Matthew 19:9

19:3-12 The Pharisees were desirous of drawing something from Jesus which they might represent as contrary to the law of Moses. Cases about marriage have been numerous, and sometimes perplexed; made so, not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often people fix what they will do, before they ask for advice. Jesus replied by asking whether they had not read the account of the creation, and the first example of marriage; thus pointing out that every departure therefrom was wrong. That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to prepare us for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven. When the gospel is really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace and happiness more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society. And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with great seriousness and earnest prayer.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be {h} for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (h) Therefore in these days the laws that were made against adulterers were not regarded: for they would have no need of divorce, if the marriage had been severed by punishment of death.

(9) Whosoever shall put away his wife. —The questions to which the law thus proclaimed gives rise have been discussed in the Note on Matthew 5:32 . One serious difference has, however, to be noticed. Where in the earlier form of the precept we read, “cuseth her (the woman put away for any cause but adultery) to commit adultery,” we have here, more emphatically as bearing on the position of the husband in such a case, the statement that he by contracting another marriage “commits adultery.” The utmost that the law of Christ allows in such a case is a divorce, a mensâ et thoro, not a vinculo. The legislation which permits the complete divorce on other grounds, such as cruelty or desertion on either side, is justified, so far as it is justifiable at all, on the ground of the “hardness of heart” which makes such a concession necessary. It is interesting to compare St. Paul’s treatment of cases which the letter of this command did not cover, in 1Corinthians 7:10-15 .

Matthew 19:9 . Μὴ , not [860]) The word occurs with the same force in 1 John 5:16 .— καὶ γαμήση , and shall marry ) The criminality of the divorce is especially aggravated by a second marriage. [860] Lachm. rends παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας with BD Orig. 3,647 c , 648 ac , 649 b ; “exceptâ causâ fornicationis” in c . CZ read μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ , and so Tischend. Rec. Text reads the same, prefixing εἰ . Vulg. “nisi ob fornicationem,” which favours Rec. Text. “Nisi ob causam fornicationis” in ab seems a blending of the two readings, εἰ μὴ and λόγου .—ED. Bengel reads ὃς ἄν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ , μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ , whosoever shall put away his wife NOT for fornication ; E. M. has εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνωίᾳ , IF NOT (i e. except) for fornication . The meaning is the same. In his Apparatus Bengel writes, in loc— “ μὴ ) Comp . et al. edd. Aug . 1, 4, Bas . 1, Byz. Cypr. Gehl. Med. Mosc. Steph. omn. Wo . 2, et sedecim et viginti alii: nec obstat Cant. Colb . 8, L. Par . 6, Arab. Syr . εἱ μὴ . Er et al. edd. cum pauculis MSS.”—(I. B.)

We met with the like determination of our Lord’s upon this question Matthew 5:32 , only there it was (instead of committeth adultery) causeth her to commit adultery, that is, in case she married again. Here our Lord saith the like of the husband: we have the same, Mark 10:11 Luke 16:18 . The reason is this: Because nothing but adultery dissolves the knot and band of marriage, though they be thus illegally separated, yet according to the law of God, they are still man and wife. Some have upon these words made a question whether it be lawful for the husband or the wife separated for adultery to marry again while each other liveth. As to the party offending, it may be a question; but as to the innocent person offended, it is no question, for the adultery of the person offending hath dissolved the knot of marriage by the Divine law. It is true that the knot cannot be dissolved without the freedom of both persons each from another, but yet it seemeth against reason that both persons should have the like liberty to a second marriage. For, 1. The adulteress is by God’s law a dead woman, and so in no capacity to a second marriage. 2. It is unreasonable that she should make an advantage of her own sin and error. 3. This might be the occasion of adultery, to give a wicked person a legal liberty to satisfy an extravagant lust. But for the innocent person, it is as unreasonable that he or she should be punished for the sin of another.

Matthew 19:9 . See note on Matthew 5:32 . μὴ ἐπὶ πορν .] not on account of fornication , i.e. adultery . The deleting of those words (Hug, de conjug. vinculo indissolub . p. 4 f.; Maier’s note on 1 Corinthians 7:11 ; but also Keim, who sees in them the correction of a subsequent age) is justified neither by critical evidence, which Keim himself admits, nor by the following ὁ ἀπολελ . γαμ . μοιχᾶται , which is in no way inconsistent with the exception under consideration, seeing that, as a matter of course, the ἀπολελ . refers to a woman who has been divorced arbitrarily, μὴ ἐπὶ πορν . (see note on Matthew 5:32 ); nor by Matthew 19:10 , where the question of the disciples can be sufficiently accounted for; nor by 1 Corinthians 7:11 (see note on this passage). We are therefore as little warranted in regarding the words as an interpolation on the part of the evangelist in accordance with a later tradition (Gratz, Weisse, Volkmar, Schenkel). The exception which they contain to the law against divorce is the unica et adaequata exceptio , because adultery destroys what, according to its original institution by God, constitutes the very essence of marriage, the unitas carnis ; while, on this account also, it furnishes a reason not merely for separation a toro et mensa (Catholic expositors), but for separation quoad vinculum .

To say, as Keim insists (according to Mark), that Jesus breaks with Moses, is unwarranted, not only by Matthew’s narrative, but also by Mark’s; and any indication of such a breach would betray the influence of a later age. μοιχᾶται ] commits adultery , because, in fact, his marriage with the woman whom he has arbitrarily dismissed has not yet been disannulled. The second μοιχᾶται is justified: because this ἀπολελυμένη is still the lawful wife of him who has, in an arbitrary manner, put her away.