Bible Commentaries

He departed (μετηρεν — metēren). Literally, to lift up, change something to another place. Transitive in the lxx and in a Cilician rock inscription. Intransitive in Matthew 13:53 and here, the only N.T. instances. Absence of οτι — hoti or και — kai after και εγενετο — kai egeneto one of the clear Hebraisms in the N.T. (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 1042f.). This verse is a sort of formula in Matthew at the close of important groups of λογια — logia as in Matthew 7:28; Matthew 11:1; Matthew 13:53.

The borders of Judea beyond Jordan (εις τα ορια της Ιουδαιας περαν του Ιορδανου — eis ta horia tēs Ioudaias peran tou Iordanou). This is a curious expression. It apparently means that Jesus left Galilee to go to Judea by way of Perea as the Galileans often did to avoid Samaria. Luke (Luke 17:11) expressly says that he passed through Samaria and Galilee when he left Ephraim in Northern Judea (John 11:54). He was not afraid to pass through the edge of Galilee and down the Jordan Valley in Perea on this last journey to Jerusalem. McNeile is needlessly opposed to the trans-Jordanic or Perean aspect of this phase of Christ‘s work.

Pharisees tempting him (Παρισαιοι πειραζοντες αυτον — Pharisaioi peirazontes auton). They “could not ask a question of Jesus without sinister motives” (Bruce). See note on Matthew 4:1 for the word (πειραζω — peirazō).

For every cause (κατα πασαν αιτιαν — kata pasan aitian). This clause is an allusion to the dispute between the two theological schools over the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1. The school of Shammai took the strict and unpopular view of divorce for unchastity alone while the school of Hillel took the liberal and popular view of easy divorce for any passing whim if the husband saw a prettier woman (modern enough surely) or burnt his biscuits for breakfast. It was a pretty dilemma and meant to do Jesus harm with the people. There is no real trouble about the use of κατα — kata here in the sense of προπτερ — propter or because of (Robertson, Grammar, p. 509).

Shall cleave (κολλητησεται — kollēthēsetai). First future passive, “shall be glued to,” the verb means.

The twain shall become one flesh (εσονται οι δυο εις σαρκα μιαν — esontai hoi duo eis sarka mian). This use of εις — eis after ειμι — eimi is an imitation of the Hebrew, though a few examples occur in the older Greek and in the papyri. The frequency of it is due to the Hebrew and here the lxx is a direct translation of the Hebrew idiom.

What therefore God hath joined together (ο ουν ο τεος συνεζευχεν — ho oun ho theos sunezeuxen). Note “what,” not “whom.” The marriage relation God has made. “The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation” (Bruce). The word for “joined together” means “yoked together,” a common verb for marriage in ancient Greek. It is the timeless aorist indicative (συνεζευχεν — sunezeuxen), true always.

Bill (βιβλιον — biblion). A little βιβλος — biblos (see note on Matthew 1:1), a scroll or document (papyrus or parchment). This was some protection to the divorced wife and a restriction on laxity.

For your hardness of heart (προς την σκληροκαρδιαν μων — pros tēn sklērokardian hūmōn). The word is apparently one of the few Biblical words (lxx and the N.T.). It is a heart dried up (σκληρος — sklēros), hard and tough.

But from the beginning it hath not been so (απ αρχης δε ουκ γεγονεν ουτως — ap' archēs de ouk gegonen houtōs). The present perfect active of γινομαι — ginomai to emphasize the permanence of the divine ideal. “The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force” (Vincent). “How small the Pharisaic disputants must have felt in presence of such holy teaching, which soars above the partisan view of controversialists into the serene region of ideal, universal, eternal truth” (Bruce).

Except for fornication (παρεκτος λογου πορνειας — parektos logou porneias). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds “maketh her an adulteress” (ποιει αυτην μοιχευτηναι — poiei autēn moicheuthēnai) and also these words: “and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται — kai ho apolelumenēn gamēsas moichatai). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in Matthew 5:32. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (μη επι πορνειαι — mē epi porneiāi not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (πορνεια — porneia) which is technically adultery (μοιχεια — moicheia from μοιχαω ορ μοιχευω — moichaō or moicheuō). Here, as in Matthew 5:31., a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that “the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up.” That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew‘s report because it disagrees with one‘s views on the subject of divorce. He adds: “It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai.” Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew‘s report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in Matthew 5:31, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

The disciples say unto him (λεγουσιν αυτωι οι ματηται — legousin autōi hoi mathētai). “Christ‘s doctrine on marriage not only separated Him τοτο χαελο — toto caelo from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve” (Bruce).

The case (η αιτια — hē aitia). The word may refer to the use in Matthew 19:3 “for every cause.” It may have a vague idea here = ρες — res condition. But the point clearly is that “it is not expedient to marry” (ου συμπερει γαμησαι — ou sumpherei gamēsai) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have αντρωπος — anthrōpos and γυνη — gunē contrasted rather than ανηρ — anēr and γυνη — gunē sa120

But they to whom it is given (αλλ οις δεδοται — all' hois dedotai). A neat Greek idiom, dative case of relation and perfect passive indicative. The same idea is repeated at the close of Matthew 19:12. It is a voluntary renunciation of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. “Jesus recognizes the severity of the demand as going beyond the capacity of all but a select number.” It was a direct appeal to the spiritual intelligence of the disciples not to misconceive his meaning as certainly the monastic orders have done.

Rebuked them (επετιμησεν αυτοις — epetimēsen autois). No doubt people did often crowd around Jesus for a touch of his hand and his blessing. The disciples probably felt that they were doing Jesus a kindness. How little they understood children and Jesus. It is a tragedy to make children feel that they are in the way at home and at church. These men were the twelve apostles and yet had no vision of Christ‘s love for little children. The new child world of today is due directly to Jesus.

Suffer (απετε — aphete). “Leave them alone.” Second aorist active imperative.

Forbid them not (μη κωλυετε — mē kōluete). “Stop hindering them.” The idiom of μη — mē with the present imperative means just that.

Of such (των τοιουτων — tōn toioutōn). The childlike as in Matthew 18:3.

What good thing (τι αγατον — ti agathon). Mark (Mark 10:17) has the adjective “good” with “Teacher.”

May have (σχω — schō). Ingressive aorist subjunctive, “may get,” “may acquire.”

Concerning that which is good (περι του αγατου — peri tou agathou). He had asked Jesus in Matthew 19:16 “what good thing” he should do. He evidently had a light idea of the meaning of αγατος — agathos “This was only a teacher‘s way of leading on a pupil” (Bruce). So Jesus explains that “One there is who is good,” one alone who is really good in the absolute sense.

What lack I yet? (τι ετι υστερω — ti eti husterō̇) Here is a psychological paradox. He claims to have kept all these commandments and yet he was not satisfied. He had an uneasy conscience and Jesus called him to something that he did not have. He thought of goodness as quantitative (a series of acts) and not qualitative (of the nature of God). Did his question reveal proud complacency or pathetic despair? A bit of both most likely.

If thou wouldest be perfect (ει τελεις τελειος ειναι — ei theleis teleios einai). Condition of the first class, determined as fulfilled. Jesus assumes that the young man really desires to be perfect (a big adjective that, perfect as God is the goal, Matthew 5:48).

That thou hast (σου τα υπαρχοντα — sou ta huparchonta). “Thy belongings.” The Greek neuter plural participle used like our English word “belongings.” It was a huge demand, for he was rich.

Went away sorrowful (απηλτεν λυπουμενος — apēlthen lupoumenos). “Went away grieved.” He felt that Jesus had asked too much of him. He worshipped money more than God when put to the test. Does Jesus demand this same test of every one? Not unless he is in the grip of money. Different persons are in the power of different sins. One sin is enough to keep one away from Christ.

It is hard (δυσκολως — duskolōs). With difficulty. Adverb from δυσκολος — duskolos hard to find food, fastidious, faultfinding, then difficult.

It is easier for a camel to go through a needle‘s eye (ευκοπωτερον εστιν καμηλον δια τρηματος ραπιδος εισελτειν — eukopōteron estin kamēlon dia trēmatos rhaphidos eiselthein). Jesus, of course, means by this comparison, whether an eastern proverb or not, to express the impossible. The efforts to explain it away are jejune like a ship‘s cable, καμιλον — kamilon or ραπις — rhaphis as a narrow gorge or gate of entrance for camels which recognized stooping, etc. All these are hopeless, for Jesus pointedly calls the thing “impossible” (Matthew 19:26). The Jews in the Babylonian Talmud did have a proverb that a man even in his dreams did not see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle (Vincent). The Koran speaks of the wicked finding the gates of heaven shut “till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle.” But the Koran may have got this figure from the New Testament. The word for an ordinary needle is ραπις — rhaphis but, Luke (Luke 18:25) employs βελονη — belonē the medical term for the surgical needle not elsewhere in the N.T.

Were astonished (εχεπλησσοντο — exeplēssonto). Imperfect descriptive of their blank amazement. They were literally “struck out.”

Looking on them (εμβλεπσας — emblepsas). Jesus saw their amazement.

What then shall we have? (τι αρα εσται ημιν — ti ara estai hēmiṅ) A pathetic question of hopeless lack of comprehension.

In the regeneration (εν τηι παλινγενεσιαι — en tēi palingenesiāi). The new birth of the world is to be fulfilled when Jesus sits on his throne of glory. This word was used by the Stoics and the Pythagoreans. It is common also in the mystery religions (Angus, Mystery Religions and Christianity, pp. 95ff.). It is in the papyri also. We must put no fantastic ideas into the mouth of Jesus. But he did look for the final consummation of his kingdom. What is meant by the disciples also sitting on twelve thrones is not clear.

A hundredfold (εκατονπλασιονα — hekatonplasiona). But Westcott and Hort read πολλαπλασιονα — pollaplasiona manifold. Eternal life is the real reward.

The last first and the first last (οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι — hoi eschatoi prōtoi kai hoi prōtoi eschatoi). This paradoxical enigma is probably in the nature of a rebuke to Peter and refers to ranks in the kingdom. There are many other possible applications. The following parable illustrates it.