Bibelkommentare

Verses 1-12. - The beginning of the last journey to Jerusalem. The question concerning divorce. (Mark 10:1-12.) Verse 1. - When Jesus had finished these sayings. This is the beginning of a new section of the history, commencing, as usual, with the formulary, And it came to pass. "These sayings" must refer to what was recorded in ch. 18. But St. Matthew's narrative omits many events that happened in the interval between the account of the Galilaean ministry and the history of these last days, that is, from the autumn of one year to the spring of the next. The transactions of this time, which are omitted also by St. Mark, are given by St. Luke (Luke 9:51-17:11) and St. John (John 7:2-11:54), comprising many things that occurred at Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles and on other occlusions. He departed from Galilee. Not visiting it again till he appeared there after his resurrection. There was no part of the Holy Land in which he did not at some time sojourn, and now, as the final consummation drew nigh, he resolutely set his face towards Jerusalem. Came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. Coasts should be borders. Judaea was bounded by the river, and there was no part of it beyond, that is, on the east of Jordan. The words, "beyond Jordan," belong to the verb "came," and the clause signifies that the object of Christ's journey was the vicinity of Judaea, and that, instead of entering the province by the direct road through Samaria, he took the more lengthy but safer route through Peraea. This was the name of the region on the east of the Jordan (πέραν, beyond), extending at this time from the river Hieromax, or Jarmouk, on the north, to the Arnon on the south, i.e. to the middle of the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. The ruler of this district was Herod Antipas, and it was at this era in a most flourishing condition, notably fertile, and containing many fine towns ornamented with magnificent buildings. Here the simple, pastoral country people were less influenced by the narrow bigotry of the Pharisaic party, and in the towns the ban which excluded Jesus from the synagogues of Galilee and Judaea was either not recognized or not enforced. A quiet opportunity for preaching the gospel was thus offered. This may possibly be the sojourn in Peraea mentioned by St. John (John 10:40-42).

Verse 2. - Great multitudes followed him. He was favourably received by the unprejudiced Peraeans. Healed them. Those of the multitude who had need of healing (Luke 9:11). There. In the "beyond Jordan" region. St. Mark observes that he taught them. Thus, "at one time teaching, at another working miracles, he varied his means of salvation, that from the miracles faith might be given him as a Teacher; and by his teaching he might urge to edification the miracles which he wrought" (St. Chrysostom, ap. I. Williams).

Verse 3. - We have now to listen to our Lord's teaching respecting divorce and marriage. The Pharisees. The article is better omitted. Our Lord was not long left in peace by these inveterate enemies, who, if they could not openly persecute him, might hope to extract something from his words and sentiments which might be used to his disadvantage. They were probably envoys sent from Jerusalem to entrap and annoy him. Tempting him. Trying to get him to give an answer which would in any case afford a handle for malicious misrepresentation. The question proposed concerned divorce. To put away his wife forevery cause; κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν: quacumque ex causa; for any cause whatever. This was a delicate question to raise in the domains of Herod Antipas (see Matthew 14:3, 4), and one greatly debated in the rabbinical schools. Our Lord had already twice pronounced upon the subject, once in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:32), and again when reasoning with the Pharisees on the due observance of the Law (Luke 16:18). Two opposite opinions were held by the followers of Hillel and Schammai, the heads of antagonistic schools. The school of Hillel contended that a man might divorce his wife for various causes quite unconnected with infringement of the marriage vow, e.g., because he had ceased to love her, or had seen some one whom he liked better, or even because she cooked his dinner badly. The school of Schammai was more strict, and permitted divorce only in case of fornication, adultery, or some offence against chastity. Between these contending parties the Pharisees desired to make our Lord give a decision, thinking that they had fixed him in a dilemma. If he took the popular lax view, they could deride his claims as a Teacher of superior morality; if he upheld the stricter side, he would rouse the enmity of the majority, and possibly, like John the Baptist, involve himself in trouble with the licentious tetrarch. There was a chance also that the high tone which he had already taken might prove to be at variance with Mosaic enactments. The easiness with which divorce was obtained may be seen in Josephus, Who thus writes: "He who for any reason whatsoever (and many such causes happen to men) wishes to be separated from a wife who lives with him, must give it to her in writing that he will cohabit with her no longer, and by this means she shall have liberty to marry another man; but before this is done it is not permitted her to do so" ('Ant.,' 4:08, 23). Josephus himself repudiated his own wife because he was not pleased with her behaviour ('Vita,' § 76). And Ben-Sira gives the curt injunction, "If she go not as thou wouldest have her (κατὰ χεῖρά σου), cut her off from thy flesh,... and let her go" (Ecclus. 25:26).

Verse 4. - He answered and said. Our Lord does not directly reply in the negative, but refers to the original institution of marriage. All his auditors agreed in holding the legality of divorce, though they differed in their estimation of the causes that warranted separation. It was quite a new idea to find the propriety of divorce questioned, and to have their captious question met by an appeal to Scripture which they could not gainsay, and an enunciation of a high ideal of matrimony which their glosses and laxity had miserably perverted or obscured. He which made them. Manuscripts vary between ὁ ποιήσας and ὁ κτίσας. The latter is approved by Westcott and Hort. It is best translated, the Creator. The Vulgate gives, qui fecit hominem. At the beginning (ἀπ ἀρχῆς). These words should be joined to the following verb made (ἐποίησεν), and not with the preceding participle, as it is intended to show the primordial design in the creation of man and woman. God made the first members of the human family a male and a female, not a male and females. The lower animals were created separately, male and female; "mankind was created in one person in Adam, and when there was found no help meet for Adam, no companion in body, soul, or spirit, fit for him, then God, instead of creating a wholly new thing, made Eve out of Adam" (Sadler). Two individuals of opposite sexes were thus formed for each other; one was the complement of the other, and the union was perfect and lasted, as long as life. There was in this original institution no room for polygamy, no room for divorce. It was a concrete example of the way in which God unites man and wife.

Verse 5. - And said. The words that follow are assigned to Adam in Genesis 2:23, 24, but he spake by inspiration of God, as he knew nothing of "father and mother" by personal experience, and therefore they can be rightly attributed to the Creator. It was, in fact, a prophetic utterance of which Adam was the mouthpiece; as St. Augustine says, "Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetando praedixit." For this cause. Because of this Divine appointment, and especially of the peculiar creation of Eve. She was not formed separately of the dust of the earth, but directly from the substance of Adam; so she was one with her husband, nearer than all other human relations, superior to the tenderest ties of nature and birth. Shall cleave (προσκολληθήσεται, or κολληθήσεται); literally, shall be glued to; adhaerebit. The word expresses the closest possible union, stronger and higher than that towards parents. They twain shall be one flesh; the two shall become one flesh (ἔσονται οἱ δίο εἰς σάρκα μίαν). The Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch insert "the two," which is not in the present Hebrew text. Our Lord adopts the addition as conveying the correct sense. In marriage there is a moral and physical union, so that two persons become virtually one being. Originally, man contained woman in himself before she was separated from him; she was a corporeal unity with man; or, as others put it, man, as a race, was created male and female, the latter being implicitly contained in the former; the previous unity is thus asserted. In marriage this unity is acknowledged and continued. St. Paul quotes this text in Ephesians 5:31; and in 1 Corinthians 6:16 uses it as an argument against fornication,

Verse 6. - Wherefore (ὥστε); so that. This follows from the quotation just given. Our Lord explains and confirms the original dictum by an assertion of his own and a general law. What God hath joined together. The institution of marriage is God's appointment. Christ says ο{, what, neuter singular, not "those whom," plural and concrete, that he may make it clear that he is here speaking in the abstract, not specially of Adam and Eve. What he enunciates is true of all wedlock, not simply of the case of our first parents. Let not man put asunder. Man does thus infringe the primitive rule when he divorces his with. Herein he opposes God and acts against nature. He and his wife are one; they can no more separate from one another than they can from themselves. If we regard our Lord's language in this passage without prejudice, and not reading into it modern notions, we must consider that he here decrees the indissolubility of the marriage tie. His hearers plainly understood him so to speak, as we see from the objection which they urged.

Verse 7. - Why did Moses then command? If, as you assert, God ordained that marriage should be indissoluble, how comes it that Moses commanded (ἐνετείλατο) us to practise divorce, and prescribed rules as to its conduct? They are referring to Deuteronomy 24:1, 2. Jesus had escaped the trap which was laid for him, and foiled them by the very words of Scripture and the plain intention of the first institution. But they see their way to opposing the authority of the great lawgiver to the dictum and interpretation of this new Teacher. It cannot be supposed, they argue, that Moses would enjoin a practice condemned by the Word of God; therefore, if you abide by your exposition, you contradict Moses. A writing of divorcement. The man who desired to divorce his wife could not effect this separation by mere word of mouth or by violent ejectment; he must have a written document formally prepared and witnessed, necessitating certain delay and publicity. In regulating the method of divorce and giving rules which prevented it from being undertaken rashly and lightly, Moses could not justly be said to have commanded it. There were also two cases in which he absolutely forbade divorce (see Deuteronomy 22:13-19; Deuteronomy 22:28, 29).

Verse 8. - Moses because of (πρὸς, with a view to, to meet) the hardness of your hearts; your obstinacy, perverseness. You were not honest and pure enough to obey the primitive law. There was danger that you would ill treat your wives in order to get rid of them, or even murder them. The lesser evil was regular divorce. But the enactment is really a shame and reproach to you, and was occasioned by grave defects in your character and conduct. And it is not true to say that Moses commanded; he only suffered you to put away your wives. This was a temporary permission to meet your then circumstances. Divorce had been practised commonly and long; it was traditional; it was seen among all other Oriental peoples. Moses could not hope at once to eradicate the inveterate evil; he could only modify, mitigate, and regulate its practice. The rules which he introduced were intended, not to facilitate divorce, but to lead men better to realize the proper idea of marriage. And Christ was introducing a better law, a higher morality, for which Mosaic legislation paved the way (comp. Romans 5:20; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 9:10). 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.