Matthew 19:8

Sunday, 26 April 2026   He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew 19:8   “He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you, he allowed you to dismiss your wives. But from the commencement, not it has been thus.’” (CG)   In the previous verse, Jesus was asked about Moses’ provision in the law concerning the issuing of a certificate of divorce. In response to that, Matthew records, “He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you.’”   A new word, not found outside biblical references, is seen here, sklérokardia. It is derived from two words, the first being skléros, dry, but indicating hard or tough, like a dry scab. Figuratively, it refers to stubborn people who won’t budge, bend, or submit. The second word is kardias, the heart. By analogy, it refers to the thoughts or feelings of a person. It is the seat of moral preference.   By placing the two words together, one can see the result: a heart that is hardened and morally obdurate. Of the words of Jesus, He ascribes this state as being the reason for Moses’ grant for divorce. This does not negate the doctrine of inspiration. What Moses said was under the inspiration and divine approval of God.   However, the book of Deuteronomy is written from Moses’ perspective. When the Lord is mentioned, it is generally in the third person, such as, “Yehovah our God, He made with us – covenant, in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 5:2).   As such, Jesus refers to the words as being those of Moses. But it is the Lord who truly looks upon the hardheartedness of the people. Moses, on the other hand, saw the result of it being worked out in the lives of the people. It is in this state of understanding the state of the people that Moses directed his words pros, toward, their hardheartedness.   The fact is that divorce was and remains a part of the human condition. Israel was taken out of the body of humanity. Their inclinations would be no different than those of anyone else. The law, however, would magnify the people’s guilt in such matters. In seeing this state in them, Jesus says, “he allowed you to dismiss your wives.”   Moses’ words were not a command to dismiss. Rather, they were an accommodation to do so because of the hard state of human hearts, among whom Israel is included. In other words, Moses had to decide the matter, considering what would have been the result if this allowance were not provided.   The answer is that things would have been worse in various ways, not better. Otherwise, the allowance would not have been given. Despite this allowance, however, Jesus next says, “But from the commencement, not it has been thus.”   The verse in Jesus’ words is a perfect participle. Depending on the translation, such as the NKJV, someone may deduce that it was not so in the beginning, but because of accommodation through Moses, that then changed. This is incorrect. The use of the perfect participle tells us that it was not that way in the beginning, it was not that way at the time of Moses’ allowance, and it continued not to be the case even up to the present.   This accommodation does not change the original intent of marriage at all. Rather, Jesus will continue to explain the matter in the verses ahead.   Life application: As an example of mixing doctrines, consider the words of the Pulpit Commentary –   “From the beginning. The original institution of marriage contained no idea of divorce; it was no mere civil contract, made by man and dissoluble by man, but a union of God's own formation, with which no human power could interfere. However novel this view might seem, it was God's own design from the first. The first instance of polygamy occurs in Genesis 4:19, and is connected with murder and revenge. Matthew 19:8.”   The substance of the Pulpit Commentary on the matter of divorce is fine. But one must stop and ask, “What does the last sentence of the commentary have to do with divorce?” The answer is, “Nothing.” Further, the conclusion they gave concerning polygamy is entirely amiss.   The fact that murder is mentioned by Lamech has nothing to do with his being married to two wives. Second, murder had already been seen, in the same chapter, when connected in a similar offhand manner to a non-polygamous marriage.   Cain killed Abel. They were sons of Adam and Eve. The fact that murder took place has nothing to do with that fact, just as the fact that Lamech had two wives, from a biblical standpoint, has nothing to do with Lamech’s killing of another person.   Be careful when reading commentaries not to get misdirected into irrelevant side issues. This is quite common in commentaries, but incorrect conclusions can become the highlight of a matter because of such things. When that happens, all kinds of false teachings can quickly arise.   If someone wants to deviate from a thought being presented, there needs to be a reason for it, such as a “life application” that is understood to be extra to the main content.   Likewise, be sure to stick to relevant facts yourself in your own discussions about theology and doctrine. In doing so, you will build a stronger case without fallacious conclusions that misdirect from the matter at hand.   Lord God, help us to be faithful husbands and wives, living out our lives in adherence with what You have set forth for marriages in Your word. May we be patient, caring, and forgiving as we interact with the spouse You have blessed us with all the days of our lives. Amen.