FOOTNOTES:

^a Literally ‘across the Jordan.’ The place of reference would have been Jerusalem, so ‘across the Jordan’ would have been the opposite side from Jerusalem. For that reason, the area east of the Jordan River historically has been referred to as the Transjordan, ‘across the Jordan.’

^b The word ‘just’ is added to emphasize that the question is not whether divorce is allowed at all, but whether a man unilaterally rejecting and abandoning his wife is permitted for only a few reasons or for a flexible array of reasons. That wording doesn’t quite make sense in English. The more natural wording would be “Is it allowable for a man to send his wife away for any reason?” The Pharisees are asking whether whatever reason someone can come up with is sufficient or is it more limited than that. It’s important to word it as ‘sending away a wife,’ not just ‘divorcing,’ because of the power over wives that husbands had. Only husbands could initiate divorce, and wives had no say in it. Women were completely financially dependent on their husbands, and divorce left the woman at the mercy of their fathers to provide for them, and if they did not, they were doomed to either beg or resort to sex work just to survive unless they were lucky enough to find another man willing to take them on as a dependent wife. In 1st-century Judaism, debates about divorce focused on how to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which allowed a man to divorce his wife if he found something "indecent" about her. The key question was how to define "indecency." The School of Shammai took a strict stance, interpreting "indecency" as referring only to serious offenses like sexual immorality or marital unfaithfulness. For them, divorce was justified only in cases of marital betrayal. In contrast, the School of Hillel had a much broader interpretation. They allowed divorce for almost any personal failing, even something as trivial as preparing an unclean meal or other minor infractions against Torah law. This greatly expanded the allowable grounds for sending one’s wife away.

^c Reference to Genesis 1:27, 2:18-25

^d Citation of Genesis 2:24.

^e Literally, the word translated as ‘family’ here is ‘flesh’ but as a metaphor for family, as in ‘they’re my flesh and blood.’

^f The English word ‘divorce’ literally just means ‘separation’ but has come to be specific to separation of a married couple. The Greek word here is apostasion, the same as ‘apostasy’ which historically is used as separation from the church.

^g The Greek preposition pros often conveys direction or purpose, typically translated as “toward,” “for,” or “because of.” Here, translating pros as “as a counter to” emphasizes that Moses’ allowance for divorce was not an endorsement but a necessary response to “unfeeling hearts” (sklerokardia)—a concession addressing human unwillingness to fulfill God’s original intent for marriage (Deuteronomy 24:1). Moses' law was a reluctant accommodation, aiming to regulate rather than justify sending away one’s wife.

^h The Greek term sklerokardia combines skleros (meaning “hard” or “stubborn”) with kardia (“heart”). It is often translated as “hard-heartedness,” conveying insensitivity or an unwillingness to be compassionate and responsive. Translating sklerokardia as “unfeeling hearts” emphasizes this lack of empathy, as well as a resistance to the relational commitment marriage entails. Here, sklerokardia reflects a condition of spiritual and relational insensitivity that prompted Moses to allow for divorce—not as approval, but as a concession to human unwillingness to fully honor the depth of relational care God intended.

ⁱ The word here is porneia, which has traditionally been translated as ‘sexual immorality.’ When Jesus is asked to pick a side in the binary debate about how to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4, he chose a third and more loving way. The School of Shammai took a strict stance, interpreting "indecency" as referring only to serious offenses like sexual immorality or marital unfaithfulness. For them, divorce was justified only in cases of marital betrayal. In contrast, the School of Hillel had a much broader interpretation. They allowed sending one’s wife away for almost any personal failing, even something as trivial as preparing an unclean meal or other minor infractions against Torah law. Jesus is here asserting something stricter than either school of thought. The result of any man sending away his wife would be that she would have to remarry, be completely destitute, or engage in sex work to survive. Jesus is asserting that the only reason allowable to put a woman in that situation is if she has already chosen sex with other people for herself.

^j Parallel to Matthew 5:31-32

^k The current terminology for “eunuchs who were that way from their mother’s belly” would be ‘intersex’: someone whose physical development does not track with ‘normal’ sexual development. It may involve having characteristics of both sexual organs, such as a penis and ovaries, or some other variation that the body didn’t develop according to the textbooks for males or females. Roughly 1% of the population fits this description, approximately the same as the number of redheads in the United States.

^l This is referring to genital mutilation, typically done to provide male servants to female nobility or to develop male singers with high voices, all to please and serve the rich and powerful with no regard to the humanity of the abuse survivor.

^m In the first century, voluntary castration was practiced within certain religious and social contexts. For instance, in the cult of Cybele, the mother goddess, male priests (galli) sometimes castrated themselves as an expression of devotion. Eunuchs were also present in imperial courts, where some men chose castration to secure trusted roles or gain close access to royalty. Philosophical ascetics, such as certain Stoics or Cynics, sometimes viewed celibacy—and in rare cases, castration—as a means of focusing on higher ideals. However, this verse likely implies celibacy rather than literal castration, choosing not to marry rather than participate in the injustice of sending away a wife, causing her to resort to sex work or face abject poverty. Notably, The ‘cutting off’ implied in the castration involved in becoming a eunuch for the sake of avoiding deviation and injustice calls to mind Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 18:8-9.

ⁿ See Isaiah 56:1-9.

^o This may be a reference to Isaiah 56:1-8.

^p The Greek is idou, which literally means ‘look.’ It is an idiomatic way to catch the audience’s attention and point out that something noteworthy is happening.

^q There are several ways aionion can be translated, and it’s impossible for the translator’s perspective not to influence the choice. Traditionally, it’s rendered “eternal” or “everlasting,” but aionion comes from the word for “eon” or “age.” It can imply “indefinitely long” or “long-lasting,” essentially meaning “lasting a very long time” without specifying the exact length. Though this could suggest a conscious afterlife, the idea of “going to Heaven” was unfamiliar in early Hebrew thought and only developed later, influenced by Greek philosophy. In Abraham’s time and throughout much of the Hebrew Bible, a person’s “life” was carried forward in the legacy they left, family relationships, and the impact of their actions in the world. The scriptural context here includes Deuteronomy 6:1-5, especially verse 2 (“to prolong your days”), and Deuteronomy 30:1-20, particularly verses 15-20. The latter passage says, “To love the Lord your God, to heed His voice, and to cling to Him, for He is your life and your length of days to dwell on the soil which the LORD your God swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 2019). The Greek verb translated here as “hold onto” is the same verb the Septuagint translates as “cling to” in Alter’s translation of Deuteronomy 30:20. The man’s question reflects a desire to secure a good, prosperous life from God, but he misses the deeper relational and covenantal call—and Jesus responds accordingly.

^r In Greek, agathos generally means “good,” but more often implying what is beneficial, useful, or constructive, rather than merely “good” in an abstract or moral sense. In literature outside the Bible, agathos often describes things that serve a beneficial purpose or contribute positively to well-being. This meaning is also reflected in the Septuagint, where agathos describes both moral goodness and practical benefits.

^s Traditionally, ‘enter.’ Eiserchomai can be translated as ‘enter,’ ‘go in,’ ‘come in,’ ‘participate in,’ or ‘join in,’ and others. Since Jesus is not talking about a location, ‘enter’ or ‘go in’ don’t make sense in the context. Rather, it’s talking about participating in how God interacts with the world.

^t The man’s question already hints at Deuteronomy 30:18-20, and Jesus’s response reinforces this connection. Part of the misguided nature of his question is his focus on personal benefit, as he asks about his own path to life, seeming to emphasize individual gain. However, the passage in Deuteronomy speaks to the whole community, emphasizing a shared covenantal call: “Therefore choose [plural] life so that you [plural] and your [plural] descendants may live! I also call on you [plural] to love the LORD your God, to obey him and be loyal to him, for he gives you [plural] life and enables you [plural] to live continually in the land the LORD promised to give to your [plural] ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20, NET). In essence, the man is asking, “How do I choose life?” but seems to carry an ulterior motive, perhaps something closer to, “How do I secure prosperity from God?” Jesus’s response addresses this by reminding him of the answer already present in Deuteronomy: “Love the LORD your God, obey him, and be loyal to him.” When Jesus says to “observe the commandments,” he points back to this covenantal faithfulness. The man then presses for more specifics, so Jesus lists some major commandments, interestingly excluding those focused directly on God (such as worshiping only God) and instead highlighting those centered on treating others well. Jesus even includes a commandment from Leviticus about loving others. Through these examples, Jesus illustrates that choosing life is about faithfulness that enables the whole community “to live continually” (o’rech in Hebrew—“long” or “ever”—and macrotes in the Greek translation of Deuteronomy, meaning “long”) in the land.

^u Traditionally, ‘bear false witness,’ which is more than just lying but specifically falsely accusing someone of a crime or Torah violation.

^v Citation of Exodus 20:12-16 and Deuteronomy 5:16-20

^w Citation of Leviticus 19:18

^x This Greek word, teleios, literally means ‘finished’ and traditionally has been translated ‘perfect.’ It’s not about flawlessness; it’s about completion, wholeness, having been fully developed.

^y Parallel to Matthew 6:19-24

^z Compare to Matthew 6:19-24

^aa Compare this story to all of Leviticus 25 and notice the parallel particularly between Leviticus 25:18 and Matthew 19:17, 21.

^bb This is one of only four times ‘God’s Reign’ is used rather than ‘Heavenly Reign’ in Matthew. It emphasizes that those expected to be visibly ‘blessed’ by God due to their wealth are not connected to God at all, not aligned with living in the Path of the Lord. The other three instances of ‘God’s Reign’ are Matthew 12:29, Matthew 21:31, and Matthew 21:43

^cc With Deuteronomy 28-30 in view, their shock is understandable. The understanding was that material blessing was given by God for those who had been faithful in keeping the teaching of Torah, so any wealth accumulated by someone or their ancestors was interpreted to be a sign of their faithfulness, a sign of their participation in God’s ways. Therefore, the assumption would be that this young man and other rich people would already be close to living God’s way and maybe only need a little improvement. That seems to be what the young man assumed. Giving up the wealth, the supposed sign of God’s favor was the last thing he expected, and it seems to have gone over the students’ heads also.

^dd Traditionally, ‘throne of glory’

^ee Most literally, ‘regeneration.’ It’s a compound of the word for ‘again’ and genesia, which has different translations in English based on context. It can mean ‘birth’ or ‘beget’ (an archaic word that means to conceive, procreate, or inseminate) or ‘generate.’ It also means ‘beginning,’ which is where the first book of the Hebrew Bible gets its title “Genesis.” ‘Regeneration’ in English would seem to apply more to a single organism than to what Jesus is doing, i.e. renewing the Heavenly Reign across the whole land. The sense of Jesus’ whole message goes back to the failure to live to up Deuteronomy 28-30, which laid out what to expect if Torah wasn’t followed, and Matthew seems to center following Torah in Leviticus 17-25, particularly represented by 25 and Jubilee. Jubilee was a national reset of assets and resources. Failure to follow Jubilee leads to the consequences of Deuteronomy 28-30, and ultimately to the fate of the Hinnom Valley as described in Jeremiah 7-9.

^ff Literally, ‘judging.’ The word is used for officials like magistrates who governed local areas under the authority of a king or emperor. It also calls to mind the ‘judges’ of ancient Israel in the Hebrew Bible book titled ‘Judges’ as the title of the leaders during the period after they entered the Promised Land and before they had kings.

^gg The phrase is literally, ‘in my name.’ The concept of ‘name’ in scripture is more than the set of sounds or letters used to designate who is being discussed. It refers to their identity, character, and sometimes authority or cause which that person represents or leads. For instance, here, it could be loosely translated to mean something like “serve my identity, authority, and waying of being.”

^hh See the footnote for Matthew 19:16. This seems to be a reference to Deuteronomy 30.

ⁱⁱ ‘First’ denotes highest social status, and ‘last’ denotes lowest social status.