Matt. 19:1-12, Context of Matthew

(We are returning to our studies in Matthew.  The last post was on Feb. 6.)

Let us remind ourselves of the flow of Matthew’s gospel to this point.

·        Preparation of the King, Ch. 1-4. (Birth, John the Baptist, ministry begins)

·        Precepts of the King, Ch. 5-7. (Sermon on the Mount)

·        Proof of the King, Ch. 8-10. (Miraculous signs)

·        Rejection of the King, Ch. 11-17.

The rejection involves the shepherds of Israel, the High Priests and the Sanhedrin.  Eventually the rejection will involve the nation as a whole; this is part of the “plot”, to kill Jesus in such a way and time so as not to lose their power.  Of course, the timing is ultimately in God’s plan.  Jesus will die in the way and at the time of God’s choosing. 

·        Instruction of the King, Ch. 18-20.

Chapter 18 is one sermon.  It is a homily on humility, primarily dealing with how we are to treat the little ones.  Matt. 19:1-3a provides the transition to Jesus teaching on marriage.  Jesus is continuing to minister, but moves out of the area of Galilee to the area of Perea which is part of Judea but on the eastern side of the Jordan River.

Jesus’ instruction illustrates renewing the mind, (Rom. 12:2).  Jesus presents His truth in contrast to Jewish tradition and to the way people of His day thought.  We see this by understanding the background of the question of the Pharisees in v3: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?  There were two Rabbinical traditions, each speaking of uncleanness as just cause for divorce.  Rabbi Shammai defined it as moral transgression, as unchastity.  Rabbi Hillel took uncleanness in the widest possible sense.  Here is Alfred Edersheim’s explanation (p841).

It took the words 'matter of shame' in the widest possible sense, and declared it sufficient ground for divorce, if a woman had spoiled her husband's dinner.  Rabbi Akiba thought that the words 'if she find no favour in his eyes,' implied that it was sufficient if a man had found another woman more attractive than his wife.  All agreed that moral blame made divorce a duty, and that in such cases a woman should not be taken back.  According to the Mishnah, women could not only be divorced, but with the loss of their dowry, if they transgressed against the Law of Moses or of Israel.   The former is explained as implying a breach of the laws of tithing, of setting apart the first of the dough, and of purification.  The latter is explained as referring to such offences as that of going in public with uncovered head, or spinning in the public streets, or entering into talk with men, to which others add, that of brawling, or of disrespectfully speaking of her husband's parents in his presence.  A troublesome or quarrelsome wife might certainly be sent away; and ill repute, or childlessness (during ten years) were also regarded as valid grounds of divorce.

One reason for including this quote is to show the ease of getting divorce, much like in our own day.  Jesus’ response was good for Israel; it is good for the United States.  Let us pay attention; let us submit to the teaching of our Lord.  That is what His disciples are called to: obedience to what He has commanded (Mt. 28:19-20).