Thoughts

This section of Matthew’s gospel contains a second account of Jesus’s teaching on marriage. The broad context here is that of responses to Christ in unbelief and belief from the doubts raised by John the Baptist (11:1-19) to the judgement on those who could not recognise him in the poor and needy (25:31-46). It immediately follows the fourth discourse on life in the church as life in the Kingdom, and precedes teaching about the coming of the Kingdom in the context of the passion and resurrection of Christ and his return. Teaching on marriage and celibacy is an interesting bridge between the two. There are parallels to this teaching earlier in Matthew (5:31-32) in the context of the Sermon on the Mount teaching about life in the Kingdom. The parallels in Mark (10:2-12) and Luke (16:18) do not give the exception for ‘πορνεια’ that Matthew provides (19:9 and 5:32).

Green contrasts Judaic theory and practice on marriage (p201-202), noting that the significance and permanence on marriage is clear from Creation, and yet the exception granted by Moses had been extended by some Jewish teachers to a quite liberal degree. He also notes (p203) that God had also said ‘I hate divorce’ (Mal. 2:16).

Green suggests that here the Pharisees were attempting to trick Jesus to take one or another side in the Jewish controversy on the legalities involved in divorce. John Chrysostom suggests that, knowing what Jesus had previously said in strengthening the Law on marriage (Mt 5:31-32), they hoped to catch him contradicting either himself or the Law (LXII:1). But here Jesus responds by quoting Scripture (even, as Green notes, attributing the words of Genesis to ‘the Creator’, p202). The strength of his statement, “what God hath joined together…” and “one flesh”, indicates the seriousness with which God views marriage and the intention that it be a permanent state. Chrysostom notes the continuity with old covenant (LXII:2) in Jesus’s words, noting also how Jesus turns the criticism back on the Pharisees – “for the hardness of your hearts”. This is a common way for Jesus to respond to the Pharisees (e.g. 9:11-13, 12:1-14, 15:1-20). Having stated the law of God, Jesus then gives the law with own authority (as he had also done in previous similar cases, e.g. 5:21-48, 15:10-11). Likewise, again as before (e.g. 9:14, 15:12-20), the disciples ask for clarification on this ‘hard saying’.

The interpretation of 19:11 is also difficult: what is “this saying” – his, or the disciples’? Does this mean that accepting marriage on such terms is hard, and there are those, like the eunuchs, who cannot accept it? Or does it mean that accepting celibacy is hard, but it is given to some, as for the eunuchs, to accept it. Green is ambiguous (p203). Chrysostom understands the second (LVII:3), commenting that the disciples are suggesting celibacy is easier, but Jesus that it is hard; but by seeing the difficulty of marriage they might be encouraged to celibacy (since, like the eunuchs, they will be able to endure it). With regard to the eunuchs, Chrysostom speaks strongly against self-mutilation (even comparing it to murder), and says that “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (19:12) are those who have put away wicked thoughts. He further comments that Jesus’s saying “he who is able to accept it…” means that this teaching about marriage and celibacy is not “shut up in the compulsion of a law” (LVII:3) but that each is called to live out the Kingdom life in the way appropriate to his circumstances. Whichever saying Jesus is referring to, what is clear is that neither marriage nor celibacy is to be a universal rule; both are roads that can lead to the Kingdom, as long as they are lived out in the context of a Kingdom life.

As for the contradiction between Matthew’s account and the parallels in Mark and Luke, one possible explanation is that Matthew’s concern for continuity with the old covenant has caused him to add Moses’s ‘divorce clause’ to Jesus’s saying (Matthew makes an exception for ‘πορνεια’ which means some kind of unlawful sexual behaviour[1], similar to Moses’s exception for a husband to divorce if ‘ευρεν εν αυτη ασχημον πραγμα’ – if he found in her a shameless deed – Deut 24:1 LXX). However Green (p204-5) has an intriguing and plausible way of dealing with it. After discussing the problems of interpreting exactly what the word ‘πορνεια’ means, and the context of the exception, he explains that Jesus was not legislating here but is demonstrating the ideal of marriage, which in the life of the Kingdom and in the purposes of Creation was to be a permanent union. Green suggests that here, Matthew was turning this teaching into a law, and “as soon as you have legislation, you need exceptions to cover hard cases”. In other words, it is clear from Jesus’s teaching what marriage should be, but there is room for economia in specific difficult cases.

[1] Bauer’s Lexicon.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS