The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament (36 page)

18:15-20
Church discipline is a serious matter for her leaders. Jesus outlines a three-step procedure for
(1)
privately confronting the sinner,
(2)
addressing the sin before a circle of witnesses, and
(3)
bringing the matter before the Church. Emphasis is placed on reconciliation. If the member resists correction, the Church's leaders (apostles and successors) may exercise Christ's authority by disciplining the impenitent. This final decision is backed even by the Father (18:19) (CCC 1463). 
Back to text.

18:16 two or three witnesses:
Criteria for judicial testimony in Old Covenant Israel (Deut 19:15). Jesus' language reinforces the Church's identity as the restored Israel of the New Covenant (Gal 6:16; cf. 2 Cor 13:1).
See note on Mt 5:14
. 
Back to text.

18:17 the Church:
Mentioned only here and 16:18 in the Gospels. Whereas 16:18 envisions Peter's authority over the universal Church, this verse pertains to a local congregation of Christians.
Gentile . . . tax collector:
Two groups generally despised by first-century Jews. The choice of these terms suggest that Jesus requires a policy of non-association with those who are disciplined by leaders of the Church (cf. 1 Cor 5:9-13; 2 Cor 6:14-15). 
Back to text.

18:18 whatever you bind . . . loose:
In 16:19, Peter was invested with Christ's authority as the visible head of the Church. A derivative—but subordinate—authority is given also to the apostles as royal ministers in the kingdom. Jesus' authority in this context is related to Church discipline; by extension, it is also a sacramental authority to forgive sins (cf. Jn 20:23; CCC 553, 1444). See notes on Mt 9:8 and 16:19. 
Back to text.

18:22 seventy times seven:
Denotes limitless forgiveness and mercy. • Jesus contrasts the behavior expected of the apostles with the boundless vengeance of Lamech in Gen 4:24 (LXX), where the same figures of "seven" and "seventy times seven" are contrasted (CCC 982). 
Back to text.

18:24 ten thousand talents:
A "talent" (coin) is equivalent to 6,000 denarii, or 20 years' wages for a laborer. The figure is exaggerated for emphasis: the parable accentuates the king's (God's) mercy in forgiving an incalculable debt that was impossible for the servant (man) to repay. 
Back to text.

18:28 a hundred denarii:
A minor debt, since a "denarius" was equivalent to a single day's wage for a laborer (cf. 20:2). Repayment of 100 days' wages required patience (18:29) but was not impossible. 
Back to text.

18:35 forgive your brother:
Jesus demonstrates the folly of mercilessness. One forgiven an eternal debt of sin should readily forgive others of much smaller debts. The lesson is summarized in Jesus' commentary on the Our Father in 6:14-15 (cf. Jas 2:13; CCC 2842-43). 
Back to text.

19:1 Judea beyond the Jordan:
Jesus has concluded his Galilean ministry and is now headed for Jerusalem. His presence east of the Jordan has a dual significance.
(1)
This location is linked with John the Baptist (3:5), who was executed for condemning the divorce and remarriage of Herod Antipas and his mistress, Herodias (14:3-10). This tragedy looms in the background of the ensuing question about divorce (19:3). One suspects that the Pharisees hoped to lure Jesus into the same trap that cost John his life.
(2)
The region beyond the Jordan is also the place where Moses gave Israel the laws of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:5). It seems more than coincidental that Jesus is about to repeal the Deuteronomic concession for divorce and remarriage (Deut 24:1-4) in the very place where it was ratified. 
Back to text.

19:3-9
Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage (Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18) and revokes the lower standard of the Old Law permitting divorce for non-Levitical laymen in Israel (Deut 24:14). Jesus thus restores marriage to its original integrity (Gen 2:24) and elevates it to a New Covenant sacrament (Eph 5:2233; CCC 2382). 
Back to text.

19:3 tested:
The Greek verb can also mean "tempted" and often implies a hostile intent (as in 4:1 and 22:18). The Pharisees, resolved to destroy Jesus (12:14), hope to ensnare him with an incriminating question (cf. 22:15; Jn 8:6).
for any cause:
Many read this as a question about the
legitimate grounds
for divorce. It is said that Jesus is pressed to take sides in a debate between the Pharisaic schools of Hillel (liberal) and Shammai (conservative). This is doubtful; giving an opinion on an intramural dispute among the Pharisees would hardly constitute a trap. More likely, the question concerns the
legality
of divorce itself (as in Mk 10:2). Presumably it was becoming known that Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage (5:32; Lk 16:18), even though Moses had long ago permitted it (Deut 24:1-4). The Pharisees thus see an opportunity to discredit Jesus by pitting him against Moses. Jesus evades the trap by quoting the words of Moses from Genesis (19:4-5) and then turns the tables by showing that the Pharisees are the ones out of touch with God's true intention for married life as revealed in the Torah. 
Back to text.

19:4 Have you not read?:
A counterquestion frequently posed by Jesus to his learned adversaries (i.e., Pharisees and Sadducees).
See note on Mt 12:3
. 
Back to text.

19:6 God has joined together:
Citing Gen 2:24 (Mt 19:5), Jesus reaffirms that marriage is God's creation, not man's invention. Since God forges the indissoluble bond that unites a married couple, it follows that no civil or religious authority has the power to break it (CCC 1603, 1640).
See note on 1 Cor 7:15
. 
Back to text.

19:9 And I say to you:
Jesus invokes his own authority to forbid divorce and remarriage. Matthew's account reflects Jewish cultural conditions, where men alone had the right to divorce (cf. 5:32). Mark more fully records Jesus' statement that both men and women are forbidden to divorce and remarry (Mk 10:11-12; CCC 1614, 2382). See essay:
Jesus on Marriage and Divorce
at Mt 19. 
Back to text.

19:10 not expedient to marry:
The disciples marvel that Jesus prohibits divorce and remarriage in the New Covenant (19:9), reversing the long-standing permission of the Old (Deut 24:1-4). Their incredulous response makes it certain that Jesus permitted no exceptions for husbands and wives bound together by the sacrament. This new and higher standard leads them to see the comparative superiority of lifelong virginity to married life (CCC 1615). 
Back to text.

19:12 eunuchs:
i.e., royal servants in charge of a king's wives. To safeguard against sexual temptations, eunuchs in the ancient Near East were either impotent or physically castrated. Jesus speaks metaphorically: those who have
made themselves eunuchs
are those who voluntarily embrace celibacy in imitation of Jesus and for service in his
kingdom.
These men are leaders entrusted with the care of Christ's bride, the Church on earth; embracing consecrated virginity, they live by anticipation the life of heaven (22:30).
See note on Mt 9:15
. • The Council of Trent (Sess. 24, can. 10) teaches in accord with Scripture that the objective state of celibacy is higher than the married state, although both vocations are important for the Church's life (1 Cor 7:1-8, 32-35; Rev 14:4; CCC 1618-20). 
Back to text.

Jesus on Marriage and Divorce

S
INCE
the dawn of creation, God designed marriage to be permanent, exclusive, and fruitful (Gen 1:28; 2:24; Mt 19:5). However, since man's rebellion against God, the institution of marriage has suffered many distortions that tarnished its God-given beauty. Moses permitted divorce and remarriage as a concession to the sinfulness of Israel under the Old Covenant (Deut 24:1-4). Even so, it was ultimately clear that divorce falls short of God's will and plan for married couples (cf. Mal 2:16).

This leads to an important question: Does Jesus reaffirm the permission of divorce stipulated in Deut 24:1-4, or, rather, does he revoke this concession and announce the indissolubility of marriage for the New Covenant? The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that Jesus forbids divorce and remarriage. The bond that unites a couple in the sacrament of matrimony is created by God (Mt 19:6) and can be dissolved only by the death of one of the spouses (cf. Rom 7:1-3). For men or women to remarry while their spouse is living is to commit adultery (Mt 19:9; Rom 7:3).

Jesus' teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage is unfortunately a source of controversy among Christians. Much confusion swirls around his statement in Mt 19:9: "[W]hoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery" (cf. Mt 5:32). Does Jesus really make an "exception" to allow for divorce and remarriage? Since the rise of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, many non-Catholic groups have answered "yes". They began to appeal to this "exception clause" to justify divorce and remarriage in extreme circumstances. However, this view fails to interpret Jesus' statement in light of its immediate, biblical context. The disciples' response to Jesus' statement on divorce ("it is not expedient to marry" [19:10]) demonstrates that, in their understanding, Jesus was leaving no room at all for divorce and remarriage. In fact, they viewed celibacy as a preferable alternative to marriage precisely because Jesus' teaching on this matter is so strict—far more so than that of any of his Jewish contemporaries. The disciples' incredulous response to Jesus thus confirms the Catholic Church's constant teaching on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage.

Still, the question remains: What did Jesus mean when he said "except for unchastity" in Mt 5:32 and 19:9? Over the centuries, Catholic exegesis has put forward three main interpretations of this exception clause. None is endorsed by the Church as her official understanding of the passage. However, all are permissible interpretations inasmuch as they harmonize the exception clause with the revolutionary teaching of Jesus (and the Catholic Church) on the indissolubility of sacramental marriage.

1. Patristic View

Several Church Fathers suggest Jesus allowed for divorce in cases of serious sexual sin such as adultery, but he never permitted remarriage after divorce. The spouses may separate in these circumstances by a legal arrangement of living apart, but they cannot break the marriage bond, and they are not free to remarry. This view finds support by a consideration of the Greek word
porneia,
translated "unchastity", in Mt 19:9. While the word has a broad range of meaning, it can mean "adultery", as in the Greek OT (also translated "harlotry"; Sir 23:23; Ezek 16:33; Hos 2:2). Thus, an adulterous situation may give cause for separation so long as the spouses do not embark upon a second marriage. This squares with St. Paul's teaching that a separated couple has only two options: be reconciled to one another, or remain single (1 Cor 7:10-11).

2. Levitical Law View

This position interprets "unchastity" in Mt 19:9 as invalid marriages where the spouses are too closely related. Thus, "except for unchastity" (Mt 19:9) means "except where unlawful unions exist". Such unions ought to be severed because of the impediment posed by near blood-relations. A divorce under these conditions does not sunder a true marriage bond because a valid marriage never existed. It is equivalent to an annulment. This view is supported by two NT instances where
porneia
refers to incest. In Acts 15:20, 29, the apostles charge Gentile Christians to abstain from blood and unchastity. The OT background for this decision in Lev 18:6-18 suggests that
unchastity
refers to prohibited marriages between closely related kinsfolk. In 1 Cor 5:1-2 (translated "immorality"),
porneia
clearly refers to an illicit union of a man and his father's wife.

3. "No Comment" View