St Matthew Chapter XIX : Verses 1-12
Contents
- Matt. xix. 1-12. Douay-Rheims text & Latin text (Vulgate).
- Notes on the text.
Matt. xix. 1-12
 |
| Bridegroom and bride at Cana. J-J Tissot. Brooklyn Museum. |
Et factum est, cum consumasset Jesus sermones istos, migravit a Galilæa, et venit in fines Judææ trans Jordanem,
2 And great multitudes followed him: and he healed them there.
et secutæ sunt eum turbae multae, et curavit eos ibi.
3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Et accesserunt ad eum pharisæi tentantes eum, et dicentes : Si licet homini dimittere uxorem suam, quacumque ex causa?
4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said:
Qui respondens, ait eis : Non legistis, quia qui fecit hominem ab initio, masculum et feminam fecit eos? Et dixit :
5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
Propter hoc dimittet homo patrem, et matrem, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una.
6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.
Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet.
7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away?
Dicunt illi : Quid ergo Moyses mandavit dare libellum repudii, et dimittere?
8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Ait illis : Quoniam Moyses ad duritiam cordis vestri permisit vobis dimittere uxores vestras : ab initio autem non fuit sic.
9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Dico autem vobis, quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, nisi ob fornicationem, et aliam duxerit, mœchatur : et qui dimissam duxerit, mœchatur.
10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.
Dicunt ei discipuli ejus : Si ita est causa hominis cum uxore, non expedit nubere.
11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
Qui dixit illis : Non omnes capiunt verbum istud, sed quibus datum est.
12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
Sunt enim eunuchi, qui de matris utero sic nati sunt : et sunt eunuchi, qui facti sunt ab hominibus : et sunt eunuchi, qui seipsos castraverunt propter regnum caelorum. Qui potest capere capiat.
Notes
he departed from Galilee. He never returned to Galilee during His mortal life, but after the Resurrection He appeared to His disciples there. Cf. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee (St Mark xvi. 7). After this Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias (St John xxi. 1 ). ,
coasts of Judea, beyond Jordan. These words “ beyond Jordan” mean that Jesus came into the land bordering on the west of Judea, since no part of Judea lay east of the river. Jesus now went into Perea, where He could teach publicly with less opposition from the Jews. This is probably the visit to Perea of which St John speaks (see x. 40-42).
2. great multitudes followed. The crowds flock to him again (St Mark). he healed them there. St Mark omits these miracles of healing, but he gives a detail which St Matthew omits : And as he ivas accustomed, he taught them again. These words may signify that He resumed the practice of instructing, which had been interrupted, or He taught in His accustomed manner by parables. The miracles of healing would, as usual, give greater weight to His doctrine.
St Luke supplies further details, aud relates that it was on this occasion that Jesus uttered the parables of —
(а) The Unjust Judge St Luke xviii. 1-14
(b) The Pharisee and the Publican. xviii. 1-14.
It was probably about this time that Jesus healed the ten lepers (see St Luke xvii. 11-19).
3. came to him the Pharisees tempting. The Pharisees tempted (i.e. “ tried ” ) our Lord, inasmuch as they possibly hoped to make Him contradict Moses, and to forbid what the prophet had permitted. Notice the different motives that moved the multitudes to follow our Lord. The crowds came to be healed or instructed, the Pharisees came out of malice.
Is it lawful, etc. By their question they wished to place our Lord in a dilemma. If He answered in the affirmative, they would probably have accused Him of contradicting Himself, since He had said previously. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery : and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery (supra, v. 32). If He replied negatively, they would have accused Him of condemning the law of Moses and the practice in common usage. They based their sanction for divorce on Deut. xxiv. If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness ; he shall write a hill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. The followers of Hillel held that a woman could be divorced for every cause, — i.e. the slightest cause, — e.g. if she happened not to please her husband. If the husband chanced to meet a more attractive partner, or if the wife burnt or oversalted a meal, the separation might take place. Josephus tells us that he divorced two wives, and explains that he divorced the second “as being not pleased with her behaviour.” The rabbis founded their opinion on the words, “if she hath not found favour in his eyes.” Shammai taught that a woman could only be divorced for a grave cause, such as adultery. It is probable that as Jesus was now in Perea, in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, the Pharisees wished to accuse Him to Herod should He forbid divorce, and that Herod might then rid them of our Lord, as he had murdered St John the Baptist. The question put by the Pharisees hinged on the cause for which a woman might be divorced. They did not doubt the legality of the practice of divorce, since, by the law of Moses, it was tolerated.
Moses, however, distinctly forbade divorce on the ground that a husband disliked his wife, and therefore calumniated her in order to obtain a bill of divorce (see Deut. xxii. 13-19).
4. Who answering, said : Our Lord first asked another question : What did Moses command you ? Who said : Moses permitted to write a hill of divorce, and to put her away (St Mark). It was our Lord’s method frequently to ask a counter-question, and to make the answer the base of His instruction. Cf. Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath-days ? (St Mark iii. 4). Whose image and inscription is this ? (infra, xxii. 20).
he who made. Lit. “the Maker” (ὁ ποιήσας ). The Vatican Codex has “the Creator” ( ὁ κτίσας).
from the beginning. The parallel passage brings out the sense more clearly. Cf. From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
Our Lord answers the Pharisees’ question by referring to the original institution of marriage, and bases the indissolubility of marriage on three grounds —
(a) God created one man and one woman, and thus shewed that plurality of wives was not His design.
(b) The intimate union which exists between man and wife ; they two shall be one flesh.
(c) What God hath joined together, no man can put asunder.
5. For this cause shall a man leave, etc. Words of Adam, freely quoted, from Gen. ii. 24. Our Lord in quoting them attributes them to God ; and he said, For this cause, etc. The explanation is, that Adam said them by the inspiration of God.
shall cleave. (προσκολληθήσεται). The word expresses the closest union possible.
6. What therefore, etc. ? Our Lord here uses the neuter singular to shew that He is speaking of humanity in general, and not merely of our first parents. Christ here teaches that death alone can dissolve the bond of wedlock.
7. Why then did Moses command, etc. ? St Mark has “ permitted ” instead of “ command.” This permission was based on Dent. xxiv. 1, quoted above. Both our Lord and the Pharisees (in the account as given by St Matthew and St Mark) use the words permit and command.
MacEvilly says, “ In the questions on both sides ‘ command ’ is used. In the answers on both sides ‘permit’ is used. . . . The ordinance relating to divorce contained a command (or precept) and a permission. It permitted the husbands to divorce their wives on certain conditions ; but it commanded them, in case they availed themselves of the permission, to grant a bill of divorce.”
a bill of divorce. Custom had established a regular legal form for this bill, which was generally drawn up by a scribe. As certain formalities had to be gone through in order to get this “ bill,” its use was a check on divorce, and thus trivial and hasty breaches of the bond of matrimony were prevented.
8. by reason of the hardness, etc. Lit. “ having regard to the hardness of your hearts.” (πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν)
The law which tolerated divorce among the Jews was not absolutely good, but only relatively so, as being adapted to their imperfect dispositions. This concession which tolerated divorce was doubtless made by the Mosaic law in view of the low state of morals among the Jews, in consequence of their mingling with heathen nations, where polygamy and slavery were customary.
A general principle is here laid down : it is better to observe a less perfect law (per se) than to fail completely in the observance of a more perfect one. Thus the Church tolerates mixed marriages for grave reasons and under certain conditions. Were the strict law enforced, that Catholics could only wed one of their own faith, many grievous breaches might follow.
9. whosoever shall put away, etc. Though our Lord does not name Herod Antipas, the case He cites manifestly applies to that monarch. In the parallel passage we see that this holds good of both parties : And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (St Mark).
For a wife to divorce her husband was a much rarer case, since Josephus says, “while according to the Jewish laws it is lawful for a husband to dissolve his marriage by giving a bill of divorce to his wife, yet it is not lawful for a wife who voluntarily departs from her husband to be married to another, unless her former husband renounces her” (Josephus, Antiq., xv. 7. 10). The text concerning the bill of divorce quoted above from Deut. (xxiv. 1) merely asserts that the husband was able to ask for a bill of divorce, but it does not deny equal rights to the wife. Among the Greeks and Romans, in the time of our Lord, the wife’s right to free herself was recognized, but among the Jews there was far less freedom on this point ; for though the right was undoubtedly hers, she was often powerless to enforce it.
except it he for fornication, etc. This may justify a separation, but not a divorce. From other passages we see clearly that the parties thus separated are not free to remarry, unless the bond of marriage be broken by the death of one of the two. This is clear from the context : he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
St Paul taught the same doctrine : But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife (1 Cor. vii. 10, 11).
10. His disciples say, etc. From St Mark’s account we learn that the disciples questioned Jesus privately in a house. Cf. And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. And he saith to them : Whosoever shall put away his wife, etc.
If the case of a man, etc. Our Lord’s doctrine evidently seemed severe to His apostles.
11. All men take not, etc. This is a counsel of perfection ; therefore Jesus added. He that can take, let him take it.
This verse furnishes an answer to those non-Catholics who disapprove of the vow of chastity, as taken by monks and nuns, on the ground that marriage is a divine institution. It is most certainly a holy state, but virginity is still holier for those who are called to it.
12. who have made themselves, etc., — i.e. who have chosen celibacy as the more perfect state of life.
Note. — In speaking of virginity, Jesus refers to three classes of persons —
(a) Those who embrace it from natural inclination.
(b) Those who, from a variety of circumstances, have no choice in the matter.
(c) Those who voluntarily embrace it for “ the kingdom of God,” i.e. that they may be free to work for souls, or to consecrate themselves to God’s service.
There is an admirable fitness and harmony in the two narratives which follow the discourse on divorce. Jesus blesses little children, the offspring of the married state, and He invites the rich young man to give up all his possessions and to follow Him, which involved the state of virginity.
Additional Notes
Teaching of the Church on Divorce.
The Church has always taught, in accordance with Holy Scripture, that marriage is indissoluble except by the death of one of the contracting parties. In spite of the divine prohibition, divorce is permitted by the law in many countries. By “divorce’’ is understood, a legal dissolution of the marriage contract, and full permission to marry again. This the Church can never sanction, as her teaching is based on the formal prohibition of Christ: “ What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Apart from the sin incurred by the practice of divorce, it should be most strenuously opposed, since the evils to which it leads are so numerous, e.g. —
(a) It tends to encourage evil passions and leads to crime.
(b) It often ruins the happiness of the children.
(c) It leads to disorder and fends in families and in society in . general.
Note. — For grave reasons the Church tolerates separation of husband and wife, but this differs from divorce, inasmuch as neither party is free to re-marry during the lifetime of the other.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
No comments:
Post a Comment