e

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempt-and they twain shall be one flesh?
ing him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful
unto him, Is it lawful
man to put away his wife for every

cause?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

a Mark 10. 1. John 10. 40.- b ch. 12. 15.

NOTES ON CHAP. XIX. Verse 1. Beyond Jordan.] Or, by the side of Jordan. Matthew begins here to give an account of Christ's journey, (the only one he mentions) to Jerusalem, a little before the passover, at which he was crucified. See Mark x. 1. Luke ix. 51.

Jesus came from Galilee (which lay to the north of Judea) into the coasts of Judea; and from thence, in his way to Jerusalem, he went through Jericho, (chap. xx. 17, 29.) which lay at the distance of sixty furlongs, or seven miles and a half from Jordan to the western side of it. See Joseph. WAR, book iv. chap. 8. sect. 3. It seems, therefore, most probable, that the course of Christ's journey, led him by the side of the river Jordan, not beyond it. That the Greek word gy, especially with a genitive case as here, has sometimes this signification; see on John vi. 22. see also Bp. Pearce. Verse 2. Great multitudes followed him] Some to be instructed-some to be healed-some through curiosity-and some to ensnare hiin.

Verse 3. Tempting him] Trying what answer he would give to a question, which, however decided by him, would expose him to censure.

Gen. 1. 27. & 5. 2. Mal. 2. 15-d Gen. 2. 24 Mark 10.5-9.
Ephes. 5. 31. 1 Cor. 6. 16. & 7. 2.

better. See the case of Josephus, mentioned in the note on chap. v. 30. and Calmet's Comment, Vol. I. part ii. p. 379. By answering the question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their malice, and confounded their devices.

Verse 4. He which made them at the beginning] When Adam and Eve were the first of human kind.

Made them male and female] Merely through the design of matrimonial union, that the earth might be thus peopled. To answer a case of conscience, a man should act as Christ does here; pay no regard to that which the corruption of manners has introduced into divine ordinances, but go back to the original will, purpose, and institution of God. Christ will never accommodate his morality to the times, nor to the inclinations of men. What was done at the beginning, is what God judged most worthy of his glory, most profitable for man, and most suitable to nature.

Verse 5. For this cause] Being created for this very purpose, that they might glorify their Maker in a matrimonial connection. A man shall leave, (xarañufai, wholly give up) both father and mother-the matrimonial union being more intimate and binding than even paternal or filial affection :and shall be closely united, goσxoλandnoetas, shall be firmly cemented to his wife. A beautiful metaphor, which most forcibly intimates that nothing but death can separate them: as a well glued board will break sooner in the whole wood, than in the glued joint. So also the Hebrew word pɔ dabak implies.

And they twain shall be one flesh ?] Not only meaning, that they should be considered as one body; but also, as two souls

Is it lawful-for every cause?] Instead of ariav, fault, cause, reason, three MSS. and the Coptic version read aμzęriar, sin ot transgression: this was probably the original reading--the first syllable being lost, agrav alone would remain, which a subsequent transcriber would suppose to be a mistake for my, and so wrote it: hence this various reading. What made our Lord's situation at present so critical in respect to this question was: At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of SHAM-in one body, with a complete union of interests, and an inMAI, and that of HILLEL. On the question of divorce, the school of Shammai maintained, that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught, that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight; i. e. when he saw any other woman that pleased him

dissoluble partnership of life and fortune, comfort and support, desires and inclinations, joys and sorrows. Farther it appears to me, that the words in Gen. ii. 24. 8 wɔs lebasar achad, for one flesh, which our Lord literally translates, mean also, that children compounded as it were of both, should be the product of the matrimonial connection. Thus,

Why Moses suffered the

A. M. 4033.
A. D. 29.

A. M. 4033.
A. D. 29.

7 They say unto him, "Why did Mo- hardness of your hearts suffered you
to put away your wives: but from the An Olymp.
beginning it was not so.

An. Olymp. ses then command to give a writing
CCIL. 1.
of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the

b

CCII. 1.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put

a Deut. 24. 1. ch. 5. 31. Mar. 10. 4. Luke 16. 18.

Ch. 5. 32. Mark 10. 11. Luke 16. 18. 1 Cor. 7. 10, 11.

they two (man and woman) shall be for the producing of one flesh, the very same kind of human creature with themselves. See the note on Gen. ii. 24.

J

Verse 6. What therefore God hath joined together] EUVELu, yoked together, as oxen in the plough, where each must pull equally, in order to bring it on. Among the ancients, when persons were newly married, they put a yoke upon their necks, or chains upon their arms, to shew that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life. See KYPKE in loco.

flight; to intimate, that love is to abide with them, that there is to be no separation in affection, but that they are to continue to love one another with pure hearts fervently. Thus love begins and continues this sacred union; as to end, there can be none, for God hath yoked them together.

A finer or more expressive set of emblems has never, I believe, been produced even by modern refined taste and ingenuity. This group of emblematical figures is engraved upon an onyx by Tryphon, an ancient Grecian artist. A fine drawing was made of this by Cypriani, and was engraved both by Bartolozzi and Sherwin. See one of these plates in the second volume of Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology, page 392.

Verse 7. Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement?] It is not an unusual case for the impure and unholy to seek for a justification of their conduct from the

struction. I knew a gentleman so called, who professed deep reverence for the Sacred Writings, and, strange as it may appear, was outwardly irreproachable in every respect but one; that was, he kept more women than his wife. This man frequently read the Bible, and was particularly conver sant with those places that spoke of or seemed to legalize the polygamy of the patriarchs!

A writing of divorcement] See the form of it in the note on chap. v. 31.

The finest allegorical representation of the marriage union I have met with, is that antique gem representing the marriage of Cupid and Psyche, in the collection of the Duke of Marlborough: it may be seen also among Baron Stock's gems, and casts or copies of it in various other collections. 1. Both are represented as winged, to shew the alacrity with which the husband and wife should help, comfort, and sup-law of God itself; and to wrest Scripture to their own deport each other; preventing as much as possible the expressing of a wish or want on either side, by fulfilling it before it can be expressed. 2. Both are veiled, to shew that modesty is an inseparable attendant on pure matrimonial connexions. 3. Hymen or Marriage goes before them with a lighted torch, || leading them by a chain, of which each has a hold, to shew that they are united together, and are bound to each other, and that they are led to this by the pure flame of love, which at the same instant both enlightens and warms them. 4. This chain is not iron nor brass (to intimate that the marriage union is a state of thraldom, or slavery) but it is a chain of pearls; to shew that the union is precious, beautiful and delightful. || 5. They hold a dove, the emblem of conjugal fidelity, which they appear, to embrace affectionately, to shew that they are faithful to each other, not merely through duty, but by affection, and that this fidelity contributes to the happiness of their lives. 6. A winged Cupid, or love, is represented as having gone before them, preparing the nuptial feast; to intimate that active affections, warm and cordial love are to be to them a continual source of comfort and enjoyment; and that this is the entertainment they are to meet with at every step of their affectionate lives. 7. Another Cupid or genius of love, comes behind, and places on their heads a basket of ripe fruits; to intimate, that a matrimonial union of this kind, will generally be blest with children, who shall be as pleasing to all their senses, as ripe and delicious fruits to the smell and taste. 8. The genius of love that follows them, has his wings shrivelled up, or the feathers all curled, so as to render them utterly unfit for

Verse 8. Moses because of the hardness of your hearts] It is dangerous to tolerate the least evil, though prudence itself may require it: because toleration, in this case, raises itself insensibly into permission, and permission soon sets up for command. Moses perceived that if divorce were not permitted, in many cases, the women would be exposed to great hardships through the cruelty of their husbands: for so the word oxλngonagdia, is understood in this place by some learned men.

From the beginning it was not so.] The Jews named the books of the Law from the first word in each. Genesis they always term Bereshith, ws, which is the first word in it, and signifies In the beginning. It is probable that our Lord speaks in this way here, in Bereshith it was not so, intimating that the account given in Genesis is widely different. There was no divorce between Eve and Adam; nor did he or his family practise polygamy. But our Lord, by the beginnings may mean the original intention or design.

Verse 9. Except it be for fornication] See on chap. v.

33.

The decision of our Lord must be very unpleasant to these men; the reason why they wished to put away their wives was, that they might take others whom they liked better; but our Lord here declares that they could not be remarried while the divorced person was alive and that those who did marry, during the life of the divorced person, were adulterers;|| and heavy judgments were denounced, in their Law, against such and as the question was not settled by the schools of Shammai and Hillel, so as to ground national practice on it; therefore they were obliged to abide by the positive declaration|| of the Law, as it was popularly understood, till these eminent schools had proved the word had another meaning. The grand subject of dispute between the two schools, mentioned above, was the word in Deut. xxiv. 1. When a man hath taken a wife- || and she find no grace in his sight, because of some UNCLEANNESS,

eruath--this the school of Shammai held to mean whoredom or adultery; but the school of Hillel maintained that it signified any corporeal defect, which rendered the person deformed, or any bad temper which made the husband's life uncomfortable. Any of the latter a good man might bear with; but it appears that Moses permitted the offended husband to put away the wife on these accounts, merely to save her from cruel usage.

In this discourse, our Lord shews that marriage (except in one case) is indissoluble, and should be so. 1st. By Divine institution, ver. 4. 2dly, By express commandment, ver. 5. 3dly, Because the married couple become one and the same person, ver. 6. 4thly, By the example of the first pair, ver. 8; and, 5thly, Because of the evil consequent on separation, ver. 9. The importance of this subject will, I hope, vindicate, or excuse the length of these notes.

Verse 10. If the case of the man] Tov avbewrov, of a husband, so I think the word should be translated here. The Coder Beza, Armenian, and most of the Itala, have rou avdgos, which, perhaps, more properly signifies a husband, though both words are used in this sense.

Our word husband, comes from the Anglo-saxon, hus and band: the bond of the house, anciently spelt housebond, so in my old MS. Bible. It is a lamentable case when the husband, instead of being the bond and union of the family, scatters and ruins it by dissipation, riot, and excess.

||

It is not good to marry.] That is, if a man have not the liberty to put away his wife when she is displeasing to him. God had said Gen. ii. 18. it is not good for man to be alone, i. e. unmarried. The disciples seem to say, that if the husband have not the power to divorce his wife when she is displeasing to him, it is not good for him to marry. Here was a flat contradiction to the decision of the Creator. There are difficulties and trials in all states; but let marriage and celibacy be weighed fairly, and I am persuaded the former will be found to have fewer than the latter. However, before we enter into an engagement, which nothing but death can dissolve, we had need to act cautiously; carefully consulting the will and word of God. Where an unbridled passion, or a base love of money lead the way, marriage is sure to be miserable.

Verse 11. All-cannot receive this saying] A very wise answer, and well suited to the present circumstances of the disciples. Neither of the states is condemned. If thou marry, thou dost well-this is according to the order, will and commandment of God. But if thou do not marry (because of the present necessity, persecution, worldly embarrassments, or bodily infirmity) thou dost better. See 1 Cor. vii. 25.

Verse 12. Eunuchs] Evvouxos, from Ex, to have the care of the bed, or bedchamber: this being the principal employment of eunuchs in the Eastern countries, particularly in the apartments of queens and princesses. These are they whom our Lord says are made eunuchs by men, merely for the above purpose.

So born from their mother's womb] Such as are naturally incapable of marriage, and consequently should not contract any.

For the kingdom of heaven's sake.] I believe our Lord here alludes to the case of the ESSENES, one of the most holy and pure sects among the Jews. These abstained from all commerce with women, hoping thereby to acquire a greater degree of purity, and be better fitted for the kingdom of God: children they had none of their own, but constantly adopted those of poor people, and brought them up in their own way. PHILO, JOSEPHUS and PLINY have largely described this very singular sect; and Dean PRIDEAUX, with his usual fidelity and perspicuity, has given the substance of what each has said. CONNECT. vol. iii. p. 483, &c. Edit. 1725. The

bidden it. But we are not to keep these commandments in
order to purchase eternal life. Right. Neither Jesus Christ
nor his genuine messengers say, you are.
To save your
souls, Christ must save you from your sins, and enable you
to walk before him in newness of life.

Verse 19. Honour thy father and thy mother] Lou thy, is omitted by almost every MS. of respectability.

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.] Self-love, as it is generally called, has been grievously declaimed against, even by religious people, as a most pernicious and dreadful evil. But they have not understood the subject, on which they spoke. They have denominated that intense propensity which unregenerate men feel to gratify their carnal appetites and vicious passions, self-love: whereas it might be more properly termed self-hatred, or self-murder. If I am to love my neighbour as myself, and this "love worketh no ill to its neighbour," then self-love, in the sense in which our Lord uses it, is something excellent. It is properly a disposition essential to our nature, and inseparable from our being, by which we desire to be happy, by which we seek the happiness we have not, and rejoice in it when we possess it. In a word, it is a uniform wish of the soul to avoid all evil, and to enjoy all good. Therefore, he who is wholly governed by self-love, properly and scripturally speaking, will devote his whole soul to God, and earnestly and constantly seek all his peace, happiness and salvation in the enjoyment of God. But self-love cannot make me happy. I am only the subject which receives the happiness, but am not the object that constitutes this happi

wyou. This important reading is found in BDL. three others, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, latter Syriac, Vulgate, Saxon; all the Itala but one. Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Dionysius Arcop., Antiochus, Novatian, Jerom, Augustin, and Juvencus. Erasmus, Grotius, Mill and Bengel, approve of this reading. This authority appears so decisive to Griesbach, that he has received this reading into the text of his second edition, which in the first he had interlined. And instead of None is good but the one God, he goes on to read, on nearly the same respectable authorities, 5 59 o ayados, There is one who is good. Let it be observed also that in the 16th verse, instead of didarxahe ayabs, good teacher, disarnane only, is read by BDL. one other, one Evangelistarium, the Ethiopic, three of the Itala, Origen and Hilary. The whole passage therefore may be read thus: 0 Teacher! what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why dost thou question me concerning that good thing? There is one that is good. (Or he who is good is one.) But if thou art willing to enter into that life, keep the commandments. This passage, as it stood in the common editions, has been considered by some writers, as an incontrovertible proof against the Divinity or godhead of Christ. A very learned person, in his note on this place, thus concludes concerning it: "Therefore our Saviour cannot be GOD: and the notion of, I know not what, a Trinity in Unity, THREE Gods in ONE, is here proved beyond all controversy, by the unequivocal declaration of JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, to be ERRONEOUS and IMPOSSIBLE." Not so. One of the greatest critics in Europe, not at all partial to the Godhead of Christ, has admitted the above readings into hisness; for it is that object, properly speaking, that I love, and text, on evidence which he judged to be unexceptionable. If love not only for its own sake, but also for the sake of the they be the true readings, they destroy the whole doctrine happiness which I enjoy through it. "No man," saith the built on this text: and indeed the utmost that the enemies of Apostle, ever hated his own flesh." But he that sinneth the Trinitarian doctrine can now expect from their formidable against God wrongeth his own soul, both of present and opponents, concerning this text, is to leave it neuter. eternal salvation; and is so far from being governed by selflove, that he is the implacable enemy of his best and dearest interests in both worlds.

Keep the commandments.] From this we may learn that God's great design in giving his Law to the Jews, was to lead them to the expectation and enjoyment of eternal life. But as all the Law referred to Christ, and he became the end of the Law for righteousness (justification) to all that believe, so he is to be received, in order to have the end accomplished, which the Law proposed.

Verse 18. Thou shalt do no murder, &c.] But some say these commandments are not binding on us-vain deceived men! Can a murderer, an adulterer, a thief and a liar enter into eternal life? No. The God of purity and justice has for

Verse 20. All these have I kept] I have made these precepts the rule of my life. There is a difference worthy of notice between this and our Lord's word. He says, ver. 17.

gnσov keep, earnestly, diligently, as with watch and ward; probably referring not only to the letter but to the spirit. The young man modestly says, all these (purağa) have I observed; I have paid attention to, and endeavoured to regulate my conduct by them. I have kept them in custody. From my youth] Several MSS. Versions, and Fathers, leave out