respect ?
26—31.
109
ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. 29. εἰ δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός y Ch. xviii.
σου ὁ δεξιὸς 7 οκανδαλίζει σε, Ζ ἔξελε αὐτὸν καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ aod: Σσυμφέρει γάρ σοι ἵνα ἀπόληται Ev τῶν μελῶν σου, καὶ py ὅλον τὸ
σῶμά σου βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν.
γέενναν.Ἡ
31. “'Ἐρρέθη δέ, ὅτι ὃ Sg ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω
1 B has εαντου.
ο. καὶ εἰ ἡ δεξιά σου χεὶρ σκαν- ἡ χεὶρ
6,8, parall. 1 Cor. viii. 13 (= tempt). Ch, xv. 12; xvii. 27(to give offence).
2 For the reading in text QB have εις yeevvav απελθη. The T. R. has doubtless
been conformed to the reading in ver. 29.
Had it stood here in the copies used by
the scribes they would not have substituted the reading in QB,
5 SSBDL omit οτι.
Vv. 29, 30. Counsel to the tempted, expressing keen perception of the danger and strong recoil from a sin to be shunned et all hazards, even by excision, as it were, of offending members; two named, eye and hand, eye first as mentioned before.—6 ὀφ. 6 δεξιὸς: the right eye deemed the more precious (1 Sam. xi. 2, Zech. xi. 17). Similarly ver. 30 the right hand, the most indispensable for work. Even these right members of te body must go. But as the remaining feft eye and hand can still offend, it is obvious that these counsels are not meant to be taken literally, but symbolically, as ex- pressing strenuous effort to master sexual passion (vide Grotius). Mutila- tion will not serve the purpose; it may prevent the outward act, but it will not extinguish ἀεξίτε.--σκανδαλίζει, cause το stumble; not found in Greek authors but in Sept. Sirach, and in N. T. in a tropical moral sense. The noun σκάν- δαλον is also of frequent occurrence, a late form for σκανδάληθρον, a trap-stick with bait on it which being touched the trap springs. Hesychius gives as its equivalent ἐμποδισμός. It is used in a literal sense in Lev. xix. 14 (Sept.).— συμφέρει . . . ἵνα ἀπολ.: ἵνα with sub- junctive instead of infinitive (vide on ch. iv. 3). Meyer insists on tva having here as always its telic sense and praises Fritzsche as alone interpreting the passage correctly. But, as Weiss ob- serves, the mere destruction of the member is not the purpose of its ex- cision. Note the impressive solemn repetition in ver. 30 of the thought in ver. 29, in identical terms save that for Άληθῇ is substituted, in the true reading, ἀπέλδη. This /ogion occurs again in
Matthew (xviii. 8, 9). Weiss (Marc.- Evang., 326) thinks it is taken here from the Apostolic document, {.ε., Matthew’s book of Logia, and there from Mark ix. 43-47.
Vv. 31-32. Third .illustration, sub- ordinate to the previous one, connected with the same general topic, sex rela- tions, therefore introduced less formally with a simple ἐρρέθη δὲ. This instance is certainly directed against the scribes rather than Moses. The law (Deut. xxiv. I) was meant to mitigate an existing usage, regarded as evil, in woman’s interest. The scribes busied themselves solely about getting the bill of separation into due legal form. They did nothing to restrain the unjust caprice of husbands; they rather opened a wider door to licence. The law contemplated as the ground of separation a strong loathing, probably of sexual origin. The Rabbis (the school of Shammai excepted) recognised whimsical dislikes, even a fancy for another fairer woman, as sufficient reasons. But they were zealous to have the bill in due form that the woman might be able to show she was free to marry again, and they probably flattered themselves they were defending the rights of women, Brave men! Jesus raised the previous question, and asserted a more radical right of woman—not to be put away, except when she put herself away by unfaithful- ness. He raised anew the prophetic cry (Mal. ii. 16), 1 hate putting away. It was an act of humanity of immense signi- ficance for civilisation, and of rare cour- age; for He was fighting single-handed against widely prevalent, long - estab- lished opinion and custom.—4amodvey: