Commentary on Matthew 19:3-12

We return now, after the discourse on the Church, to a narrative section which describes Jesus’ ministry in Judaea and Jerusalem. He is no longer in the north, in Galilee, but in the south. We are now entering the sixth section of Matthew’s Gospel which will conclude with the parables of the last times.

Today’s passage begins with a discussion about a contentious issue between Jesus and the Pharisees, an issue which continues to be contentious in our own time. The question in itself is straightforward, but as was often the case, it was thrown at Jesus to test his orthodoxy with regard to the Law. The Pharisees ask:

Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?

Among the Jews there were two schools of thought on divorce. The school of Shammai would only allow marital unfaithfulness as a justification for divorce. The Hillel school, however, would allow a man to divorce his wife if she did anything he did not like, such as burning his food! Jesus clearly sides with the first interpretation.

Using two passages from the creation story in the book of Genesis, Jesus gives an uncompromising reply which it would be difficult for his opponents to challenge:

Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’  and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?

Jesus goes on to say,

So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

And in a good marriage, the two becoming one flesh is a reality. It is in the death of one partner where this can become very clear.

Marriage, therefore, as the intimate bonding of a man and woman, is part of God’s plan for the human race; it is not something to be undone by us. However, the Pharisees are not satisfied with this answer. They press their case further by asking:

Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?

Jesus replies that that was simply a concession to the ‘unteachability’ of the people in his own time, but that it was not the situation from the beginning:

It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

The purpose of the writ was obviously to formalise a separation and allow a husband to enter into another marriage.

On the other hand, the one example of requiring a writ for a divorced woman in the book of Deuteronomy (24:1-4), suggests that this recorded document served to protect the woman herself in a society where the most vulnerable included the orphan, the stranger in the land (i.e. foreigner) and the widow. A single woman required standing within the community and would need protection in several forms to escape ridicule or ostracization. 

Jesus says:

…whoever divorces his wife…and marries another commits adultery…

Nothing is said of the woman who might divorce; in a patriarchal and male-dominated world this would have been far less common, if not impossible. The woman had very little say in such matters. (However, in Mark’s version [10:2-12] of this passage, both husbands and wives are included. He was writing for a gentile audience where the rules were somewhat different.)

There is, however, an exception mentioned only by Matthew which has caused problems for interpreters of biblical text and moral theologians. He has Jesus give “sexual immorality” (in the NRSVue translation of the Bible) as one possible reason justifying divorce. The problem is that the word Matthew uses—porneia (Greek)—is not clear in its meaning. It is variously translated as ‘fornication’, ‘lewd conduct’, ‘unchastity’ ‘unfaithfulness’, or ‘marital unfaithfulness’—and it seems to apply only to the wife. Regardless, though an exception appears to come forth it does not change the teaching on divorce as prohibited in general because the disciples continue to focus on the impossibility of marriage without an option out of this covenantal bond.

That there is no ‘out’ or exit from this union between husband and wife is a good way to understand the theological message of this passage on divorce. Jesus wishes to emphasise the covenant between God and his people through the analogy of groom and bride. As a people, there might be a ‘divorce’ or turning away from God’s teaching and following Jesus. However, it becomes clear that the groom, i.e. Jesus, will never turn away from his disciples. 

In our secular societies, unfaithfulness as well as many lesser reasons are given for justifying a legal divorce. If the original contract is known to be valid, the Catholic Church does not recognize any reason for its termination. However, in these times, divorce is not always the result of one partner’s decision. It is often the result of the mutual breakdown of the marriage relationship where the partners can no longer live together with mutual love and respect, but rather where there are irreconcilable mutual feelings of hostility and unhappiness.

In any case, Jesus’ position was seen by his own disciples as rather severe. If things were the way he saw them, then they thought it would be better not to get married at all! Jesus makes a statement which perhaps we should listen to more carefully than we often do. While, on the one hand, he lays down a clear principle, he also indicates that not everyone may have the strength to observe it:

Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 

There seems to be a call, then, for some compassion and flexibility in implementation.

Jesus goes on to describe those:

…who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

This group can include either those, who like Paul, choose to live celibate lives in order to work for the Kingdom and the gospel, or those whose marriages have broken down for one reason or another and choose to remain celibate for the rest of their lives, also for the sake of the gospel. This last does not seem to be a universal requirement, because he says:

Let anyone accept this who can.

Marriage is seen here very much linked to the call to work for the Kingdom. If it is an obstacle, it should be avoided; if not, then one can and should work for the Kingdom through one’s marriage. Or, in Pauline thought, if this union furthers your devotion to following Christ as a disciple, then get married, but if it hinders that devotion you may have to reconsider it. Again, “let anyone accept this who can.”