Coasts of Judea beyond Jordan - The narrative here refers to the last journey of the Saviour from Galilee to Jerusalem, to attend the last Passover which he celebrated.
A considerable lapse of time occurred between his last discourse in the preceding chapter and what is recorded here, and several important events have been recorded by Luke and John which occurred in the interval, as the sending out of the seventy disciples Luke 10:1-16; the Saviour’s going up to the feast of Tabernacles, and his final departure from Galilee, passing through Samaria Luke 9:51-56; John 7:2-10; the healing of the ten lepers Luke 17:11-19; the public teaching of Jesus at the feast of Tabernacles John 7:11-53; the account of the woman taken in adultery John 8:1; the reproof of the unbelieving Jews, and the escape of the Saviour from their hands John 8:12-59; the instruction of the lawyer, and the parable of the good Samaritan Luke 10:28-37; the incidents in the house of Martha and Mary Luke 10:38-42; the return of the seventy Luke 10:17-24; the healing of the blind man on the Sabbath John 9:1-41; the festival of the Dedication John 10:22-42; the raising of Lazarus John 11:1-46; and the counsel of Caiaphas against Jesus, and the retiring of Jesus from Jerusalem John 11:47-54. See Robinson’s Harmony. Matthew and Mark now resume the narrative by relating that after Jesus had left Galilee he approached Jerusalem by passing through the country beyond Jordan. The country was, in general, called Perea, and appertained to Judea, being the region formerly occupied by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. The word “coasts” means regions or parts. See the notes at Matthew 2:16.

The Pharisees came - See the notes at Matthew 3:7.
Tempting him - This means, to get him, if possible, to express an opinion that should involve him in difficulty.
Is it lawful ... - There was the more art in the captious question which they proposed, as at that time the people were very much divided on the subject. A part, following the opinions of Hillel, said that a man might divorce his wife for any offence, or any dislike he might have of her. See the notes at Matthew 5:31. Others, of the school of Shammai, maintained that divorce was unlawful except in case of adultery. Whatever opinion, therefore, Christ expressed, they expected that he would involve himself in difficulty with one of their parties.

Why did Moses ... - To this they objected that Moses had allowed such divorces Deuteronomy 24:1; and if he had allowed them, they inferred that they could not be unlawful. See the notes at Matthew 5:31.

He saith unto them ... - Jesus admits that this was allowed, but still he contends that this was not the original design of marriage. It was only a temporary expedient growing out of a special state of things, and not designed to be perpetual. It was on account of the hardness of their hearts. Moses found the custom in use. He found a hard-hearted and rebellious people. In this state of things he did not deem it prudent to forbid a practice so universal; but it might be regulated; and, instead of suffering the husband to divorce his wife in a passion, he required him, in order that he might take time to consider the matter, and thus make it probable that divorces would be less frequent, to give her a writing; to sit down deliberately to look at the matter, and probably, also, to bring the case before some scribe or learned man, to write a divorce in the legal form. Thus doing, there might be an opportunity for the matter to be reconciled, and the man to be persuaded not to divorce his wife. This, says our Saviour, was a permission growing out of a particular state of things, and designed to remedy a prevailing evil; but at first it was not so. God intended that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and that they were only to be separated, in the case specified, by him who had formed the union.
Hardness of your hearts - He speaks here of his hearers as a part of the nation. The hardness of you Jews; as when we say, we fought with England and gained our independence; that is, we, the American people, though it was done by our fathers. He does not mean to say, therefore, that this was done on account of the people whom he addressed, but of the national hardness of heart - the stubbornness of the Jewish people as a people.

And I say unto you - Emphasis should be laid here on the word “I.” This was the opinion of Jesus - this he proclaimed to be the law of his kingdom this the command of God ever afterward. Indulgence had been given by the laws of Moses; but that indulgence was to cease, and the marriage relation to be brought back to its original intention. Only one offence was to make divorce lawful. This is the law of God; and by the same law, all marriages which take place after divorce, where adultery is not the cause of divorce, are adulterous. Legislatures have no right to say that people may put away their wives for any other cause; and where they do, and where there is marriage afterward, by the law of God such marriages are adulterous!

His disciples say ... - The disciples were full of Jewish notions. They thought that the privilege of divorcing a wife when there was a quarrelsome disposition, or anything else that rendered the marriage unhappy, was a great privilege; and that in such cases to be always bound to live with a wife was a great calamity. They said, therefore, that if such was the case - such the condition on which people married - it was better not to marry.

All men cannot receive this saying - The minds of people are not prepared for this. This saying evidently means what the disciples had just said that it was good for a man not to marry. It might be good in certain circumstances - in times of persecution and trial, or for the sake of laboring in the cause of religion without the care and burden of a family. It might be good for many to live, as some of the apostles did, without marriage, but it was not given to all people, 1Co 7:1, 1 Corinthians 7:7,1 Corinthians 7:9. To be married, or unmarried, might be lawful, according to circumstances, 1 Corinthians 7:26.

For there are some eunuchs ... - Jesus proceeds to state that there were some who were able to receive that saying and to remain in an unmarried state. Some were so born; some were made such by the cruelty of men; and there were some who voluntarily abstained from marriage for the kingdom of heaven’s sake - that is, that they might devote themselves entirely to the proper business of religion. Perhaps he refers here to the Essenes, a sect of the Jews (see the notes at Matthew 3:7), who held that marriage was unsuitable to their condition; who had no children of their own, but perpetuated their sect by adopting the poor children of others. Eunuchs were employed chiefly in attending on the females or in the harem. They rose often to distinction, and held important offices in the state. Hence, the word is sometimes used with reference to such an officer of state, Acts 8:27.

Then were brought little children - See also Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17. Probably these were brought by some of his followers, who desired not only to devote themselves to Jesus, but all that they had - their children as well as themselves. All the Jews were accustomed to devote their children to God by circumcision. It was natural, therefore, under the new dispensation, that it should be done. Luke says they were infants. They were undoubtedly those who were not old enough to come by choice, but their coming was an act of the parents.
Put his hands on them and pray - It was customary among the Jews, when blessings were sought for others in prayer, to lay the hands on the head of the person prayed for, implying a kind of consecration to God. See Genesis 48:14; Matthew 9:18. They had also much confidence in the prayers of pious men, believing that those blessed by a saint or a prophet would be happy. See Numbers 22:6; Luke 2:28.
The disciples rebuked them - That is, reproved them, or told them it was improper. This they did, probably, either:
1.Because they thought that they were too young; or,
2.Because they thought that they would be troublesome to their Master.

Jesus said, Suffer little children, ... - Mark adds, he was much displeased at what the disciples said. It was a thing highly gratifying to him, and which he earnestly sought, that children should be brought to him, and a case where it was very improper that they should interfere.
Of such is the kingdom of heaven - The kingdom of heaven evidently means here the church. See the notes at Matthew 3:2. In Mark and Luke it is said he immediately added, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein.” Whosoever shall not be humble, unambitious, and docile, shall not be a true follower of Christ or a member of his kingdom. Of such as these - that is, of persons with such tempers as these - is the church to be composed. He does not say of those infants, but of such persons as resemble them, or are like them in temper, is the kingdom of heaven made up. As emblematic, therefore, of what his own followers were to be, and as having traits of character so strongly resembling what he required in his followers, it was proper that they should be brought to him. At the same time, it was proper on their own account that they should be brought to him, and that his blessing should be sought on them.
All are fallen; all have, a tendency to sin, and none but Jesus can save them. Little children, too, are in a world of sickness and death, and in the beginning of life it is proper to invoke on them the blessing of the Saviour. They are to live forever beyond the grave; and as they have just entered on a career of existence which can never terminate, it is an appropriate act to seek the blessing of that Saviour who only can make them happy forever, as they enter on their career of existence. No act, therefore, can be more proper than that by which parents, in a solemn ordinance of religion, give them up to God in baptism, consecrating them to his service, and seeking for them the blessing of the Saviour. It is probable - it is greatly to be hoped - that all infants will be saved. No contrary doctrine is taught in the sacred Scriptures. But it does not appear to be the design of this passage to teach that all infants will be saved. It means simply that they should be suffered to be brought to Christ as amiable, lovely, and uncorrupted by the world; as having traits of mind resembling those among real Christians; and as themselves needing his blessing.

He laid his hands on them - Mark says he blessed them. That is, he pronounced or sought a blessing on them.