by Ptr. Art Calaguas
Shalom.
This is another pericope we will look at that is part of the 4th great discourse in the Gospel of Matthew (chapters 18 – 20). Our subject deals with the question of marriage and divorce and what our Lord Jesus taught his disciples and the crowd following him. This narrative in Matthew 19:1-12 immediately follows the parable about the unforgiving bond-servant debtor. Matthew’s account has a close parallel in the Gospel of Mark 10:1-12.
After giving the parable, the Lord and his disciples departed from Galilee and headed for his final journey to Judea and Jerusalem; not proceeding directly but going through “Judea beyond the Jordan.” Geographically, the Lord and his disciples were in the eastern side of the Jordan River in the region of Perea, probably across Jericho. As Matthew 19:1-3 narrates, large crowds followed him (probably even up to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem later in chapter 21) and while in that region, on the east bank of the Jordan, he healed those who were sick (and the parallel account in Mark 10:1 says the Lord taught the crowds). Then the Pharisees came to him and tested him.
A few things can be observed. First, in Matthew 19:3 they asked the Lord Jesus if it is lawful to divorce one’s wife “for any cause.” Mark 10:2 does not have the phrase “for any cause.”
Second, in the Greek, the question is framed in a way that an axiomatic “no” or “yes” is not expected.
Third, both Matthew’s and Mark’s account use exactly the same Greek infinitive verb ἀπολῦσαι (from ἀπολύω, “apoluó” meaning release, let go, send away and in this context, to divorce; https://biblehub.com/greek/630.htm).
Fourth, recall that by this time, John the Baptizer had already been killed by the tetrarch Herod Antipas (Matthew 14; Mark 6; and Luke 9). It was John the Baptist’s denunciation of the tetrarch Herod’s unlawful marriage to Herodias that apparently caused John’s arrest and death. In effect, Herod Antipas stole Herodias from her husband Philip. She divorced Philip (who was a half-brother of Herod Antipas) and while Philip was still alive, the tetrarch Herod married her (see Leviticus 18:16). Perhaps, the Pharisees wanted to see if the Lord Jesus would get himself into trouble by commenting on an issue that was still relatively fresh in the people’s mind. To goad the Lord to follow the negative pronouncements of John against the unlawful divorce of the tetrarch was a clever trap.
Fifth, my NASB Study Bible says the Pharisees were also trying to make the Lord Jesus chooses sides in a theological controversy, brought out by Matthew’s inclusion of the phrase “for any cause” as the reason any man can divorce his wife. My ESV Study Bible concurs that at that time, there was “a significant debate among the Pharisees about the correct interpretation” of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (especially verse 1). This is the only explicit Mosaic stipulation in the Old Testament (OT) pertaining to divorce, in general. But divorce was recognized or mentioned elsewhere in the Torah. Leviticus 21:7, 14 forbade priests from marrying divorced women. Number 30:9 mentions that vows made by widows and divorced women were binding, as these women were not under the authority of their husbands (or fathers). My NIV Study Bible adds the detail that the theological debate regarding Deuteronomy 24:1 split the Pharisees into 2 camps: the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. The dispute of these 2 schools of thought revolved around each side’s interpretation of what causes a divorce to be lawful or not.
Here is part of the Hebrew verse of Deuteronomy 24:1 with the significant clauses causing the debate highlighted:
כִּֽי־יִקַּ֥ח אִ֛ישׁ אִשָּׁ֖ה וּבְעָלָ֑הּ וְהָיָ֞ה אִם־לֹ֧א תִמְצָא־חֵ֣ן בְּעֵינָ֗יו כִּי־מָ֤צָא בָהּ֙ עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר וְכָ֨תַב לָ֜הּ סֵ֤פֶר כְּרִיתֻת֙
The Hebrew can be literally translated as such: When a man takes a woman and marries her and it comes to pass that if she finds no favor in his eyes because he found in her a nakedness of a thing/deed/matter and writes her a document/certificate of divorce… The expression עֶרְוַ֣ת דָּבָ֔ר (“ervat davar” rendered “nakedness of a thing/deed/matter”) is figurative; it probably means something indecent or improper behavior (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/6172.htm).
The corresponding Septuagint (LXX) translation of the same part of Deuteronomy 24:1 is given below:
Ἐὰν δὲ τις λάβῃ γυναῖκα καὶ συνοικήσῃ αὐτῇ, καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν μὴ εὕρῃ χάριν ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ ὅτι εὗρεν ἐν αὐτῇ ἄσχημον πρᾶγμα, καὶ γράψει αὐτῇ βιβλίον ἀποστασίου…
The Greek basically says the same thing literally: Then if anyone takes a woman/wife and cohabits with her, and she might not find favor before him, because he found in her an unseemly/indecent matter/thing/practice and writes her a scroll/certificate of divorce…
In both the Hebrew and Greek versions of Deuteronomy 24:1 we can call the yellow highlighted portion the first part while the red highlighted and underlined portion is the second part. The argument among the 2 Pharisaic schools of thought, according to my NIV Study Bible was where to put emphasis on: the first part or the second part! The school of Shammai maintained that the second part meant divorce should happen only when the wife commits something indecent or improper. On the other hand, the school of Hillel took the first part as more important. So to Rabbi Hillel anything a wife does that displeases her husband can be a ground for divorce.
The Lord Jesus in his Beatitudes said in Matthew 5:31-32 that “marital unfaithfulness” or immorality was the only valid cause for divorce. He reiterates this in Matthew 19:9, in the pericope we are studying. Therefore, in effect the Lord took the side of Rabbi Shammai.
But more than taking sides in the dispute among the Pharisees, the Lord Jesus explained the original and greater law of God’s purpose for man and woman being together in marriage (Matthew 19:4-6 quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24). Hence we have the admonition that what God has joined together, man should not separate.
As stated earlier, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark use exactly the same Greek infinitive verb ἀπολῦσαι (from ἀπολύω, “apoluó” meaning to send away/divorce). Now, in Matthew 1:19, the account of Joseph the foster-father of our Lord intending to send Mary away, albeit quietly/secretly, the Greek here also uses exactly the same infinitive verb ἀπολῦσαι (“apolusai”). In a dream, Joseph was dissuaded by an ἄγγελος Κυρίου (“messenger/angel of the LORD”) and the Christmas story unfolds. And the world’s savior, עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל (Immanuel) is born.
We will have our Christmas break and continue after New Year 2023. We will then take up another topic in the Gospel of Matthew.
God bless us all.