Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
Let us take a familiar instance. The laws grant to us a greater liberty of litigation than the law
of charity allows. Why is this? Because the right cannot be conferred on individuals, unless there
be an open door for demanding it; and yet the inward law of God declares that we ought to follow
what charity shall dictate. And yet there is no reason why magistrates should make this an excuse
for their indolence, if they voluntarily abstain from correcting vices, or neglect what the nature of
their office demands. But let men in a private station beware of doubling the criminality of the
magistrates, by screening their own vices under the protection of the laws. For here the Lord
indirectly reproves the Jews for not, reckoning it enough that their stubbornness was allowed to
pass unpunished, if they did not implicate God as defending their iniquity. And if the rule of a holy
and pious life is not always, or in all places, to be sought from political laws, much less ought we
to seek it from custom.
9. But I say to you. Mark relates that this was spoken to the disciples apart, when they had come
into the house; but Matthew, leaving out this circumstance, gives it as a part of the discourse, as
the Evangelists frequently leave out some intermediate occurrence, because they reckon it enough
to sum up the leading points. There is therefore no difference, except that the one explains the
matter more distinctly than the other. The substance of it is: though the Law does not punish divorces,
which are at variance with God’s first institution, yet he is an adulterer who rejects his wife and
takes another. For it is not in the power of a man to dissolve the engagement of marriage, which
the Lord wishes to remain inviolate; and so the woman who occupies the bed of a lawful wife is a
concubine.
But an exception is added; for the woman, by fornication, cuts herself off, as a rotten member,
from her husband, and sets him at liberty. Those who search for other reasons ought justly to be
set at nought, because they choose to be wise above the heavenly teacher. They say that leprosy is
a proper ground for divorce, because the contagion of the disease affects not only the husband, but
likewise the children. For my own part, while I advise a religious man not to touch a woman afflicted
with leprosy, I do not pronounce him to be at liberty to divorce her. If it be objected, that they who
cannot live unmarried need a remedy, that they may not be burned, I answer, that what is sought
in opposition to the word of God is not a remedy. I add too, that if they give themselves up to be
guided by the Lord, they will never want continence, for they follow what he has prescribed. One
man shall contract such a dislike of his wife, that he cannot endure to keep company with her: will
polygamy cure this evil? Another man’s wife shall fall into palsy or apoplexy, or be afflicted with
some other incurable disease, shall the husband reject her under the pretense of incontinency? We
know, on the contrary, that none of those who walk in their ways are ever left destitute of the
assistance of the Spirit.
For the sake of avoiding fornication, says Paul, let every man marry a wife, (1 Corinthians 7:2.)
He who has done so, though he may not succeed to his wish, has done his duty; and, therefore, if
any thing be wanting, he will be supported by divine aid. To go beyond this is nothing else than to
tempt God. When Paul mentions another reason, namely, that when, through a dislike of godliness,
wives happen to be rejected by unbelievers, a godly brother or sister is not, in such a case, liable
269
John Calvin