Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 19:1 - 19:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE PRIESTLY FAMILY IN THE CHURCH
Mat_19:1-26
Historical Connection.—After the transaction at Capernaum, recorded in Matthew 18, the Lord commenced His festive journey to Jerusalem, in company with His disciples, Luk_13:22-30. On this occasion the Pharisees attempted—probably at the instigation of Herod—to frighten the Lord into a speedy removal from Galilee, Luk_19:31-35. They next invited Him to a feast, in the hope of thus ensnaring Him, Luk_14:1-24. The Lord now set before those of His followers who were not yet decided for Him, the dangers connected with discipleship, Luk_14:25-35. On the other hand, He declared His readiness to receive penitent publicans and sinners, Luk_15:1-17. The festive company now entered the territory of Samaria, but were not allowed to pass through it (Luk_9:51-62). This refusal to receive Him led to the sending forth of the seventy disciples (Luk_10:1-16). The Lord next took a sorrowing retrospect of Galilee (Mat_11:20-30); and then passed into Peræa through the boundary land of Samaria and Galilee (Luk_17:11-19). The return of the seventy disciples (Luk_10:17-37). Jesus arrived in Peræa previous to the transactions recorded in Matthew 19 (Mat_19:1-2). The Evangelists have not preserved many of the details connected with Christ’s twofold visit to Peræa, before and after the feast of the Dedication of the Temple, during the winter of the year 782. Thus much, however, clearly appears, that He was gladly received in that district We are told that, during His first stay there (Mat_19:2), “great multitudes followed Him there, and He healed them (their sick).” Of His second visit to Peræa we read, that “many resorted unto Him,” and “believed on Him there” (Joh_10:40-42). The events recorded in the section under consideration, most probably occurred while the Saviour visited Peræa the second time. According to the account in the Gospel of Mark, the rich young man came to the Lord when He was gone forth into the way; according to Matthew, He departed from Galilee after having laid His hands on children,—an act which the Evangelist seems to connect with His teaching on the subject of divorce (see the Leben Jesu, Mat_2:2, p. 1079).
During his journey to Peræa, where Jesus on the first occasion made only a very brief stay, He replied to the intrusive and curious question, whether few or many were to be saved (Luk_13:23). It was probably in Peræa that He uttered the parable concerning the Pharisee and the publican, and several others which are recorded in the Gospel by Luke. He next appeared at Jerusalem at the feast of the Dedication of the Temple (Joh_10:22-40), which, according to Wieseler, commenced that year on the 25th December. Once more the Jews now tempted Him with the question, whether He was the Messiah (in their sense of the designation—the inquiry being urged partly from motives of hostility, and partly in the hope of having their carnal expectations realized). In their peculiar state of mind, the reply of Jesus implied both more and less than they had anticipated or wished. Hence they wished to stone Him. But He passed majestically through the midst of them, and—protected by His followers—soon appeared a second time in Peræa, in the same locality, where afterward, at Pella, His Church found a refuge. But in Peræa also He was met by Pharisees, who had been stirred up and instructed by their colleagues at Jerusalem. Accordingly, questions similar to those set before Him in the capital of Judæa were now urged. With these the section under consideration opens.
It is quite in accordance with the plan adopted by Matthew in his Gospel, that only those portions are recorded in which the Christian family in the new Church is described in its various aspects and bearings.
(Mar_10:1-12.)
Into the borders; or, boundary land.—It deserves notice, that Jesus entered not merely the territory of Peræa, but penetrated to its utmost boundaries. According to Josephus (Bell. Jdg_3:3; Jdg_3:3), Peræa proper (or “the other side,” i.e., of Jordan— ἡ ðåñßá , sc. ÷þñá ) extended from Moabitis, or from the Arnon, to Pella on the north—“certainly to the Sheriat Mandhur, since Josephus designates Gadars (Omkeis), which lay on the Mandhur, as the capital of Peræa. Toward the east, it adjoined, according to that writer, the territory of Gerasa, Rabbath Ammon, and Arabia.” L. von Raumer. From the same authority we learn that Peræa, in the wider sense, embraced that part of Palestine which lay east of the Jordan, embracing the whole territory of Peræa from the sources of the Jordan to the Arnon, Lastly, a still wider meaning attached to that name which was also given to the whole eastern part of the Jordan-valley, or the Ghor (Arabah), stretching from the sources of Jordan to the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, and running beyond it to the Elanitic Gulf, between the mountains of Edom in the east and the high coast on the west When on former occasions traversing the lake (Cæsarea, Gadara), Jesus had visited Peræa in the second and last-mentioned acceptation of that term. Hence we conclude that He went at this time into Peræa proper, which formed part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, who ruled over that province as well as over Galilee. From this circumstance we account for the fact that the Lord now betook Himself to the boundary districts, or coasts, of Peræa,—the latter term being scarcely applicable to the boundary district of Judæa itself.
A special interest and importance attaches to the province of Peræa, where Jesus retired on two occasions previous to His decease and found a refuge, and whither afterward His infant Church retired before the destruction of Jerusalem, seeking shelter among its mountains, and making Pella their capital. On the difficulties connected with the topography of Pella, comp. the author’s Apostol. Zeitalter, ii. 461. Great probability, however, attaches to the suggestion of Robinson, who, according to his latest researches, places it on the site of the modern Fahil, between the Jabbok and the Hieromax; in which case, the statement of Josephus would refer to Pella as being a boundary town of Peræa, in the narrowest or political sense of the term. On the blessed work of Jesus in that province, comp. the author’s Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 1094. The general conformation of the district is calcareous and cretaceous in the south, till beyond the Arnon, and basalt in the eastern portion. It is mountainous, with high plateaus, and traversed by many rivers. The northern part is woody, and suited for grazing (the oaks and bulls of Bashan); the southern, exceedingly fertile.
An attentive consideration of the narrative in the Gospels will easily enable us to answer the objection of Meyer and others, who deem the account of Matthew incompatible with that of Luke (Luk_9:51; Luk_17:11), according to which, Jesus had passed through Samaria. The Lord had evidently intended to journey by Samaria. But when the inhabitants of that country refused to receive Him, He passed into Peræa through the boundary land of Galilee and Samaria (see Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 1053). Similarly, in answer to the alleged contradiction between our Gospel and Joh_10:22; Joh_10:40—which records that Jesus went from Jerusalem to Peræa—we remind the reader, that the Lord visited that province on two different occasions.
Mat_19:3. Pharisees.—Peræa was removed from the great centres of Jewish hierarchism. Hence the Saviour found there a sphere of labor even after He had been banished from Galilee and Judæa. But even there the sect of the Pharisees was by and by roused to acts of hostility, partly at the instigation of their colleagues at Jerusalem, and partly from personal rancor. On this and other grounds, we conclude that the transactions here recorded had taken place during the second visit of Jesus to Peræa. The question has been raised, wherein the “temptation” of this inquiry lay. Meyer suggests that it consisted in the attempt of involving Him in the discussion between the schools of Hillel and Shammai (see the Exeget. Notes on Mat_5:31). “It was hoped that, by His reply, Jesus would virtually support the view of one of these antagonistic schools—more particularly that of Shammai, and that thus the opposite party might be more fully enlisted against Him.” But in that case He would also manifestly have gained the favor of the followers of Shammai Ewald thinks that it was intended to entangle Jesus, while in the dominions of Herod Antipas—whose conduct in his married relationship John had reproved—in a declaration and fate similar to that of the Baptist. To this it has been objected—as we think, without sufficient reason—that there is no indication of such a scheme in the text. Meyer bolds that the decision of Jesus was stricter than that of either of the schools. The statement is incorrect, as our Lord did not go beyond the principles laid down by Shammai; while, unlike that teacher, He did not convert the absolute principle of marriage in the Church into an outward and civil statute.
For every cause.—The question is manifestly put from the point of view taken by Hillel.
Mat_19:4. Made them, or created them.—The ideas of ἄíèñùðïò (which accordingly we retain as the reading) and ãõíÞ are presupposed. The Lord explains that they were not created arbitrarily, or independently of, but for each other, and as suitable and adapted to each other; which is expressed by ἄñóåí êáὶ èῆëí , referring to the male and female nature. The two first individuals of the male and female sex were not merely a man and a woman, but male and female, in the sense of being destined and intended exclusively for each other. Hence they constituted the type of marriage in its full meaning and principle, as an indissoluble union.
Mat_19:5. And said.—In Gen_2:24, these words are recorded as having been spoken by Adam, while in this place they are uttered as quoted by God,—not simply because every statement of Scripture is the word of the Lord, but, as Augustine [De nupt. ii. 4] expresses it, “Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetando prœdixit.” Or rather, perhaps, because, before his fall, man uttered absolute spiritual truth, or what in point of fact was the word of God.
For this cause shall a man leave father and mother.—Added not merely by way of quotation, but to show that the relationship between a man and his wife was higher, stronger, and closer than even that toward his father and mother.
The two.—The expression does not occur in the original Hebrew, but is found in the Septuagint, as implied in the text, and bringing out more fully its idea and meaning. The two apparently different individualities are to become one flesh by marriage, i.e., to form the generic unity of human nature. This unity, while implying the mental and moral elements, is based on that of the , as indicating and completing the union.
Mat_19:6. No more, or, never more, ïí ̓ êÝôé .
Mat_19:9 forms no exception to this rule, as the relationship there referred to is incompatible with, and in direct antagonism to, the idea of marriage.
Mat_19:7-8. Why did Moses then command? Deu_24:1.—A misapplication of the passage, which the Lord exposes and censures. The object of Hoses in laying down the rules about giving a writing of divorcement, was not to countenance or promote divorces, but to diminish their number by subjecting them to certain rules and limitations, with the view of again elevating the married relationship, and realizing its idea. Moses commanded, not that divorces should take place; he only enjoined that in much cases certain forms should be observed, and that the ground of the separation should be embodied in the “writing of divorcement.” But the Jewish Rabbins completely perverted the meaning and object of all this ( Mat_5:31). Hence we note the twofold antithesis: “Moses did command,” “Moses suffered;” and again: “Moses did command” in general, and, “Moses suffered you” in particular. So far from having commanded it in general, he only suffered you individually, because of the hardness of your hearts.
Mat_19:8. From the beginning it was not so.—In the original state of things in Paradise. The first instance of polygamy is recorded in Gen_4:19. It deserves special notice, that it appears in conjunction with murder, avenging of blood, and sinful poetry; and that it occurs in the line of Cain, not in that of Seth.
Mat_19:9. Except for fornication.—An explanation of the òֶéְåַú ãָּáָø . Comp. the Exeg. Notes on Mat_5:31-32, p. 115. Roman Catholic writers are naturally anxious to have this clause omitted from the text (Hug, von Berlepsch), but there is no critical warrant for this.
Mat_19:10. It is not good to marry.—The meaning of the disciples is: if the ideal principle laid down by our Lord about marriage was to be immediately and unconditionally applied to existing relations, then, etc. In His reply, Christ admits the difficulty of such application.
Mat_19:11. Not all can receive this saying.—It requires divine illumination.
Mat_19:12. The explanation of His further statement—For there are eunuchs, etc.—is exceedingly difficult. Neander thinks that Matthew inserted in this place something which the Lord had taught on the same subject on another occasion, and in quite a different connection. Certainly, the common interpretation, that Jesus here referred to the various exceptional cases in which marriage should be avoided, is very unsatisfactory. The three classes of eunuchs here enumerated (the expression being used figuratively for those who are not to enter the married relationship), are evidently intended to embrace all the grounds on which marriage was inadmissible. First of all, then, there is a class of eunuchs who were so born from the mother’s womb, i.e. who are physically disqualified for marriage, such as those laboring under disease, or whose mental or bodily organization is defective. Next, there was another class “who were made eunuchs by men.” As, in the first and third class enumerated, the term eunuch is evidently used in a figurative manner, we take it in the same sense here—the more so, as in the literal sense it would apply to a comparatively small number of persons. Hence we regard it as referring in general to those who are prevented from entering into marriage, in the highest and only true import of the idea, by social and moral considerations, and who are hence in duty bound to renounce the married state. The last class to which the Saviour alludes, consists of those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who, being married, yet for the kingdom of heaven’s sake are as if they were not married, i.e., are ever ready to sacrifice their conjugal enjoyments for the sake of their spiritual calling; or—as the Apostle expresses it, 1Co_7:29—have wives as though they had none.—Thus this threefold renunciation, which, in accordance with the divine will and purpose, runs through the actual marriage-relationship,—viz., the renunciation of natural union, or of ideal union, or of the full enjoyment of the married estate,—was to form the basis on which this relationship was henceforth to rest. Such a union was to combine the elements of deep personal attachment and interchange of soul with subordination to the divine arrangements and requirements in the theocracy, where this as well as every other good gift should be regarded as secondary, and subservient to the grand purposes of the kingdom of God (Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 1103). The expression åí ̓ íïõ÷éæåéí is also used by the Cabbalists in a figurative sense. It is strange that Roman Catholic divines (as, for example, Sepp, Leben Jesu, iii. 117) should have quoted in support of celibacy a passage which, in reality, so far from representing marriage as something beneath the disciples, elevated that relationship far above the views and circumstances of the times, and placed it on a high and spiritual platform. Similarly absurd is the notion of Strauss, that this passage savors of Essenism, which degraded woman, while the Saviour here restored her right position. Comp. Ebrard, p. 453. It is well known that a misunderstanding of the import of this passage induced Origen literally to carry it into execution,—a historical fact, which has latterly been again established by Engelhart and Redepenning against Schnitzer and others.
[Note.—I beg leave to differ from Dr. Lange’s figurative exposition of the second and third class of eunuchs; which last would, in this case, embrace all Christians, since temperance and chastity is a fundamental virtue and duty for the married as well as the single state, and since all are required to subordinate their earthly relations to their spiritual calling. As I understand the mysterious passage, the Saviour distinguishes three kinds of eunuchism: (1) congenital, which implies neither merit nor guilt; (2) forced, which implies misfortune on the one hand and guilt on the other; (3) voluntary, which has moral value and merit if it proceeds from faith and love to Christ, but no merit superior to chastity in the married state. The first and third are only improperly called eunuchism. To speak more fully, the first class of eunuchs embraces the comparatively small number of those who are constitutionally either incapable of, or averse to, marriage; the second class, the eunuchs proper, or mutilated persons, who at that time were quite numerous, especially at courts, and are still found in Eastern countries, among heathens and Mohammedans (yea, even in the choir of the papal Sixtine chapel in Rome; the famous Miserere being sung by the clear silver voices of these unfortunate victims of sacred art); the third class, those who deliberately abstain from marriage either altogether, or from second marriage after the death of their first husband or wife, not, however, for the purpose of thereby gaining the kingdom of heaven (ad regnum cœlorum promerenndum, as Origen, Hilarius, Euthymius, Maldonatus, and the Roman Commentators generally misinterpret the words äéὰ ôὴí âáóéëåßáí ô . ïí ̓ ñ .), but for the purpose of working for the kingdom of heaven from pure and disinterested love to Christ, believing that they can serve Him more unreservedly and effectually in the single state, or remain more steadfast in times of peculiar trial and persecution ( äéὰ ôὴí ἐíåïôῶóíἀíÜãêçí 1Co_7:26). To this class belong St. Paul (1Co_7:1; 1Co_7:26), Barnabas (1Co_9:5-6), probably also St. John (who in the Greek Church bears the standing title, ὁ ðáñèÝíïò , with reference to his virgin purity), and thousands of missionaries, divines, ministers and pious laymen, sisters of charity, virgins and widows in all ages and among Protestants as well as Catholics. The great and serious error of the Roman Church consists in making a law for the whole clergy of what the Saviour left to free choice on the basis of a special calling and gift of God ( Mat_19:11), and in attaching a superior merit to celibacy at the expense of the holy and normal state of marriage. From a grossly literal misunderstanding of Mat_19:12, Origen, in the youthful ardor of enthusiasm for Christ, and misguided by the ascetic notions of his age, committed the unnatural deed which forever disqualified him for marriage. But this was justly condemned in the ancient church, and was made subsequently a reason for his excommunication from the church of Alexandria.—On the whole subject of marriage and celibacy in the N. T., comp. Schaff’s History of the Apostolic Church, § 112, pp. 448–454.—P. S.]
2. The scribes seem always to have been entangled in the antagonistic views of Shammai and Hillel. But Christ here calls their attention to a very different kind of antagonism,—viz., that between the fundamental, eternal, and absolute principle of marriage, and the theocratic or political law on the subject. So far as the principle of marriage was concerned, every such union was necessarily indissoluble, being based on the fact, that man and woman were destined for each other. But in point of fact this principle had been lost sight of, equally because unions were improperly formed, and because they were improperly dissolved. Hence, the object of Moses was to keep this heathen degeneracy within bounds. By means of the “writing of divorcement,” he wished gradually again to train the Jews by the law, so as to elevate their views, and to introduce among them marriage in the true and spiritual sense. But this measure was frustrated and perverted for the opposite purpose, by the loose and lascivious interpretations put upon it by the Rabbins. In out opinion, it is the duty of legislators and magistrate! not to degenerate into literalism, or to go beyond the above principle, as Romanism has done, but to see to it that, so far as possible, practice should correspond with this ideal. Accordingly our Lord here lays down the following leading principles, viz:. (1) The law concerning adultery applies to man as well as to woman—indeed, more especially to the former. (2) Marriage is dissolved only by actual fornication; in which case the non-offending party is again free. (3) What constitutes a legal divorcement is not the separation of the two parties,—which, as in morally faulty marriages, may not only be excusable, but perhaps even duty,—but re-marriage after separation, and that whether it be a marriage by which the divorced woman is finally abandoned, or else a woman that had been divorced is espoused. Thus far the legal settlement of the question. In practical legislation, it is necessary to keep two points in view, viz.: what constitutes fornication; and the difference between mere separation and the right of entering into another union. With regard to fornication, we must—according to 1Co_7:15—here include religious, spiritual apostasy. But in reference to the re-marrying of those who have been divorced—except under the above circumstances—we believe that no human tribunal has, as a matter of right, the power of granting such a permission, although (in the opinion of the author) it may be conceded as an act of grace on the part of the reigning sovereign, especially in cases where mitigating circumstances justify such an act of dispensation. (See the author’s Leben Jesu, 2:2, 1101; 3:179; Fosit. Dogmatik, p. 1215.)
The matrimonial law of the Roman Catholic Church, and the common statute law of Prussia and other Protestant countries of Germany, are instances of the two opposite extremes and aberrations to which a misinterpretation of this passage has given rise. The former starts from the supposition, that actual union, or the solemnizing of matrimony, constitutes of itself and alone an indissoluble marriage. The history of the Middle Ages, the state of society in Italy and in other Roman Catholic countries, especially in South America, furnish a sad illustration of this principle. While the bed in which the stream was to flow has been converted into a hard, stone-built channel, the river has broken through all bounds, and cutting out a channel for itself, winds its way irregularly and wildly through forests and swamps. The false assumption in this case seems to be, that the law of Moses had occupied the lowest stage—that it was the minimum of right; not that it embodied a principle, and was intended to prepare the way for realizing the full idea of marriage. In many Protestant countries, on the other hand, the opposite error has been committed; the legality of marriage has been thoroughly undermined, and free love substituted in its place as the controlling principle of true marriage. In that case, the writing of divorcement is not, like that of Moses, intended to render separation more difficult, but, like that of Hillel, to make it more easy.
It deserves special notice, that the great reformation here inaugurated by the Lord is introduced by an explanation of the circumstances under which marriage should be avoided. All such cases may be arranged under three classes: those who by their physical constitution are disqualified for such a union; those in which moral and social relations prevent the carrying out of marriage in its full import; and, lastly, those who, being married, were to subordinate their married relationship to their calling as Christians, and in this respect to renounce it. Thus marriage was to be regenerated on the basis of ideal renunciation.
[3. David Brown on Mat_19:12 : “When our Lord holds forth the single life as designed for and suited to certain specific classes, let Christians understand that, while their own plan and condition of life should be regulated by higher considerations than mere inclination or personal advantage, they are not to lay down rules for others, but let each decide for himself, as to his own Master he standeth or falleth. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men.” Alford (after Neander) on Mat_19:12 : “It is to be observed that our Lord does not here utter a word from which any superiority can be attributed to the state of celibacy: the imperative in the last clause being not a command but a permission, as in Rev_22:17. His estimate for us of the expediency of celibacy, as a general question, is to be gathered from the parable of the talents, where He visits with severe blame the burying of the talent for its safer custody. The remark is Neander’s (Leben Jesu, p. 584, 4th ed.), and the more valuable, as he himself [and his sister who took care of him] lived and died unmarried.”—Christ certainly nowhere commands, or even recommends, voluntary celibacy to any one; the most which can be gathered from the last clause of Mat_19:12 : ὁ äõíὰìåíïò ÷ùñåῖí ÷ùñåὶôù , in connection with Mat_19:21, is that He expected such a sacrifice from some of His disciples. Comp. de Wette in loc.—P. S.]
4. The great object of the Lord in this section is to reinstate woman in her original rights. In the ancient world, as still in heathen countries, woman was treated as a slave. Even among the Jews the right of divorcement was refused to woman, although it was accorded to her by the Roman law. This, however, does not imply that the legislation of Rome occupied higher ground than that of Israel. In the former case, the rights of the free citizen were chiefly guarded; while in Jewish law the idea of the family prevailed. Still, the law of Rome may be said to have prepared the way for Christian legislation on the subject of matrimony.
5 . “The creation of one couple may be regarded, (1) As proof that monogamy alone is agreeable to the will of God; which also appears from the fact of the continuance of the same proportion between the male and female sex, even with a numerical advantage on the part of the male sex, which would have been reversed if polygamy had been intended by the Creator. (2) As evidence that this union was to continue unseparated; otherwise, God would have created more than one couple or more wives. In this respect also the order of nature is the order of God.” Heubner.
Starke:—Quesnel: The union of man and wife more close even than that of parents and children, Gen_2:24.—Hedinger: Husband and wife should be not only one flesh, but also one heart and mind, Eph_5:31.—The order of marriage is instituted by God Himself; but, alas! many persons enter this state not only without God, but against His mind and will.—Osiander: Satan attempts to interpret Scripture through his servants; but he perverts it, and misrepresents its meaning.—Zeisius: Under the new dispensation, everything is not sanctioned that was tolerated under the law.—Piscator: Celibacy is not a more holy state than marriage.
Gerlach:—In this relationship, man is to show that he has conquered the flesh and nature by the power of the Spirit.
Heubner:—Christ is not determined by the opinions of the scribes; but points back to the original institution as founded by God, which is the source and ground of all further enactments.
Footnotes:
Mat_19:3.—[ Êáἰ ðñïóῆëèïí áὐôῷ Öáñéóáῖïé ; the article ïἱ of the text. rec.. is wanting in the best MSS. and thrown out by the modern critical editors (except Tischendorf), also by Dr. Lange in his version.—P. S.]
Mat_19:3.—[ Áὺôῷ , to him, is likewise missing in the oldest authorities, also Cod. Sinait., and omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford.—P. S ]
Mat_19:3.— Ἀíèñþðῳ , for a man, is omitted by B., L., [Cod. Sinait], and thrown out by Lachmann and Tischendorf; but seems to be required by ἐðïéçóåí áὐôïýò .
Mat_19:4.—[A Áὐôïῖò , to them, is omitted in the critical editions, but retained by Lange.—P. S.]
Mat_19:9.—Lachmann, with B., D., reads: ðáñåôὸò ëüãïõ ðïñíåßáò . Meyer regards it as a gloss from Mat_5:32. [The text. rec, reads: åἰ ìὴ ἐðὶ ðïñíåßᾳ ; Tischendorf and Alford: ìὴ ἐðὶð ., which reading is sustained also by Cod. Sinaiticus. Åἰ may easily be an explanatory addition. The sense is not affected in the least by this difference of reading. P. S.]
Mat_19:12.—[Some before eunuchs is an interpolation of the E. V., and should be underscored or omitted.—P. S.]
[ Mat_19:3-6.—The Pharisees wished to entangle our Saviour in their scholastic party disputes on the marriage and divorce-question and in the adultery-case of Herod Antipas, which caused the Imprisonment and death of John the Baptist, and may have excited as much feeling and debate in its day as the divorce-case of Henry viii. in the 16th century during the Reformation period. The Saviour answered the treacherous question of His enemies by referring them first (in ver: 4) to what God did, who in the original creation of man instituted the sexual relation and marriage as an indissoluble union between one man and one woman; secondly, to what God said through Adam as the representative of the race (in Mat_19:5), viz., that husband and wife are inseparably united, i.e., within the limits of their life in the flesh, or their earthly life; and then He states His own irresistible conclusion (in Mat_19:6) in a sentence which is since repeated in every marriage ceremony in Christian lands, and will be repeated to the end of time to inaugurate and protect with its divine authority and power this holy and fundamental relation.—We add the remarks of Dr. Alford on Mat_19:4-6 : (1) Our Lord refers to the Mosaic account of the Creation as a historical fact, and grounds His argument on the literal expressions of that narrative. (2) He cites both from the first and second chapters of Genesis, showing them to be consecutive parts of a continuous narrative. (3) He quotes words of Adam (Gen_2:21) as spoken by the Creator; they must, therefore, be understood as said In prophecy, divino afflatus, the more so since the relations alluded to by those terms did not yet exist. (4) The force of the argument consists in the previous unity of male and female, not indeed organically, but by implication, in Adam. He made them, i.e., man as a race, male (not a male), and female (not a female).—P. S.]
[The next section of about half a column is omitted in the translation, since it relates exclusively to the intricate marriage difficulties in the Prussian state-church-establishment, taking a middle ground between the rigorous reform party and the conformist majority of pastors. The Prussian laws on marriage, dating from the intidel reign of Frederic II., are scandalously lax and demoralizing, by increasing the causes, and facilitating the accomplishment of divorce. With the revival of true Christianity in Prussia a reform movement commenced, which aims at a return to the law of Christ. The subject has been extensively agitated for the last twenty years by the religious press, on Synods, Pastoral Conferences, and also on the German Church Diet. Comp. a number of articles in Hengstenberg’s Evang. kirchenscitung, for 1840–60; Liebetrut: Ueber geordnete Entwicklung der Ehe, Berlin, 1856; and Goeschen, article Ehe in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopædie, vol. iii., pp. 666–707.—P. S.]