Matthew 19

The King’s “retirement” from the crowds was about to come to an end. But the attacks of the enemy would grow more intense, culminating in His arrest and crucifixion. The religious leaders had already tried to ensnare Him with questions about the Sabbath and signs, and they had failed. They tried again, this time with a most controversial issue—divorce.

This subject is both important and controversial today. The divorce rate continues to climb (at this writing, one divorce for every 1. marriages), and divorce has invaded even the homes of Christian leaders. Someone has commented that couples “are married for better or for worse, but not for long.” We need to examine again what Jesus taught about this subject. He explained four different laws relating to marriage and divorce.

Instead of going back to Deuteronomy, Jesus went back to Genesis. What God did when He established the first marriage teaches us positively what He had in mind for a man and a woman. If we build a marriage after God’s ideal pattern, we will not have to worry about divorce laws.

The reasons for marriage. The only thing that was not “good” about creation was the fact that the man was alone (Gen. 2:18). The woman was created to meet this need. Adam could not find fellowship with the animals. He needed a companion who was equal to him and with whom he could find fulfillment. God’s answer to this need was Eve.

Marriage makes possible the continuation of the race. “Be fruitful, and multiply” was God’s mandate to the first married couple (Gen. 1:28). From the beginning it was God’s command that sex be practiced in the commitment of marriage. Outside of marriage, sex becomes a destructive force; but within the loving commitment of marriage, sex can be creative and constructive.

Marriage is one way to avoid sexual sins (1 Cor. 7:1–6). Of course, a man should not marry simply to legalize lust! If he is lustful outside of marriage, he will no doubt be lustful after he is married. He should not think that getting married will solve all of his personal problems with lust. But marriage is God’s appointed way for a man and a woman to share the physical joys of sex.

Paul used marriage as an illustration of the intimate relationship between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22–23). Just as Eve was taken from the side of Adam (Gen. 2:21), so the church was born from the suffering and death of Christ on the cross. Christ loves His church, nourishes it with His Word, cleanses it, and cares for it. Christ’s relationship to His church is the example for all husbands to follow.

The characteristics of marriage. By going back to the original Edenic law, Jesus reminded His listeners of the true characteristics of marriage. If we remember these characteristics, we will better know how to build a happy and enduring marriage.

It is a divinely appointed union. God established marriage, and therefore only God can control its character and laws. No court of law can change what God has established.

It is a physical union. The man and woman become “one flesh.” While it is important that a husband and wife be of one mind and heart, the basic union in marriage is physical. If a man and woman became “one spirit” in marriage, then death would not dissolve the marriage, for the spirit never dies. Even if a man and woman disagree, are “incompatible,” and cannot get along, they are still married, for the union is a physical one.

It is a permanent union. God’s original design was that one man and one woman spend one life together. God’s original law knows nothing of “trial marriages.” God’s law requires that the husband and wife enter into marriage without reservations.

It is a union between one man and one woman. God did not create two men and one woman, two women and one man, two men, or two women. “Group marriages,” “gay marriages,” and other variations are contrary to the will of God, no matter what some psychologists and jurists may say.

Like many people who “argue religion,” these Pharisees were not interested in discovering truth. They were interested only in defending themselves and what they believed. This was why they asked about the Jewish law of divorce recorded in Deuteronomy 24:1–4.

I suggest you read this important passage in the New American Standard Bible to distinguish the tenses of the verbs. This translation makes it clear that Moses gave only one commandment: The divorced wife could not return to her first husband if she was put away by a second husband. Moses did not command divorce; he permitted it. He commanded that the husband give his ex-wife a legal bill of divorcement. But the wife could not return to her first husband after being remarried and divorced.

What a wise law this was. To begin with, the husband would think twice before hastily putting away his wife, since he could not get her back again. Furthermore, it would have taken time to find a scribe (not everyone could write legal documents), and during that time the two estranged people might have been reconciled. The Pharisees were interpreting Moses’ law as though it were a commandment. Jesus made it clear that Moses was only giving permission for divorce.

But what did Moses mean by “some uncleanness in her”? The Hebrew means “some matter of nakedness,” but this need not refer to sexual sin. That phrase is the equivalent of “some shameful thing” (see Gen. 2:25; 3:7, 10). It is the interpretation of this phrase that divided the two schools of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai, famous first-century Jewish scholars. Hillel took a very lax view and said that the husband could divorce his wife for almost any reason, while Shammai took the stricter view and said Moses was speaking only about sexual sin. No matter which side Jesus took, He would surely offend somebody.

There were several laws of marriage given to the Jews, and we must examine them in order to get some perspective. For example, if a man married a woman and discovered that she was not a virgin, he could expose her sin and have her stoned (Deut. 22:13–21). Of course, he had to have proof, and if he did not, he was fined and had to live with the woman all of his life. This law was as much a protection to the woman as to the man.

If a man suspected his wife of unfaithfulness, he followed the procedure outlined in Numbers 5:11ff. We cannot follow that procedure today (which certainly included elements of divine judgment) since there is no priesthood or tabernacle.

Remember that the law of Moses demanded the death penalty for those who committed adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Our Lord’s enemies appealed to this law when they tried to trap Him (John 8:1). While we have no record in the Old Testament that anyone was stoned for committing adultery, this was the divine law. The experience of Joseph (Matt. 1:18–25) indicates that the Jews used divorce rather than stoning in dealing with an adulterous wife.

Why did God command that the adulterer or adulteress be stoned to death? Certainly as an example to warn the people, for adultery undermines the very fabric of society and the home. There must be commitment in marriage, and faithfulness to each other and to God, if there is to be stability in society and in the church. God had to preserve Israel because the promised Savior would come through that nation. God opposed divorce in Israel because it weakened the nation and threatened the birth of the Messiah (see Mal. 2:10–16).

But there was another reason for capital punishment: This left the other party free to marry again. Death breaks the marriage bond, since marriage is a physical union (Rom. 7:1–3). It was important that families be continued in Israel that they might protect their inheritance (Num. 36).

We must note one final fact before leaving this section: The divorce that Moses permitted in Deuteronomy 24 actually severed the original marriage relationship. God permitted the woman to marry again, and her second marriage was not considered adulterous. The second man she married was called a “husband” and not an adulterer. This explains how the woman of Samaria could have had five husbands, and yet be living with a man not her husband (John 4:16–18). Apparently all five of those marriages had been legal and scriptural.

This means that scriptural divorce does sever the marriage relationship. Man cannot break this relationship by his laws, but God can break it. The same God who gives the laws that join people together can also give laws to put them asunder. God can do it, but man cannot.

Finally, Jesus made it clear that this Mosaic law of divorce was a concession on God’s part. God’s original law of marriage left no room for divorce, but that law was laid down before man had sinned. Rather than have two people living together in constant conflict, with one or both of them seeking fulfillment elsewhere and thus commit sin, God permitted divorce. This divorce included the right to remarriage. The Pharisees did not ask about remarriage, for this was no problem. They accepted the fact that the parties would seek other mates, and this was allowed by Moses.

Our Lord’s Law of Marriage (19:9–12; 5:31–32) When Jesus said “And I say unto you,” He was claiming to be God, for only God can establish or alter the laws of marriage. He declared that marriage was a permanent union that could only be broken by sexual sin. The word fornication in the New Testament covers many kinds of sexual sins. The definition of fornication as “sexual sin between two unmarried persons” would not apply here, for Jesus was talking about married persons. Are we to believe that the 23,000 men who committed fornication under the enticement of Baalam (Num. 25) were all unmarried men? Was the admonition of Acts 15:20, 29 sent only to single church members?

Marriage is a permanent physical union that can be broken only by a physical cause: death or sexual sin. (I would take it that homosexuality and bestiality would qualify.) Man cannot break the union, but God can. Under the Old Testament law, the sinner was stoned to death. But the church today does not bear the sword (Rom. 13:1–4). Were adultery and fornication more serious under the law than the same sins are today? Of course not! If anything, such sins are even worse today in the light of the full revelation of God’s grace and holiness that we now have in Jesus Christ.

The conclusion seems to be that divorce in the New Testament is the equivalent of death in the Old Testament: It permitted the innocent party freedom to remarry.

Notice that our Lord’s new law of marriage and divorce was based on the three previous laws. From the Edenic law He took the principle that marriage was a physical union that could only be broken by a physical cause, and that only God could permit the breaking of the union. From the seventh commandment He took the principle that sexual sin did indeed break the marriage union. From the Mosaic law of divorce He took the principle that God could ordain divorce and effectively break the marriage union, and that the freed party could remarry and not be guilty of adultery.

Our Lord’s teaching is that there is only one scriptural basis for divorce, and that is sexual sin (fornication). If two people are divorced on any other basis, and marry other mates, they are committing adultery.

Jesus did not teach that the offended mate had to get a divorce. Certainly there can be forgiveness, patient healing, and a restoration of the broken relationship. This would be the Christian approach to the problem. But, sad to say, because of the hardness of our hearts, it is sometimes impossible to heal the wounds and save the marriage. Divorce is the final option, not the first option.

Happy marriages are not accidents. They are the result of commitment, love, mutual understanding, sacrifice, and hard work. If a husband and wife are fulfilling their marriage vows, they will enjoy a growing relationship that will satisfy them and keep them true to each other. Except for the possibility of sudden temptation, no husband or wife would think of a relationship with another person, so long as their relationship at home is growing and satisfying. And the pure love of a husband or wife is a great protection against even sudden temptation.

The disciples’ response to Christ’s teaching showed that they disagreed with Him. “If there is no way to get out of a bad marriage, then you are better off staying single!” was their argument. Jesus did not want them to consider divorce as an “out” because then they would not have a serious attitude toward marriage.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus made it clear that each man (and woman) must consider God’s will concerning marriage. Some people should not get married because of physical or emotional problems from birth. Others should not get married because of their responsibilities in society; they have been “made eunuchs by man.” An only child who must care for aged parents might be an example of this category. Some, like the apostle Paul, stay single that they might better serve the Lord (1 Cor. 7:7).

It is fitting that our Lord’s teaching about marriage should be followed by His blessing of the children, for children are the happy heritage of those who are married. Jesus did not look on the children as a curse or a burden. “Two shall become one flesh” is fulfilled in the birth of children, and the love of the parents is deepened and matured as it is shared with others in the home.

The parents brought the children to Jesus that He might bless them. There is no thought here of baptism or even of salvation. Children who have not reached the age of accountability (Isa. 7:16) are surely covered by the death of Christ (Rom. 5:17–21). Children are born sinners (Ps. 51:5), but if they die before they are accountable, they are regenerated and taken to heaven (2 Sam. 12:23; Ps. 23:6).

The children were certainly privileged to have Jesus take them in His arms and pray for them. Our practice of baby dedication today seeks to follow this example. How happy those children are whose parents are married in the will of God, and who are seeking to obey God, and who bring them to Jesus for His blessing.

We cannot follow the King without paying a price. After all, He went to the cross for us! Have we the right to escape sacrifice and suffering? In this section, our Lord explains the rightful demands that He makes on those who want to trust Him and be His disciples.

Each of the first three Gospels records this event. When we combine the facts, we learn that this man was rich, young, and a ruler—probably the ruler of a synagogue. We can certainly commend this young man for coming publicly to Christ and asking about external matters. He seemed to have no ulterior motive and was willing to listen and learn. Sadly, he made the wrong decision.

The event seems to develop around several important questions.

“What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (vv. 16–17). The man was obviously sincere, though his approach to salvation was centered on works and not faith. But this was to be expected among the Jews of that day. However, in spite of his position in society, his morality, and his religion, he felt a definite need for something more.

But our Lord’s reply did not focus on salvation. He forced the young man to think seriously about the word good that he had used in addressing Jesus. “Only God is good,” Jesus said. “Do you believe that I am good and therefore that I am God?” If Jesus is only one of many religious teachers in history, then His words carry no more weight than the pronouncements of any other religious leader. But if Jesus is good, then He is God, and we had better heed what He says.

Why did Jesus bring up the commandments? Did He actually teach that people receive eternal life by obeying God’s law? If anyone could keep the commandments, he certainly would enter into life. But no one can keep God’s law perfectly. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Jesus did not introduce the law to show the young man how to be saved, but to show him that he needed to be saved. The law is a mirror that reveals what we are (James 1:22ff.).

“Which commandments?” (vv. 18–19). Was the young man being evasive? I don’t think so. But he was making a mistake, for one part of God’s law cannot be separated from another part. To classify God’s laws into “lesser” and “greater” is to miss the whole purpose of the law. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). The law represents the authority of God, and to disobey what we may think is a minor law is still to rebel against His authority.

Of course, the young man thought only of external obedience. He forgot about the attitudes of the heart. Jesus had taught in the Sermon on the Mount that hatred was the moral equivalent of murder, and that lust was the equivalent of adultery. We rejoice that this young man had such good manners and morals. But we regret that he did not see his sin, repent, and trust Christ.

The one commandment that especially applied to him, Jesus did not quote: “Thou shalt not covet” (Ex. 20:17). The young man should have pondered all of the commandments and not just the ones that Jesus quoted. Was he looking for easy discipleship? Was he being dishonest with himself? I believe that his testimony was sincere, as far as he knew. But he did not permit the light of the Word to penetrate deeply enough. Jesus felt a sudden love for this young man (Mark 10:21), so He continued to try to help him.

“What lack I yet?” (vv. 20–22). Nowhere in the Bible are we taught that a sinner is saved by selling his goods and giving the money away. Jesus never told Nicodemus to do this, or any other sinner whose story is recorded in the Gospels. Jesus knew that this man was covetous; he loved material wealth. By asking him to sell his goods, Jesus was forcing him to examine his own heart and determine his priorities. With all of his commendable qualities, the young man still did not truly love God with all of his heart. Possessions were his god. He was unable to obey the command, “Go and sell … come and follow.”

The young man went away grieved, but he could have gone away in great joy and peace. We cannot love and serve two masters (Matt. 6:24ff.). We can be sure that, apart from Christ, even the material possessions of life give no lasting joy or pleasure. It is good to have the things money can buy provided we do not lose the things that money cannot buy. Unless this rich ruler eventually turned to Christ, he died without salvation, one of the “richest” men in the cemetery.

“Who then can be saved?” (vv. 23–26). The Jewish people of that day believed that riches were an evidence of God’s blessing. They based this on the promises God gave the Jewish nation at the beginning of their history. It is true that God did promise material blessing if they obeyed, and material loss if they disobeyed (see Deut. 26—28). But in the infancy of the race, the only way God could teach them was through rewards and punishments. We teach young children in the same manner.

However, the highest kind of obedience is not based on a desire for reward or the fear of punishment. It is motivated by love. In His life and His teaching, Jesus tried to show the people that the inner spiritual blessings are far more important than the material gains. God sees the heart, and God wants to build character. Salvation is the gift of God in response to man’s faith. Material riches are not a guarantee that God is pleased with a man.

The disciples, being good Jews, were amazed at the Lord’s statement about riches. Their question reflected their theology: “If a rich man cannot be saved, what hope is there for the rest of us?” Of course, Jesus did not say that the possessing of wealth kept a man from the kingdom. Some manuscripts of Mark 10: read, “How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.” This is certainly the import of our Lord’s teaching. Abraham was a very wealthy man, yet he was a man of great faith. It is good to possess wealth if wealth does not possess you.

We cannot follow the King and live for worldly wealth. We cannot serve God and money. The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:6–10). Jesus Christ demands of all who will follow Him that they love Him supremely.

Peter was quick to see the contrast between the wealthy ruler and poor disciples. “We have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” Jesus gave them a marvelous promise of rewards in this life and in the next. They would even share thrones when He established His kingdom. Whatever good things they had forsaken for His sake would be returned to them a hundredfold. In other words, they were not making sacrifices—they were making investments. But not all of the dividends would be received in this life.

However, Jesus detected in Peter’s question the possibility of a wrong motive for service. This was why He added the warning that some who were first in their own eyes would be last in the judgment, and some who were last would end up first. This truth was amplified in the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

This parable has nothing to do with salvation. The penny (a day’s wages in that time) does not represent salvation, for nobody works for his salvation. Nor is the parable talking about rewards, for we are not all going to receive the same reward. “And every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor” (1 Cor. 3:8).

The parable is emphasizing a right attitude in service. It is important to note that there were actually two kinds of workers hired that day: those who wanted a contract and agreed to work for a penny a day, and those who had no contract and agreed to take whatever the owner thought was right. The first laborers that he hired insisted on a contract.

This explains why the householder paid the workers as he did: He wanted those who were hired first (who insisted on a contract) to see how much he paid the workers who were hired later. It was one way the owner could show those workers how really generous he was.

Put yourself in the place of those workers who were hired first but paid last. They each expected to get a penny, because that was what they agreed to accept. But imagine their surprise when they saw the laborers who were hired last each receiving a penny! This meant their own wages should have been twelve pennies each!

But the three o’clock workers also received a penny—for only three hours of work. The men last in line quickly recalculated their wages: four pennies for the day’s work. When the men hired at noon also were paid a penny, this cut the salary of the contract workers considerably, for now they would earn only two pennies.

But the owner gave them one penny each. Of course, they complained! But they had no argument, because they had agreed to work for a penny. They received what they asked for. Had they trusted the goodness of the owner, they would have received far more. But they insisted on a contract.

The lesson for Christ’s disciples is obvious. We should not serve Him because we want to receive an expected reward, and we should not insist on knowing what we will get. God is infinitely generous and gracious and will always give us better than we deserve.

Now we can understand the perils that were hidden in Peter’s question in Matthew 19:27. For one thing, we must not “suppose” (Matt. 20:10) that we will get something more if we really do not deserve it. It is possible to do the Father’s work and yet not do His will from the heart (Eph. 6:6). If we serve Him only for the benefits (temporal and eternal), then we will miss the best blessings He has for us. We must trust Him unreservedly and believe that He will always give what is best.

There is the danger of pride. “What shall we have?” asked Peter. This parable warned him, “How do you know you will have anything?” Beware of overconfidence when it comes to the rewards God will give, for those first in their own eyes (and in the eyes of others) may end up last! Likewise, do not get discouraged, for those who consider themselves “unprofitable servants” may end up first.

Beware of the danger of watching other workers and measuring yourself by them. “Judge nothing before the time,” Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 4:5. We see the worker and the work, but God sees the heart.

Finally, we must beware of criticizing God and feeling that we have been left out. Had the early morning workers trusted the owner and not asked for an agreement, the owner would have given them much more. He was generous, but they would not trust him. They did not rejoice that others received more; instead, they were jealous and complained. The goodness of the owner did not lead them to repentance (Rom. 2:4). It revealed the true character of their hearts: They were selfish! Whenever we find a complaining servant, we know he has not fully yielded to the master’s will.