipas had divorced the daughter of Aretas, but it is probable enough that here, as afterwards, the Herodian party were working with the Pharisees. Here, in Peræa, they might count, either on the Teacher shrinking from expressing His convictions, or so uttering them as to provoke the tetrarch’s wrath, as the Baptist had done. In either case, a point would have been gained against Him.

Matthew 19:3 .[854] Πᾶσαν , every ) They wished to elicit from our Lord a universal negative, which they thought would be contrary to Moses. [854] Πειράζοντες αὐτὸν , tempting Him ) At the beginning of His career, His adversaries questioned the Saviour concerning several of the acts committed either by himself or His disciples. But when He had left nothing still remaining to be done for the defence of His own cause and that of His followers, they thenceforth refrained from objections and interrogatories of that kind, and the more for that very reason heaped upon Him general questions, unconnected with any immediate act of His, it being their purpose thereby to surprise Him when off His guard and unprepared.— Harm. , p. 422.

Matthew 19:3 . Πειράζοντες ] The question was of an ensnaring nature, owing to the rivalry that existed between the school of Hillel and that of the more rigorous Sammai. See note on Matthew 5:31 . There is not the slightest foundation in the text for the idea that the questioners had in view the matrimonial relations of Antipas (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald), as though they wanted to involve Jesus, while yet in Peraea, within that prince’s domains, in a fate similar to that of the Baptist. Moreover, the adoption of this view is altogether unnecessary, since the whole school of Sammai had already condemned that most unlawful state of matters just referred to, and therefore there was on this score nothing of a specially tempting character about the question. But they expected that Jesus in His reply would declare in favour of one of the rival schools (and that it would doubtless be that of Sammai; for with κ . πᾶσαν αἰτίαν they suggested the answer, No ), so that they might be able to stir up party feeling against Him. Falling back, however, upon the divine idea on which the institution of marriage is founded, He took higher ground than either of the schools in question, inasmuch as from this divine idea He deduces that marriage is a union which no human authority has a right to dissolve; but as for Himself, He avoids prescribing any law of His own with reference to this matter; comp.

Harless, Ehescheidungsfr . p. 34 ff. εἰ ] See note on Matthew 12:10 . τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ] Assuming ἀνθρώπῳ to be spurious, the αὐτοῦ can only refer to something in the context, and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the τίς implied in the ἔξεστι . For a similar classical usage, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep . p. 503 D. κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν ] for every cause , which he has to allege against her,—the view maintained by the school of Hillel, and which was precisely that which gave to this question its tempting character, though it is not so represented in Mark. As given by the latter evangelist the question is not presented in its original form; as it now stands it would have been too general, and so not calculated to tempt, for it would certainly have been foolish to expect from Jesus any answer contrary to the law (in answer to Weiss, Keim); but, according to Matthew’s version, the persons who were tempting Jesus appear to have framed their question with a view to His splitting on the casuistical rock implied in κ . πᾶσαν αἰτίαν . After having laid down as a principle the indissoluble nature of the marriage tie, Jesus, in the course of the conversation, replies to this captious point in their query in the very decided terms of Matthew 19:9 , where He says, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ .