Looking at Matthew 19:3-12 with Narrative Criticism

While narrative criticism has gained popularity in recent decades, it is rare to find content that performs narrative analysis in detail on smaller, particular passages within the Gospels, rather than the entirety of a specific Gospel. It is even more challenging to locate this type of analysis on Matthew 19:3-12. Matthew 19:3-12 marks a significant moment in Jesus’ journey toward Jerusalem, as the Pharisees confront him with a divorce question. Upon reading this paper, one will gain insight into God’s true intentions regarding marriage and divorce. However, the reader will obtain this information through the method of narrative criticism to get a fresh perspective on the passage. This article argues that, by examining Matthew 19:3-12 through the lens of narrative criticism, one can appreciate how its characters, setting, and other narrative elements contribute to Matthew’s overall plot and theological purpose.

A Word About Narrative Criticism

Traditional and reformed interpreters often rely on what is called the grammatico-historical method to study the Bible. This strategy aims to uncover the original meaning of the biblical author by examining the language and historical context of the text.^[1] The method is highly scientific in its approach, employing techniques to discern the author’s primary intent by examining the historical and literary context. In any given passage, word studies might be performed to explore the language, grammar, and syntax of the text in its original tongue (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic), or further study might be executed of the cultural or social aspect of the text. The grammatico-historical method has significant advantages in understanding the Bible and is beneficial for students to have in mind when examining any pericope.

However, approaching the Gospels with narrative criticism is a relatively new method that has gained momentum in recent decades, allowing students to take an alternative route to comprehending the text. Narrative analysis enables the reader to immerse themselves in the world of the text they are engaging with, rather than simply viewing it from the outside with hermeneutics on a grammatical or historical level. The Gospels, for example, can be read and appreciated as a coherent whole in a more synchronic fashion, with story-like elements, such as a focused and detailed examination of the characters, plots, and conflicts that comprise the narrative. The assumption is that narrative criticism offers valuable tools for exploring the Gospels, which opens up fresh perspectives on how characters grow and how events unfold within the narrative.^[2]

But why narrative analysis? Certain scholars have also recently made significant contributions to the field of genre. To grasp what a text truly means, there is first a need to understand what kind of text it is (its genre). Knowing the genre acts like a roadmap that helps to see the author’s original intent and test the interpretation.^[3] Richard Burridge argues that the Gospels are Greco-Roman biographies (bioi) first and foremost, and this is an excellent start. However, Jonathan T. Pennington rightfully adds more to this discussion by stating that perhaps it should be “bioi plus.” In his opinion, Burridge’s conclusion does not range deeply enough, and his narrow focus does not allow him to recognize other overlapping contexts that would be useful in correctly labeling the Gospels’ genre.^[4] This article argues that, even in Burridge’s own writing, he acknowledges that the Gospels are indeed bioi, but they also contain a narrative structure that plays a role in how that genre functions. He emphasizes the internal features of early Graeco-Roman bioi, some of which are the setting, topics, style, and quality of characterization. In other words, these are narrative elements that serve the bioi purpose in the Gospels: to portray Jesus’ identity as the ‘Son of God,’ his mission, and his significance. Therefore, narrative analysis provides accurate and valuable techniques for interpreting the Gospels as they are and for exploring the internal, narrative-like elements of the bioi. Narrative criticism is one way that allows the discussion of genre to expand into “bioi plus.” Even so, it is difficult to deny that the Gospels are mostly narratives that explain the life of Jesus—stories that move from the beginning to the end.^[5]

It is for these reasons that this article will employ a narrative analysis approach to Matthew 19:3-12. However, before conducting the actual reading, it is essential to identify the most crucial elements of narrative criticism in the passage—its story and discourse. Structuralist theory states that narratives have a story (what is told, consisting of elements such as the events) and discourse (how it is told).^[6] The reader can liken the following portion of the article to a scenario of a person having watched a particular movie several times, simply for enjoyment, allowing the story, its plot, and its characters to unfold before their eyes each time. He knows the story well. Then, he returns to the movie to watch it again, but this time with a written list of aspects that comprise the narrative and discourse. At this point, we are creating that list before we actually “watch the movie” again.

The Story of Matthew 19:3-12

The story of Matthew 19:3-12 would contain, according to Jack Dean Kingsbury and Seymour Chatman, three main aspects: events, characters, and settings.^[7] Each of these elements in the specific pericope will be expounded upon, along with a broader examination of them in the entire Gospel of Matthew, as it is also important to acknowledge these components on a more comprehensive level.

Events

The events are “happenings” and actions that occur throughout the story.^[8] The main event that occurs within Matthew 19:3-12 is the incident of Jesus’ discussion with the religious leaders. The dialogue briefly goes back and forth, concluding with Jesus sharing his clear thoughts on divorce and remarriage. Since events are said to make up the “plot” of the narrative, it is essential to understand the circumstances the author creates with this event and how it helps shape the relationship between Jesus and the religious leaders.

Kingsbury states that the element of conflict is brought out in the events to further the plot in Matthew and includes conflict analysis in his specific approach.^[9] In Matthew 19, readers will see that this element of conflict is escalating, particularly in this particular discourse of the Gospel. Throughout Matthew’s narrative, Jesus faces a wide range of opposition, not only from Satan and demonic forces but also from political powers and Israel’s religious leaders. These confrontations, however, do not carry the same narrative weight equally, and Jesus seems to have the most trouble with humans, particularly with the Pharisees. These ongoing human conflicts in these events function as a deeper narrative method, driving the story forward to a climax.^[10]

The conflict driving Matthew’s plot is the mounting clash between Jesus and the nation of Israel. From the beginning, the religious leaders are portrayed as his inevitable enemies, though the tension initially simmers only slightly. As the narrative unfolds, this opposition intensifies, building to a crescendo, until it reaches a point where there is no possibility of reconciliation between Jesus and the Pharisees.^[11] To artistically portray the climatic circumstance of Jesus’ run-in with the Pharisees, Matthew uses several rhetorical devices, such as, a) the questions they give to Jesus are of a weightier or more “hot topic” kind (in this event, divorce and remarriage), b) the atmosphere in which they take place is intense, almost to the point of seizing Jesus, and c) the debates between Jesus and the Pharisees continues to intensify.^[12] In Matthew 19:3-12, the author demonstrates that the tension has been building for some time, and now, this specific event of disagreement on the topic of divorce and remarriage serves as another catalyst to propel the narrative forward.

In the passage, there is also the event of the disciples’ follow-up question and Jesus’ response to them. Truly, Matthew often uses conflict with the disciples to show that they, too, “think the things not of God, but of humans.”^[13] Jesus is frequently frustrated with them, but the level of conflict in this small event within the pericope is not as intense as with the Pharisees. The disciples, after all, are his followers, and Matthew does not portray them as his enemies. Ultimately, their follow-up question reflects their typical lack of understanding and their tendency to view matters from God's perspective.

Characters

Chatman describes the characters as existents within the story, and a sufficient theory of character must allow for interpretive flexibility and see the characters as independent entities rather than just objects to advance the plot.^[14] Actually, the audience is the ones who actively reconstruct a character based on clues in the narrative.^[15] In Matthew 19:3-12, the characters are Jesus, the Pharisees, and the disciples, and the author is “showing” the reader who they are by allowing them to speak and respond. In narrative criticism, this is referred to as “characterization.”^[16] One can reconstruct a character as they are reading by observing their “traits,” which Chatman defines as the personal qualities of the character that manifest in a particular part of the story.^[17] However, it is also essential to observe how other characters respond to Jesus, the main character, in Matthew’s story. In the passage of Matthew 19:3-12, Jesus’ traits are those of wisdom, knowledge, and authority. He is not the one who initiated the heated conversation (as we will find out in the detailed reading), but he is undoubtedly the one who finishes it! However, he does so with authority, demonstrating himself as God, revealing the truth on the matter, and understanding the genuine intentions of God’s heart regarding divorce and remarriage.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, are presented again by Matthew as adversaries. The reader can immediately see this, as Matthew opens the passage by stating the Pharisees approached Jesus “and tested him.” In other words, they are painted as the “aggressors,” in a sense, with malicious intent. In Aspects of the Novel, E. M. Forster divides characters into two categories: "flat" and "round."^[18] Flat characters, he explains, have one defining trait or idea, which makes them both instantly recognizable and memorable. This description definitely reflects how Matthew’s implied author portrays the Pharisees: reduced to a singular, consistent opposition, they function as easily identifiable figures in the narrative.^[19] Since the Jewish leaders in Matthew are depicted as “flat” characters usually defined by their “evil” nature, it is no surprise that the implied author consistently casts them in a negative light.^[20]

The disciples are the final character in the passage (as a group, they are treated as a single character).^[21] They are presented as not fully understanding the sayings of Jesus, or at least as concerned with what Jesus stated. In this pericope (and throughout the entire Gospel of Matthew), the disciples do not largely propel the plot.

Setting

As part of the “what” of the narrative's content, setting often plays a vital role in forming the story.^[22] It is the time, place, or social circumstance in which the characters interact.^[23] Matthew 19:3-12 can reasonably have all three of these setting aspects. To designate a time for the passage, it is essential to note that Matthew uses the saying, “now when Jesus had finished these sayings (Matt. 19:1),” several times throughout his Gospel to mark the end of each of the five major discourses.^[24] Matthew 19:3-12 occurs between the ending of the fourth discourse (Matt. 19:1) and the beginning of the subsequent major discourse (Matt. 25-25). Since the time of this event lies between the last two discourses, it helps to drive the story into its next phase: the journey toward Jerusalem in the “region of Judea beyond the Jordan (place).” That destination was first identified in Matthew 16:21, and the shift has been coming gradually since Jesus left Caesarea Philippi with his disciples. Now, they leave the safety of their home region and head into the more dangerous territory of Judea, with Jerusalem ahead.^[25] Therefore, the social context is one of a heated discussion about a popular topic with tension that has been building as the main characters venture toward the center of opposition in the story, Jerusalem.

The Discourse of Matthew 19:3-12

The discourse of Matthew 19:3-12 includes the means by which the author gets the story across and encompasses the “implied author” and “narrator,” their “point of view,” and the “implied reader.”^[26] Each one of these matters will be addressed in light of the pericope in discussion.

The Implied Author

The implied author refers to the created persona of the writer that emerges from the text itself. Unlike the actual, historical individual who wrote the work, this figure is how the author chooses to present himself.^[27] The implied author can never be fully equated with the actual, historical writer and is always a “reduced” version, shaped by the choices made in crafting the narrative. If one considers the entire Gospel of Matthew, the author himself likely knew far more about Jesus’ life and teachings than what appears in the text. What we encounter in his Gospel portrays a selection of material, not the full range of the author’s personal knowledge or theological insight.^[28] Since readers do not have access to Matthew himself and cannot “wake him up from the dead” to ask him questions, the implied version of Matthew is more real to modern-day believers, which shows the significance of the concept in narrative analysis.^[29]

In Matthew 19:3-12, the reader can see certain traits of the implied author and his perspectives toward the characters and events. Again, Jesus is seen as authoritative, while the Pharisees are portrayed as “evil” and in opposition; the disciples, meanwhile, are in the process of learning. The passage may reveal Matthew’s negative thoughts toward the Pharisees, as well as his understanding of the law and the varying stances on divorce and remarriage prevalent in his day.

The Point of View

Chatman states that the “point of view” of the author can have at least two senses: a literal sense, which refers to the writer’s perception, or a figurative sense, which is their ideology or worldview.^[30] There are four main elements to a point of view in narrative criticism that should be applied to Matthew 19:3-12: evaluative, phraseological, spatial and temporal, and psychological.^[31]

The evaluative aspect of the point of view denotes a certain way of looking at things, or the author’s idea of reality.^[32] In Matthew 19:3-12 (and in the entirety of the Gospel), the implied author’s “evaluation” is that theological concepts and perceived realities are either true or untrue with no grey areas.^[33] In this case, his evaluative point of view is that Jesus is correct in his views concerning marriage and divorce, while the Pharisees are incorrect.

The phraseological element refers to the speech and phrases Matthew uses to distinguish himself and express his point of view. In the pericope, Matthew narrates Jesus’ speech as offering “formula quotations,” knowing and expounding on OT scripture, making him a reliable exponent of God’s point of view.^[34]

The spatial and temporal point of view deals with the place in time from which the author places his characters and events, and it also refers to wherever the author might be at the time of writing.^[35] Matthew is basically “omnipresent” during the span of the Gospel. In the particular passage in question, he knows the beginning to the end of the conversation, and was even able to explain how Jesus physically got himself into the situation by coming there from Galilee.

Last, the psychological point of view is about the knowledge Matthew or his characters maintain concerning what another character thinks or feels.^[36] In Matthew 19:3-12, it is interesting that he knows the Pharisees asked Jesus the divorce question specifically for the purpose of “testing” him. In this way, Matthew provides the reader with “inside knowledge” of the Pharisees' inner intentions.

The Implied Reader

The implied reader of the discourse is different from any actual flesh-and-blood person who has ever read Matthew, much like the implied author. It is the imaginary person who is envisioned as going after Matthew’s story and who responds to each portion exactly the way the text would want.^[37] In Matthew 19:3-12, the implied reader is likely familiar with the Jewish scriptures, given the Old Testament references. He is also sympathetic to Jesus and aware of the rising tension that has been building up beforehand. Lastly, the implied reader would have had firsthand knowledge of the divorce debate of Jesus’ day, which was historically a matter of contention between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. This particular topic will be addressed in more detail during the actual narrative reading. Still, to obtain a better portrait of the implied reader, it should be known that the phrases “any matter” and “except for sexual immorality” in the discourse encapsulate the stances of the Hillelites and Shammaites in their ongoing debate about the meaning of ‘ervat dabar in Deuteronomy 24:1, the key passage of concern among the Jews who argued over divorce.^[38] To put it short, followers of Shammai said that divorce was acceptable only if the husband found some “indecency” in her, which some believed referred to a type of sexual misconduct. On the other hand, the Hillelites said that literally “any matter” was acceptable for divorce, even if the wife spoiled dinner.^[39] By including these special keywords, it is evident that Matthew assumed his implied readers would be familiar with the famous debate, as it was referenced in Matthew 19:3-12.

A Narrative Criticism Reading of Matthew 19:3-12

This section of the article will now conduct a narrative analysis of Matthew 19:3-12, dividing the passage into manageable segments for commentary.

Matthew 19:3

Kingsbury states that Matthew unfolds in three major movements: first, Jesus is introduced to the reader (1:1-4:16); next, his ministry to Israel is shown alongside the nation’s varied reactions (4:17-16:20); and finally, the narrative follows his path to Jerusalem, climaxing in his suffering, death, and resurrection (16:21-28:20).^[40] Therefore, the narrative analysis is in the final stage of the story, where tensions are no doubt high.

The Pharisees approach Jesus to ask him a question concerning divorce for “any cause,” but Matthew, standing “omnipresent” as the narrator, gives his point of view that this was done precisely to “test” him. Matthew strategically marks the Jewish leaders as in error when it comes to the Scriptures in his story (Matt. 22:29), a trait that further exposes their evilness. The Pharisees pride themselves on their expertise in the law, Scripture, and religious matters, yet, in truth, they cannot understand or interpret Scripture accurately.^[41] By stating that they were “testing” Jesus, Matthew is further aligning the Pharisees with the evilness of Satan (Matt. 12:34 and 13:38-39), who earlier clashed with Jesus by “testing” him in the wilderness. Satan, the ultimate source of evil and the tempter, tests Jesus three times in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-10). Likewise, the religious leaders, described as evil themselves (Matt. 3:7), are testing Jesus at this point in the narrative.^[42] The phrase "any cause" clearly alludes to the well-known debate between the Shammai and Hillel schools over how to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1, specifically, whether divorce should be limited only to adultery or permitted for virtually “any cause.” The Pharisees generally accepted the more liberal Hillelite view that divorce was acceptable for “any cause.” They were not questioning the matter of divorce itself, which was somewhat affirmed in the Law, but were instead questioning the legitimate grounds for it.^[43]

Matthew 19:4-6

Matthew signals that God’s perspective is the standard by consistently portraying Jesus, the story’s protagonist, as the trustworthy voice of that divine viewpoint. Jesus reliably draws from the Old Testament and expresses what the narrative presents as God’s authoritative evaluation.^[44] He does so by presenting Jesus as asking a rhetorical question of whether or not the Pharisees had read the common scriptures about God making male and female and them becoming one flesh. Jesus’ authoritative and correct conclusion is that if God has joined them together, man should not separate them through the methods of divorce. The Genesis texts say nothing about divorce, but instead, they affirm the nature of marriage as instituted by God, essentially forming a single union. Because it comes from God, no human being has the authority to dissolve it.^[45] This position of Jesus stands in extreme contrast to the schools of Hillel and Shammai; therefore, Matthew again portrays Jesus as authoritative and supreme on these matters. Rather than getting into the details of what could constitute a divorce, Jesus seems to be cutting through all of the arguments by rejecting divorce itself, which is a view that opposes what his adversaries (the “villains” in the story) believe.^[46]

Matthew 19:7

Matthew then says that the adversaries in the story respond to Jesus and challenge his stance, but they do so in a way that would be recognizable to the implied readers. The implied readers would have been very knowledgeable about what “Moses commanded” concerning a certificate of divorce to send the wife away. Historical backgrounds indicate that society had long used Deuteronomy 24:1, which mentions the certificate of divorce, as the central text for divorce, even though this particular passage was not primarily written to grant a dissolution of marriage. As has been suggested so far, a primary subplot of Matthew’s Gospel is that of the Pharisees hindering the mission of Jesus by being presented as almost a great adversary to Jesus, second only to Satan.^[47] One way Matthew portrays this is by showing their interpretations of the commands of Moses, which are inferior to those of Jesus. This would be their last set of dialogue in the pericope, but it serves as another rhetorical device in the narrative, furthering the tension between Jesus and the religious leaders before the ultimate event of the crucifixion.

Matthew 19:8-9

Matthew depicts Jesus as calling out his enemies (“hardness of hearts”) and standing divinely authoritative (“from the beginning it was not so”) in the same sentence. Interestingly, some authors conclude that nearly all commentators acknowledge some parallel scriptures of this account in Mark to be highly unlikely to have been spoken by Jesus within a Palestinian context, since they show a social situation foreign to traditional Jewish customs.^[48] In their eyes, Jesus would not have stated that one could not divorce at all, as Mark’s account suggests, and Matthew’s version is more accurate since he gives the exception clause (“except for sexual immorality”) that was known by everyone, including the implied readers. Other authors concur, stating that Mark’s account is “smoother” and suited for sermon presentation, while Matthew’s is more like a debate.^[49] To capture the narrative aspect of these verses, it is essential to remember that the central storyline of Matthew’s Gospel revolves around God’s redemptive plan and the conflict posed by Satan and the Pharisees. The narrative’s scope isn’t confined to the earthly life of Jesus, but instead, the timeline even stretches back to the very beginning of the creation itself (Matt. 19:8), showing that this is part of a much larger divine story.^[50] When Jesus appeals to the “beginning,” Matthew is showing that the whole story, and not just the current passage about divorce, goes much deeper.

Matthew 19:10

The next event in the passage begins with this verse, as the conversation now shifts to the disciples, who are, in fact, another means of conflict for Jesus, albeit minor obstacles compared to the Pharisees. They also challenge Jesus by offering their misguided opinions, and Matthew utilizes these characters and their psychological point of view here to bring clarity and completeness to the passage. They express that if it is wrong to divorce except for sexual immorality, and if he does divorce for any other reason besides that, he commits adultery, it is best not to marry at all. Matthew, being the omnipresent implied author, knows that Jesus’ seemingly rigid statements would invite more questions and opinions, the most commonly projected one being that if marriage should be as Jesus says, perhaps it is simply better not to marry at all. Ironically, the disciples, represented as a single character, are everyone with this question.

Matthew 19:11-12

Jesus responds to the disciples' reply by stating that “not everyone can receive this saying.” It is debated whether Jesus was referring to his own statements about unbreakable marriage or to the disciples’ opinion. It is more plausible that “this saying” refers not to Jesus’ teaching but to the disciples’ statement. If so, Jesus is responding to what was likely meant as a sarcastic or ironic comment. He says that celibacy is indeed a valid path, but only suited for those who can accept it.^[51] However, to further develop this thought and use seemingly hyperbolic language, Matthew states that Jesus begins to discuss “eunuchs.” Since the word is mentioned five times in this one single verse, it is worth noting. The word would have been extreme to the implied reader, as eunuchs were seen as the object of pity and even horror. The norm of the culture was to marry and bear children; therefore, Matthew uses hyperbolic and extreme language at this point in the ending of his passage to bring a twist to the plot.^[52] Mark does not use this comparison in his account. The passage of the narrative then ends with a standard closing formula, “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Conclusion

The exchange over divorce in 19:3-12 is a defining moment that further exposes the evil nature of the religious leaders as characters in Matthew’s narrative, shows Jesus’ role as the authoritative interpreter of God’s Word, and portrays the disciples as obstacles of conflict, yet not nearly as bad as Satan or the Pharisees. Narrative criticism has enabled the reader of this article to gain this valuable insight into the matter of divorce, a topic that remains a subject of ongoing discussion in the church today. The passage makes a meaningful contribution to Matthew’s narrative portrayal of these characters within the overall story of God’s redemptive plan. Narrative criticism reveals how this brief scene operates not only as theological instruction retrieved through historical-grammatical means but also as a narrative device employed by Matthew to enhance his story and point of view.

For more information on performing narrative criticism in the Bible and how it can cause you to read it with "fresh eyes," see Jack Dean Kingsbury's book, Matthew as Story.

Notes

^[1] F. P. Viljoen, “Reading Matthew as a Historical Narrative,” In die Skriflig 52, no. 1 (2018): 1, https://doi.org/10.4102/ids.v52i1.2390.

^[2] Viljoen, “Reading Matthew as a Historical Narrative,” 1.

^[3] Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 51.

^[4] Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 25.

^[5] Viljoen, “Reading Matthew as a Historical Narrative,” 1.

^[6] Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), 19.

^[7] Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 3.

^[8] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 3.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Mark Allan Powell. “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel,” New Testament Studies 38, no. 2 (December 31, 1992): 192, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=c44c375f-b860-3bb3-89d4-7e43c1a8beb2.

^[11] Powell. “The Plot and Subplots of Matthew’s Gospel,” 192.

^[12] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 7.

^[13] Ibid., 8.

^[14] Chatman, Story and Discourse, 119.

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 10.

^[17] Chatman, Story and Discourse, 119-120.

^[18] E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (New York: Harcourt, 1956), 103.

^[19] Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Developing Conflict between Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Literary-Critical Study,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49, no. 1 (1987): 59, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43719342.

^[20] Ibid., 60.

^[21] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 13.

^[22] David Rhoads,“Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50, no. 3 (1982): 419, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1463598.

^[23] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 28.

^[24] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 725.

^[25] R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 709.

^[26] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 30.

^[27] David R. Bauer, The Gospel of the Son of God: An Introduction to Matthew (Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2019), 40, accessed June 18, 2025, ProQuest Ebook Central.

^[28] David R. Bauer and Robert A. Traina, Inductive Bible Study: A Comprehensive Guide to the Practice of Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 54.

^[29] Ibid., 56.

^[30] Chatman, Story and Discourse, 151.

^[31] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 33.

^[32] Ibid., 34.

^[33] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 34.

^[34] Ibid., 35.

^[35] Ibid.

^[36] Ibid., 36.

^[37] Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 38.

^[38] David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 134.

^[39] Ibid.

^[40]  Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Figure of Jesus in Matthew’s Story: A Literary-Critical Probe,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 6, no. 21 (1984): 3, https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X8400602101.

^[41] Kingsbury, “The Developing Conflict between Jesus and the Jewish Leaders,” 61.

^[42] Ibid., 66.

^[43] Bruce Vawter, “The Divorce Clauses In Mt 5,32 and 19,9,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16, no. 2 (1954): 165-166, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43720613.

^[44] Jack Dean Kingsbury, “The Figure of Jesus in Matthew’s Story,” 6.

^[45] Eugene LaVerdiere, “Marriage and Divorce in the Gospel According to Mark (Chapter 10: 1-12),” The Way 34, no. 1 (December 31, 1994): 58, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=498ccf1b-2945-3ab8-b91d-d066c82ee2fb.

^[46] Ibid.

^[47] Batara Sihombing, “A Narrative Approach to God and Mammon (Matthew 6:19-34) and Its Relevance to the Churches in Indonesia,” Asia Journal of Theology 26, no. 2 (October 1, 2012): 28, https://research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=16248fb9-323d-3bdb-b386-f394dcf3634e.

^[48] Vawter, “The Divorce Clauses In Mt 5,32 and 19,9,” 167.

^[49] Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, 142.

^[50] Sihombing, “A Narrative Approach to God and Mammon,” 27.

^[51] France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 723.

^[52] Ibid., 724.