TRV
“The Question of Divorce”· Matthew 19:3–12
Translation
King James Version
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Complete Jewish Bible
They said to him, "Then why did Moshe give the commandment that a man should hand his wife a get and divorce her?"
Berean Standard Bible
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses order a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
American Standard Version
They say unto him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement, and to put her away?
World English Bible Messianic
They asked him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?”
Geneva Bible (1599)
They said to him, Why did then Moses commaund to giue a bill of diuorcement, and to put her away?
Young's Literal Translation
They say to him, `Why then did Moses command to give a roll of divorce, and to put her away?'
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 23,770 of 31,102 · 76.4%
LawLawHistoryHistPoetryPoetProphetsProphNew TestamentNT
Study This Verse
Copy as
Historical interpretation
Eighteen Centuries of Reception
20 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Ante-NicenePost-NiceneEarly MedievalMedieval
10020030040050060070080090010001100120013001400150016001700180019002000
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
"Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way."
Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire." And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.
And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looks on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart." [Matthew 5:28] "And he that marries," says [the Gospel], "her that is divorced from her husband, commits adultery; and whosoever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery." [Matthew 5:32] Because Solomon says: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goes in to a married woman shall not be innocent." [Proverbs 6:27-29]
A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" [Matthew 19:9] not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.
Concerning the words, "Not all can receive this saying. There are some eunuchs who were born so, and some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; let him receive it who can receive it," they do not realize the context. After his word about divorce some asked him whether, if that is the position in relation to woman, it is better not to marry; and it was then that the Lord said: "Not all can receive this saying, but those to whom it is granted." What the questioners wanted to know was whether, when a man's wife has been condemned for fornication, it is allowable for him to marry another.
Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, "Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;" and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. "He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. What, then, is the law? In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? She who has committed fornication liveth in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. The Spirit testifies to what has been said by Ezekiel, declaring, "I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn." Now they are stoned to death; as through hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because "to whom much is given, from him shall more be required."
Now, keeping in mind what we said above in regard to the passage from Isaiah about the bill of divorce, we will say that the mother of the people separated herself from Christ, her husband, without having received the bill of divorce.Afterward, however, when an unseemly thing was found in her, she did not find favor in his sight, and the bill of divorce was written out for her. When the new covenant called those of the Gentiles to the house of him who had cast away his former wife, it virtually gave the bill of divorce to her who formerly separated from her husband—the law and the Word. Therefore, he also having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given into the hands of the former wife the bill of divorce. So they can no longer do what was ordered to them under the law because of the certificate of divorce. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorce is that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the things in it which were believed to be holy, the altar of burnt offerings and all the rites contained in it. And a further sign of the bill of divorce is this, that they cannot keep their feasts, even though the letter of the law specifically commanded them [to be celebrated] in the place that the Lord God appointed for keeping feasts. At present the whole synagogue cannot stone those who have committed such and such sins; and thousands of other instructions are proof of the certificate of divorce. Add to this the fact that “there is no longer any prophet” and that they say, “We do not see any signs.”
Also He cures the Galileans on the borders of Judæa, that He might admit the sins of the Gentiles to that pardon which was prepared for the Jews.
AD 380Apostolic ConstitutionsPost-NiceneSourceApostolic Constitutions (Book VIII), The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles, Section 48
If a layman divorces his own wife, and takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be suspended.
What then ought they to have done after this? Ought they not to have held their peace, and to have commended the saying? ought they not to have marvelled at His wisdom? ought they not to have stood amazed at His accordance with the Father? But none of these things do they, but as though they were contending for the law, they say, "How then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" And yet they ought not now to have brought this forward, but rather He to them; but nevertheless He doth not take advantage of them, nor doth He say to them, "I am not now bound by this," but He solves this too.
And indeed if He had been an alien from the old covenant, He would not have striven for Moses, neither would He have argued positively from the things done once for all at the beginning; He would not have studied to show that His own precepts agreed with those of old.
And indeed Moses had given many other commandments besides, both those about meats, and those about the Sabbath; wherefore then do they nowhere bring him forward, as here? From a wish to enlist the multitude of the husbands against him. For this was considered a thing indifferent with the Jews, and all used to do so much as this. Accordingly it was for this reason that when so many things had been said on the mount, they remembered this commandment only now.
(Hom. lxii.) The Lord had before left Judæa because of their jealousy, but now He keeps Himself more to it, because His passion was near at hand. Yet does He not go up to Judæa itself, but into the borders of Judæa; whence it is said, And it came to pass when Jesus had ended all these sayings, he departed from Galilee.
It should be also observed, that the Lord is not either ever delivering doctrine, or ever working miracles, but one while does this, and again turns to that; that by His miracles faith might be given to what He said, and by His teaching might be showed the profit of those things which He wrought.
For indeed Christ so healed men, as to do good both to themselves, and through them to many other. For these men's healing was to others the occasion of their knowledge of God; but not to the Pharisees, who were only hardened by the miracles; whence it follows; And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him,, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Observe their wickedness even in the way of putting their question. The Lord had above disputed concerning thus law, but they now ask Him as though He had spoken nothing thereof, supposing He had forgot what He had before delivered in this matter.
But not by the law of creation only, but also by the practice of the law, He shows that they ought to be joined one and one, and never put asunder, And he said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife.
See the wisdom of the Teacher. Being asked, Is it lawful, He said not straight, It is not lawful, lest they should be troubled, but establishes it through a proof. For God made them from the beginning male and female, and not merely joined them together, but bade them quit father and mother; and not bade the husband merely approach his wife, but be joined to her, showing by this manner of speaking the inseparable bond. He even added a still closer union, saying, And they twain shall be one flesh.
When He had brought forward the words and facts of the old law, He then interprets it with authority, and lays down a law, saying, Therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. For as those who love one another spiritually are said to be one soul, And all they that believed had one heart and one soul, (Acts 4:32.) so husband and wife who love each other after the flesh, are said to be one flesh. And as it is a wretched thing to cut the flesh, so is it an unjust thing to put away a wife.
He brings in God yet again, saying, What God has joined, let no man put asunder, showing that it is against both nature and God's law to put away a wife; against nature, because one flesh is therein divided; against law, because God has joined and forbidden to sunder them.
Had the Lord been opposed to the Old Testament, He would not thus have contended in Moses' behalf, nor have gone about to show that what was his was in agreement with the things of old. But the unspeakable wisdom of Christ made answer and excuse for these in this manner, He saith unto them, Moses for the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives. By this He clears Moses from their charge, and retorts it all upon their own head.
At last, because what He had said was severe, He goes back to the old law, saying, From the beginning it was not so.
(Verse 7) They said to him, 'So why did Moses command us to give a bill of divorce and dismiss?' They open the trap they had prepared. And certainly the Lord had not given his own opinion, but had remembered the old history and commandments of God.
That they might have Him as it were between the horns of a syllogism, so that, whatever answer He should make, it would lie open to cavil. Should He allow a wife to be put away for any cause, and the marriage of another, he would seem to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. Should He answer that she may not be put away for any cause whatsoever, He will be judged to have spoken impiously, and to make against the teaching of Moses and of God.
But He so frames His answer as to evade their snare. He brings in the testimony of Holy Writ, and the law of nature, and opposing God's first sentence to this second, He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? This is written in the beginning of Genesis. This teaches that second marriages are to be avoided, for He said not male and females, which was what was sought by the putting away of the first, but, male and female, implying only one tie of wedlock.
In like manner He says his wife, and not wives, and adds expressly, and they twain shall be one flesh. For it is the reward of marriage that one flesh, namely in the offspring, is made of two.
God has joined by making man and woman one flesh; this then man may not put asunder, but God only. Man puts asunder, when from desire of a second wife the first is put away; God puts asunder, who also had joined, when by consent for the service of God we so have our wives as though we had them not. (1 Cor. 7:29.)
Here they reveal the cavil which they had prepared; albeit the Lord had not given sentence of Himself, but had recalled to their minds ancient history, and the commands of God.
What He says is to this purpose. Is it possible that God should so contradict Himself, as to command one thing at first, and after defeat His own ordinance by a new statute? Think not so; but, whereas Moses saw that through desire of second wives who should be richer, younger, or fairer, that the first were put to death, or treated ill, he chose rather to suffer separation, than the continuance of hatred and assassination. Observe moreover that He said not God suffered you, but, Moses; showing that it was, as the Apostle speaks, a counsel of man, not a command of God. (1 Cor. 7:12.)
(ubi sup.) For how great was that hardness! When not even the intervention of a bill of divorce, which gave room for just and prudent men to endeavour to dissuade, could move them to renew the conjugal affection. And with what wit do the Manichæans blame Moses, as severing wedlock by a bill of divorce, and commend Christ as, on the contrary, confirming its force? Whereas according to their impious science they should have praised Moses for putting asunder what the devil had joined, and found fault with Christ who riveted the bonds of the devil.
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM.e. As the righteous Lord of all, who loves these servants so as not to despise those.
They were conducting Him forth, as the young children of a father going on a far journey. And He setting forth as a father, left them as pledges of His love the healing of their diseases, as it is said, And he healed them.
But, as when you see one much pursuing the acquaintance of physicians, you know that he is sick, so, when you see either man or woman enquiring concerning divorce, know that that man is lustful and that woman unchaste. For chastity has pleasure in wedlock, but desire is tormented as though under a slavish bondage therein. And knowing that they had no sufficient cause to allege for their putting away their wives, save their own lewdness, they feigned many divers causes. They feared to ask Him for what cause, lest they should be tied down within the limits of fixed and certain causes; and therefore they asked if it were lawful for every cause; for they knew that appetite knows no limits, and cannot hold itself within the bounds of one marriage, but the more it is indulged the more it is kindled.
If then God created the male and female out of one, to this end that they should be one, why then henceforth were not they born man and wife at one birth, as it is with certain insects? Because God created male and female for the continuance of the species, yet is He ever a lover of chastity, and promoter of continence. Therefore did He not follow this pattern in all kinds, to the end that, if any man choose to marry, he may know what is, according to the first disposition of the creation, the condition of man and wife; but if he choose not to marry, he shall not be under necessity to marry by the circumstances of his birth, lest he should by his continence be the destruction of the other who was not willing to be continent; for which same cause God forbids that after being joined in wedlock one should separate if the other be unwilling.
If then because the wife is made of the man, and both one of one flesh, a man shall leave his father and his mother, then there should be yet greater affection between brothers and sisters, for these come of the same parents, but man and wife of different. But this is saying too much, because the ordinance of God is of more force than the law of nature. For God's precepts are not subject to the law of nature, but nature bends to the precepts of God. Also brethren are born of one, that they should seek out different roads; but the man and the wife are born of different persons, that they should coalesce in one. The order of nature also follows the appointment of God. For as is the sap in trees, so is affection in man. The sap ascends from the roots into the leaves, and passes forth into the seed. Therefore parents love their children, but are not so loved of them, for the desire of a man is not towards his parents, but towards the sons whom he has begot; and this is what is said, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.
This sentence of chastity seemed hard to these adulterers; but they could not make answer to the argument. Howbeit, they will not submit to the truth, but betake themselves for shelter to Moses, as men having a bad cause fly to some powerful personage, that where justice is not, his countenance may prevail; They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command, that we ever wish; but when we suffer, we yield against our will, because we have not the power to put full restraint upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse; thus in suffering this he was not enforcing the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that while you did it according to His law, your sin should not appear sin.
The Apostle says that this is a mystery in Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32.); for the Lord Jesus Christ left His Father when He came down from heaven to earth; and He left His mother, that is, the synagogue, because of its unbelief, and clave unto His wife, that is, the Holy Church, and they two are one flesh, that is, Christ and the Church are one body.
Here then He begins to relate what He did, taught, or suffered in Judæa. At first beyond Jordan eastward, afterwards on this side Jordan when He came to Jericho, Bethphage, and Jerusalem; whence it follows, And He came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan.
It should be known, that the whole territory of the Israelites was called Judæa, to distinguish it from other nations. But its southern portion, inhabited by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was called Judæa proper, to distinguish it from other districts in the same province as Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and the rest. It follows, And great multitudes followed him.
For by the wholesome design of God it was ordained that a man should have in the woman a part of his own body, and should not look upon as separate from himself that which he knew was formed out of himself.
(interlin.) Or, one flesh, that is in carnal connection.
Christianity teaches that marriage is for life. There is, of course, a difference here between different Churches: some do not admit divorce at all; some allow it reluctantly in very special cases. It is a great pity that Christians should disagree about such a question; but for an ordinary layman the thing to notice is that the Churches all agree with one another about marriage a great deal more than any of them agrees with the outside world. I mean, they all regard divorce as something like cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical operation. Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others admit it as a desparate remedy in extreme cases. They are all agreed that it is more like having both you legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment. What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else.
AD 1973JRR TolkienMedievalSourceLetter #43, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, From a letter to Michael Tolkien 6-8 March 1941
A man's dealings with women can be purely physical (they cannot really, of course: but I mean he can refuse to take other things into account, to the great damage of his soul (and body) and theirs); or 'friendly'; or he can be a 'lover' (engaging and blending all his affections and powers of mind and body in a complex emotion powerfully coloured and energized by 'sex'). This is a fallen world. The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been 'going to the bad' all down the ages. The various social forms shift, and each new mode has its special dangers: but the 'hard spirit of concupiscence' has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell. We will leave aside the 'immoral' results. These you desire not to be dragged into. To renunciation you have no call. 'Friendship' then? In this fallen world the 'friendship' that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a 'friendship' quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by 'falling in love'. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want 'friendship', even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps. Allas! Allas! that ever love was sinne! as Chaucer says. Then if he is a Christian and is aware that there is such a thing as sin, he wants to know what to do about it.
There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes 'love' — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, 'service', courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned 'his divinity' = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God's way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly 'theocentric'. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man's eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a 'love' that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).
Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so), and very ready to enter into all the interests, as far as they can, from ties to religion, of the young man they are attracted to. No intent necessarily to deceive: sheer instinct: the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. Under this impulse they can in fact often achieve very remarkable insight and understanding, even of things otherwise outside their natural range: for it is their gift to be receptive, stimulated, fertilized (in many other matters than the physical) by the male. Every teacher knows that. How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point – and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him. But this is their natural avenue to love. Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing) she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. And then things are going to happen: and they may be very painful and harmful, if things go wrong. Particularly if the young man only wanted a temporary guiding star and divinity (until he hitches his waggon to a brighter one), and was merely enjoying the flattery of sympathy nicely seasoned with a titillation of sex – all quite innocent, of course, and worlds away from 'seduction'.
You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests', or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of 'love'. A young woman, even one 'economically independent', as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the 'bottom drawer' and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don't be misled by the fact that they are more 'sentimental' in words – freer with 'darling', and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don't really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can 'reform' men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk 'bawdy'; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don't find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?
They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. .... No good pretending. Men just ain't, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of 'revealed' ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.
However, the essence of a fallen world is that the best cannot be attained by free enjoyment, or by what is called 'self-realization' (usually a nice name for self-indulgence, wholly inimical to the realization of other selves); but by denial, by suffering. Faithfulness in Christian marriage entails that: great mortification. For a Christian man there is no escape. Marriage may help to sanctify & direct to its proper object his sexual desires; its grace may help him in the struggle; but the struggle remains. It will not satisfy him – as hunger may be kept off by regular meals. It will offer as many difficulties to the purity proper to that state, as it provides easements. No man, however truly he loved his betrothed and bride as a young man, has lived faithful to her as a wife in mind and body without deliberate conscious exercise of the will, without self-denial. Too few are told that — even those brought up 'in the Church'. Those outside seem seldom to have heard it. When the glamour wears off, or merely works a bit thin, they think they have made a mistake, and that the real soulmate is still to find. The real soul-mate too often proves to be the next sexually attractive person that comes along. Someone whom they might indeed very profitably have married, if only —. Hence divorce, to provide the 'if only'. And of course they are as a rule quite right: they did make a mistake. Only a very wise man at the end of his life could make a sound judgement concerning whom, amongst the total possible chances, he ought most profitably to have married! Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might have found more suitable mates. But the 'real soul-mate' is the one you are actually married to. You really do very little choosing: life and circumstance do most of it (though if there is a God these must be His instruments, or His appearances). It is notorious that in fact happy marriages are more common where the 'choosing' by the young persons is even more limited, by parental or family authority, as long as there is a social ethic of plain unromantic responsibility and conjugal fidelity. But even in countries where the romantic tradition has so far affected social arrangements as to make people believe that the choosing of a mate is solely the concern of the young, only the rarest good fortune brings together the man and woman who are really as it were 'destined' for one another, and capable of a very great and splendid love. The idea still dazzles us, catches us by the throat: poems and stories in multitudes have been written on the theme, more, probably, than the total of such loves in real life (yet the greatest of these tales do not tell of the happy marriage of such great lovers, but of their tragic separation; as if even in this sphere the truly great and splendid in this fallen world is more nearly achieved by 'failure' and suffering). In such great inevitable love, often love at first sight, we catch a vision, I suppose, of marriage as it should have been in an unfallen world. In this fallen world we have as our only guides, prudence, wisdom (rare in youth, too late in age), a clean, heart, and fidelity of will.....
My own history is so exceptional, so wrong and imprudent in nearly every point that it makes it difficult to counsel prudence. Yet hard cases make bad law; and exceptional cases are not always good guides for others.
[...]
Out of the darkness of my life, so much frustrated, I put before you the one great thing to love
on earth: the Blessed Sacrament. .... There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the
true way of all your loves upon earth, and more than that: Death: by the divine paradox, that which
ends life, and demands the surrender of all, and yet by the taste (or foretaste) of which alone can
what you seek in your earthly relationships (love, faithfulness, joy) be maintained, or take on that
complexion of reality, of eternal endurance, which every man's heart desires.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as
Continue studying Matthew 19:7 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
In Matthew 19:7, the Pharisees challenge Jesus' teaching on the sanctity and permanence of marriage by attempting to trap Him with a question rooted in their interpretation of the Mosaic Law. Their inquiry, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?", reveals a legalistic mindset focused on a perceived loophole rather than God's original design for marriage, setting the stage for Jesus to clarify the true intent of the Law and the divine will concerning divorce.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is a direct response from the Pharisees to Jesus' profound declaration regarding marriage in the preceding verses. In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus appeals to the creation narrative, quoting Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, to establish God's foundational design for marriage as a lifelong, indissoluble union where "the two shall become one flesh" and "what therefore God has joined together, let no one separate." The Pharisees, seeking to test Him and perhaps discredit His authority, immediately pivot to the Mosaic Law, specifically the provision for a certificate of divorce found in Deuteronomy 24:1. Their question is not an honest inquiry but a strategic attempt to force Jesus into a contradiction: either He contradicts Moses, or He contradicts His own teaching on God's ideal.
Historical & Cultural Context
First-century Jewish society recognized divorce, primarily for men, though the grounds for it were a subject of intense debate between the rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai. The School of Shammai held a stricter view, limiting grounds for divorce to sexual immorality, while the School of Hillel adopted a much more lenient stance, allowing divorce for almost any reason, including a wife burning a meal or simply displeasing her husband. The "writing of divorcement" (Hebrew: sepher keritut) was a legal document required by Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that formally dissolved the marriage, protected the woman from accusations of adultery if she remarried, and allowed her to do so. In a patriarchal society, this provision, while allowing divorce, also served to regulate it and provide some legal protection for the divorced woman, preventing arbitrary abandonment without any formal documentation. The Pharisees' question reflects this cultural reality and their reliance on the legalistic interpretations prevalent at the time.
Key Themes
This verse powerfully contributes to several key themes within Matthew's Gospel and broader biblical theology. Foremost is the Interpretation of Scripture, as the Pharisees demonstrate a legalistic and superficial understanding of the Mosaic Law, misrepresenting Moses' allowance as a "command" rather than a concession. This sets up Jesus' authoritative re-interpretation, which moves beyond the letter to the spirit and original intent of the Law, highlighting His role as the ultimate interpreter and fulfiller of God's Word (as seen in Matthew 5:17-20). Another crucial theme is the Tension Between God's Ideal and Human Compromise. Jesus' teaching contrasts God's perfect, original design for marriage, established at creation, with the provisions made in the Law due to the "hardness of men's hearts" (Matthew 19:8). This highlights the reality of human sinfulness and its impact on divine institutions. Finally, the passage directly addresses the Nature and Permissibility of Divorce, compelling Jesus to clarify its painful reality within the context of God's will and the fallen human condition.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
A primary verb meaning "to lay forth," or figuratively, "to relate (in words)." This word indicates a systematic or set discourse, suggesting the Pharisees' question was not a casual inquiry but a deliberate, calculated challenge, part of a formal debate or test.
Meaning "to enjoin," "give charge," or "give command." The Pharisees' use of this word is critical, as they present Moses' provision as an absolute command, implying a divine imperative for divorce, rather than a regulation or concession. This misrepresentation is central to Jesus' subsequent correction.
Meaning "something separative," specifically "divorce" or "a writing of divorcement." This term refers to the legal document that formally severed the marriage bond, allowing the woman to remarry. Its presence in the question underscores the legalistic framework through which the Pharisees viewed marriage and its dissolution.
Verse Breakdown
"They say unto him"
This opening phrase immediately establishes the adversarial nature of the encounter. "They" refers to the Pharisees, who have approached Jesus with the specific intent to "test him" (Matthew 19:3). Their address to Jesus is not one of humble inquiry but of challenge, setting the stage for a theological and legal debate.
"Why did Moses then command"
This is the crux of the Pharisees' challenge. They frame Moses' provision for a "writing of divorcement" not as a concession or a regulation of a regrettable practice, but as a direct divine "command." This mischaracterization of the Mosaic Law is what Jesus will directly address, clarifying that Moses "permitted" it due to human hardness of heart, rather than "commanding" it.
"to give a writing of divorcement"
This refers to the get, or bill of divorcement, mandated in Deuteronomy 24:1. The Pharisees highlight the legal mechanism that allowed for the dissolution of marriage, emphasizing the formal, sanctioned aspect of divorce within their legal tradition. They see this as an inherent part of the Law, seemingly at odds with Jesus' teaching on the permanence of marriage.
"and to put her away?"
This phrase, synonymous with divorce, refers to the act of sending a wife away from the marital home. It underscores the practical outcome of the "writing of divorcement." The Pharisees present this as a divinely sanctioned act, implying that if Moses (God's prophet) commanded it, then Jesus' stricter view on marriage must be in error or in contradiction with the Law.
Literary Devices
Matthew 19:7 employs several literary devices to convey its meaning and set the stage for Jesus' teaching. The most prominent is Interrogation, as the verse is framed as a direct question from the Pharisees to Jesus. This is not a genuine search for truth but a Rhetorical Question designed to trap Jesus, forcing Him to choose between contradicting Moses (and thus the Law) or contradicting His own teaching on the sanctity of marriage. This creates a dramatic Conflict between the legalistic interpretation of the Pharisees and Jesus' deeper understanding of God's original intent. The verse also implicitly uses Contrast, highlighting the tension between God's ideal for marriage (as Jesus established in the preceding verses) and the human compromise or concession found in the Mosaic Law due to sin. This sets up the subsequent explanation of Legalism versus Grace, where Jesus transcends the mere letter of the Law to reveal its underlying spirit and purpose.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 19:7 serves as a crucial pivot point, allowing Jesus to address the profound theological tension between God's perfect design for marriage and the realities of human sinfulness. The Pharisees' question, rooted in a legalistic interpretation of the Mosaic Law, forces a clarification of divine intent versus human concession. While Moses' provision for divorce was a practical regulation in a fallen world, protecting women in a patriarchal society, it was never God's ideal. Jesus' subsequent teaching reveals that marriage, as established at creation, reflects a divine covenant of lifelong unity, mirroring God's own faithfulness. The discussion highlights that the Law, while holy and good, was given to a sinful people, and some provisions were made not as commands for ideal behavior, but as concessions to human brokenness, pointing towards the need for a deeper, redemptive work that could restore humanity to God's original design.
Reflection and Application
Matthew 19:7 compels us to examine our own understanding and application of God's Word. Like the Pharisees, we can sometimes approach scripture with a legalistic mindset, seeking loopholes or justifications for our own desires rather than humbly seeking God's perfect will. This passage reminds us that God's ideal for marriage is a sacred, lifelong covenant, a reflection of His own faithfulness and the unity He desires for His people. While the reality of sin has brought brokenness and divorce into the world, Jesus' teaching calls us to aspire to God's original design, to pursue reconciliation, and to recognize the gravity of marital vows. For those who have experienced the pain of divorce, this passage, when read in its full context, also offers grace and understanding, acknowledging the "hardness of hearts" that can lead to such outcomes, without condemning individuals. It challenges us to look beyond the letter of the law to the heart of God, seeking His transformative power to heal and restore relationships, and to uphold the sanctity of marriage within our communities.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Did Moses truly "command" divorce, as the Pharisees claimed?
No, Moses did not "command" divorce. Jesus clarifies in Matthew 19:8 that Moses "permitted" or "allowed" the giving of a certificate of divorce "because of the hardness of your hearts." This was a concession, a regulation for a practice that already existed due to human sinfulness, rather than a divine mandate for divorce. God's original intent for marriage, as Jesus points out by referencing Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, was a lifelong, indissoluble union. Moses' provision served to protect the woman in a patriarchal society by requiring a formal document, preventing arbitrary abandonment and allowing her to remarry legally.
What was the purpose of the "writing of divorcement" mentioned in this verse?
The "writing of divorcement" (Greek: biblion apostasiou, Hebrew: sepher keritut) was a legal document required by the Mosaic Law, specifically Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Its primary purpose was to legally sever the marital bond between a man and a woman, making the divorce official. This document protected the divorced woman by providing proof that she was no longer married, thus preventing accusations of adultery if she chose to remarry. It also granted her the legal right to remarry, providing a measure of security and dignity in a society where a woman's status was largely tied to her marital state.
How does Jesus' teaching on marriage and divorce differ from the Pharisees' understanding?
Jesus' teaching fundamentally differs from the Pharisees' understanding by elevating God's original creation design for marriage above legalistic interpretations of the Mosaic Law. The Pharisees focused on the letter of the law, viewing Moses' provision as a command that allowed for divorce on various grounds. Jesus, however, goes back to the beginning (Matthew 19:4), emphasizing that God's intent was for marriage to be a lifelong, "one flesh" union that man should not separate. He clarifies that Moses' allowance was a concession to human sin ("hardness of hearts"), not an endorsement of divorce as God's ideal. Jesus thus re-establishes the sanctity and permanence of marriage, while the Pharisees sought to exploit a legal provision for their own convenience or to trap Jesus.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Matthew 19:7, with the Pharisees' challenge to Jesus, serves as a profound moment where Christ's authority as the ultimate interpreter and fulfiller of the Law is powerfully demonstrated. By appealing to creation rather than merely the Mosaic concession, Jesus reveals that He is not only greater than Moses but also the very embodiment of God's original design and redemptive purpose. His teaching transcends the legalistic letter of the Law, pointing to the spirit of God's heart and the perfect will for humanity. In Christ, the "hardness of hearts" that necessitated Moses' concession is addressed and overcome. Through His atoning work, Jesus provides the grace and power for humanity to live in accordance with God's original intentions, including the sacred covenant of marriage. He Himself is the faithful Bridegroom, and the Church is His bride, a relationship that perfectly exemplifies the "one flesh" union (as beautifully described in Ephesians 5:25-32). Thus, Jesus' response in Matthew 19:7-9 is not merely a legal ruling but a revelation of His redemptive mission: to restore what was broken by sin, to empower believers to live out God's ideal, and to offer forgiveness and new life even in the face of human failure and the painful realities of divorce, pointing all to the ultimate covenant faithfulness found in Him.