Mateus 19
William Barclay · Citado em PreceptAustin
Mateus 19
Barclay says that the Rabbis had many sayings about bad marriages and the bad wife. They said that the man with a bad wife would never face hell, because he has paid for his sins on earth. They said that the man who is ruled by his wife has a life that is not life. They said that a bad wife is like leprosy to her husband, and the only way he could be cured is by divorce. They even said, “If a man has a bad wife, it is a religious duty to divorce her.” Life Application Study Bible note - The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus with their question. If he supported divorce, he would be upholding the Pharisees' procedures, and they doubted that he would do that. If Jesus spoke against divorce, however, some members of the crowd would dislike his position; some may have even used the law to their advantage to divorce their wives. More important, he might incur the wrath of Herod, who had already killed John the Baptist for speaking out against divorce and adultery (Mark 6:17-28). This is what the Pharisees wanted. The Pharisees saw divorce as a legal issue rather than a spiritual one. Jesus used this test as an opportunity to review God's intended purpose for marriage and to expose the Pharisees' selfish motives. They were not thinking about what God intended for marriage and were quoting Moses unfairly and out of context. Jesus showed these legal experts how superficial their knowledge really was. (See NLT Life Application Study Bible - Page 1683) Charles Swindoll: The debate among the Pharisees themselves centered on the meaning of the words “he has found some indecency in her” (Deut. 24:1). The interpretations of this expression tended to go in one of two directions in Jesus’ day. The more conservative school of thought restricted this language to be referring to only sexual immorality, while the more liberal school of thought understood “indecency” to include anything that displeased a husband. . .I suppose this question was posed by the more conservative teachers. But they weren’t trying to win Jesus’ support so as to gain points against their liberal opponents. Rather, they were attempting to set up a tripwire that Jesus would spring, entangling Himself in a net of complex biblical, theological, practical, and political controversy from which He wouldn’t be able to extricate Himself. Little did they know that they weren’t dealing with some amateur interpreter of the Law of Moses . . . they were dealing with the Author Himself! Bruce points out that in Jesus' day "“The Jews had very low views of women…A wife was bought, regarded as property, used as a household drudge, and dismissed at pleasure.” (See The Expositor's Greek Testament - Volume 1 - Page 246)
Mateus 19
Barclay: Beyond all doubt, the ideal is that marriage should be an indissoluble union between two people, and that marriage should be entered into as a total union of two personalities, not designed to make one act possible, but designed to make all life a satisfying and mutually completing fellowship. That is the essential basis on which we must proceed. R. T. France: The whole pericope therefore constitutes a double challenge to conventional attitudes to marriage: on the one hand God intends marriage to remain unbroken, and the current acceptance of divorce is a surrender to human failure; on the other hand, for some people obedience to God’s will may properly mean that they do not marry at all. The resultant argument develops as follows: statement of basic scriptural principle (vv. 4–6); counter-scripture (v. 7); resolution of how scripture B relates to scripture A (v. 8); resultant pronouncement (v. 9). Donald Hagner: Again in this pericope we encounter the absoluteness of the kingdom of God and its ethics. In his answer to the question about divorce, Jesus appeals to the creation narrative of Genesis. The kingdom of God brought by Jesus is ultimately to involve the restoration of the perfection of the pre-fall creation, and the ethics of the kingdom as taught by Jesus reflect this fact. As God intended no divorce for the Garden of Eden, so divorce is not to be allowed in the new era of the kingdom of God. The call of some to celibacy also reflects the priority of the kingdom in the present time frame. Van Parunak: Each component of the Lord’s teaching emphasizes that marriages are made in heaven, but divorce is a purely human product. Every party involved in divorce and remarriage is guilty of adultery. The Lord condemns the mate who initiates the divorce, and (if remarriage follows the separation) the one who is put away and the second partner. The fornication clause seems to make an exception. But it was only recorded for Jewish audiences, and they should know from their own Scriptures that fornication leads, not to divorce, but to death. Question - What were the Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law? Answer: Shammai and Hillel were two influential Jewish rabbis whose commentaries on the Torah shaped Jewish theology and philosophy for hundreds of years. The Shammaite and Hillelite schools were the two dominant approaches to Jewish Law during the years of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Unfortunately, the destruction of the temple in AD 70 resulted in the loss of most records relating to the debates between these two groups. The Hillelite school quickly gained dominance after the temple was razed, so much of what we know about first-century Hillelite and Shammaite law comes exclusively from later Hillelite writers. These writers portray the Shammaite-Hillelite divide in a manner similar to modern two-party politics, with each side seemingly bound and determined to contradict the other on everything. According to tradition, Shammai was a Pharisee who taught in the years just prior to Jesus’ birth. In his commentary on the Law, he emphasized the need for temple rituals, and his interpretation is characterized as strict, literalist, and Israel-centric. The school that followed those interpretations is referred to as the Shammaite interpretation of Jewish Law. Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Shammai, was less concerned with temple worship. His commentary is seen as being more liberal, tolerant, and accepting of Gentiles. Hillel was also known for codifying traditional patterns for exegesis into seven individual rules. His Hillelite school was a rival to the Shammaite approach. After the destruction of the temple, the influence of the Shammaite school faded, and Hillel’s philosophy became the dominant approach to Jewish Law for more than 400 years. Scholars are unsure how many of the differences between the Shammaite and Hillelite schools are factual and how many are the products of revisionist history. While Jewish scholars prior to AD 70 make frequent reference to the disagreements between these two groups, the vast majority of surviving records are from Hillelite writers. It’s possible that the Hillelites exaggerated some of the differences between Shammai and Hillel in order to portray Hillel in a more heroic light. Even with such open questions, it’s clear that the interplay between Shammai and Hillel influenced Judaism during the early Christian era. The rivalry between the two schools greatly contributed to Judaism’s growing belief that the oral law—such as promoted in the Shammaite or Hillelite schools—was as authoritative as the written Torah. Some scholars debate which school, Shammaite or Hillelite, had a greater influence on the theology of the New Testament. Jesus’ restrictive rules on divorce echo those of Shammai, while Hillel allowed for a wider range of acceptable reasons to end a marriage. Jesus also phrased the “Golden Rule” using a more challenging, positive expression, in contrast to Hillel’s lighter, negative expression of the same basic idea. At the same time, Jesus was welcoming of non-Jewish people and often castigated the Pharisees for their excessive legalism. The fact is that Jesus presented the truth, and His agreement with either Shammai or Hillel was secondary and coincidental. Jesus spoke the Father’s Word, and His teaching cannot be seen as a defense of any rabbi (John 12:49). There is also an academic debate over the influence of Shammai and Hillel on the theology of the apostle Paul. On one hand, Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who came from the Hillelite school and might have even been Hillel’s grandson. But, prior to his conversion, Paul (Saul) was hardly a tolerant, Gentile-friendly Pharisee. Rather, in opposition to Gamaliel’s teaching, Paul took a severe stance. And in his letters Paul expresses an Israel-centric, all-or-nothing obedience to the Law (Romans 3:19–28; cp. James 2:10), which many scholars would identify more with Shammai. Of course, as he was writing inspired Scripture, Paul was not concerned with what rabbi might have had a past influence upon him; he was “carried along by the Holy Spirit” and wrote what the Spirit wanted (2 Peter 1:21). Ultimately, the differences between Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law are more a matter of historical trivia than a major concern for Christianity. While their influence on Jewish theology might have been significant, the teachings of Shammai and Hillel are ultimately irrelevant against the contents of Scripture and the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. (Source: GotQuestions.org) Related Resource: What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? gotquestions Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, Have: Mt 12:3 21:6,42 22:31 Mk 2:25 12:10,26 Lu 6:3 10:26 that: Ge 1:27 5:2 Mal 2:15 Related Passages: Genesis 1:27+ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 2:23+ The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. ARGUMENT FROM GOD'S DESIGN IN CREATION And He answered (apokrinomai) - Jesus knew this brood of vipers had an evil intent and a desire to trap Him and so replies with a Biblical answer that must have puzzled them. And said, “Have you not read (anaginosko) that He who created (ktizo) them from the beginning (arche) MADE (poieo) THEM MALE AND FEMALE - The Pharisees had focused on divorce, but Jesus wants to talk about what the Bible says about marriage, so He goes back to the first marriage between Adam and Eve (No gender confusion back at creation). The Pharisees were basing their Biblical perspectives on divorce on the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy, not Genesis. So Jesus takes them back to the beginning to answer their test question. As an aside, do not miss the fact that Jesus regarded the creation record as historical and thus divinely inspired. With these words "made them..." Jesus refuted the lie of evolution and endorsed the literal truth of Adam and Eve. He did not say they evolved but were made (poieo), i.e., created! The Pharisees wanted to talk about divorce, but Jesus wanted to talk about marriage and God’s divine blueprint. - Danny Akin Stu Weber: Have you not read implies that the answer should have been obvious. Jesus was unveiling the Pharisees’ true motives, which was to trap him. In effect, he was saying, “You know better than to ask this question.” Marriage should reflect God’s image, not guarantee our personal “happiness.” The permanent marriage bond is in keeping with God’s original design for men and women. (See Holman New Testament Commentary - Matthew) Grant Osborne: Jesus’ point is that God created men and women to be together, not to be divorced. . . The purpose of creation is the God-given union of “male and female.” Spurgeon on Jesus' tact of going back to Genesis - Our Lord honors Holy Scripture by drawing his argument therefrom. He chose specially to set his seal upon a part of the story of creation – that story which modern critics speak of as if it were fable or myth.” (See Matthew 19 Commentary-C H Spurgeon) Adam
Mateus 19
Barclay: To Jesus no one was unimportant. Some might say: ‘They’re only children; don’t let them bother you.’ Jesus would never say that. No one was ever a nuisance to Jesus. He was never too tired, never too busy to give all of himself to anyone who needed it. There is a strange difference between Jesus and many famous preachers or evangelists. It is often next to impossible to get into the presence of one of these famous ones. They have a kind of retinue and bodyguard which keep the public away lest the great figure be wearied and bothered. Jesus was the opposite of that. The way to his presence was open to the humblest person and to the youngest child. (See The Gospel of Matthew - volume 2) Charles Swindoll: By the rules of this world, the more wealthy, famous, important, and powerful you are, the less approachable, accessible, and available. None of us can stroll into the White House, knock on the door of the president of the United States, and ask for a few minutes of time to talk. If we were to see an Academy Award–winning actress dining at a pricey Hollywood restaurant, who of us would be able to slip into an empty seat at the table and ask about her next project? In our world, inaccessibility is a measure of importance. Not so with Jesus. As usual, He defied cultural expectations and turned the rules of the world upside down. He didn’t favor the powerful, give special access to the elite, or make extra space for the influential. He was eminently approachable, accessible, and available . . . to everyone. Jesus was in touch with every kind of person —young and old, poor and rich, sick and healthy, corrupt and honest, harsh and courteous, hateful and loving, humble and proud, the devoted follower and the cruel critic. His refusal to construct social barriers and to limit access is nothing short of astonishing. (See Insights on Matthew 16--28 - Page 110) And the disciples (mathetes) rebuked (epitimao) them - NLT - "But the disciples scolded the parents for bothering him." Warren
Mateus 19
Barclay - Jesus lays it down that there will be surprises in the final assessment…it may be that those who were humble on earth will be great in heaven, and that those who were great in this world will be humbled in the world to come.” C H