abont divorce was one which was much agitated in the time of our Lord. In the century before Christ, a learned rabbi, named Hillel, a native of Babylon, who afterwards came to Jerusalem, studied the Law with great success, and became the head of the chief school in that city. One of his dis- ciples, named Shammai, separated from his master, and set up another school; so that in the time of our Lord the scribes and doctors of the Law were ranged in two parties, namely, the followers of Hillel, the most influential; and the followers of Shammai. These two schools differed widely on the subject of divorce. The followers of Shammai only permitted divorce in the case of moral defilement, while the followers of Hillel placed the matter entirely in the power of the husband. The object, therefore, of this artful question was to entrap our Lord, and to bring him into collision with one or other of these two opposing parties. For if he had said that it was not lawful for a man to put away his wife, he would have exposed himself to the hostility of many of the wealthy classes, who put away their wives for any cause. But if he had allowed the lawfulness of divorce at all, they would have found fault with his doctrine as im-
erfect and carnal, although he professed to s a spiritual Teacher of a perfect system, sent down from heaven.
Vers. 8, 4:—And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? They professed much reverence for Moses:
60 . THE GQSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.
a ‘
he therefore appeals to their great law- giver. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. If we now turn to St. Matthew (xix. 4, 5), we shall find that our Lord then appeals to the original institution of marriage. “ Have ye not read, that he which made them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleaye to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh? So that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” He thus reminds them that marriage is a Divine institution; that as Adam and Eve were united by him in a union which was indissoluble, therefore he intended that the marriage bond should remain ever, so that the wife ought never to be separated from her hus- band, since she becomes by marriage a very part of her husband. To this purpose St. Augustine says (‘ City of God,’ bk. xiv. 22), “Tt was not of the spirit which commands and the body which obeys, nor of the rational soul which rules and the irrational desire which is ruled, nor of the contemplative virtue which is supreme, and the active which is subject, nor of the understanding of the mind and the sense of the body; but plainly of the matrimonial union, by which the sexes are mutually bound together, that our Lord, when asked whether it were lawful for any cause to put away one’s wife, answered as in St. Matthew (xix. 4, 5). It is certain, then, that from the first men were created as we see and know them to be now, of two sexes—male and female—and that they are called one, either on account of the matrimonial union, or on account of the origin of the woman, who was created from out of the side of the man.”
Ver. 5.—St. Matthew appears to give the more full account, of which St. Mark’s is an abbreviation. If we suppose the scribes here to interpose their question, “ Why then did Moses permit a bill of divorcement ?” the two narratives fit exactly. Our Lord here answers their question, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. He permitted (not commanded) them to put away their wives, lest dislike might turn to hatred. From the beginning God joined them in one indissoluble bond; but man’s nature having become corrupt through sin, that sin changed and corrupted the insti- tution, and so was the occasion of bills of divorcement, and polygamy. The Law of Moses put some restraint upon the freedom with which men had till then put away their wives; for thenceforth, a divorce could not take place until some legal steps had been taken, and a regular instrument had been drawn up; and this delav might often be
[oH. x. 1—62,
the means of preventing s divorce which might otherwise have been effected in a moment of passion. Thus this legislation was adapted to the imperfect moral con- dition of the people, who were as yet quite unprepared for a higher moral code.
Ver. 10.—The discussion. with the Phari- sees, related in the previous verses, had taken place in public. But now in the house, and in private, the disciples asked him again of this matter; so that what follows seems here to have been said to them privately. Butit would appear from St, Matthew (xix. 8) that our Lord had already said this in public; so that here he proclaims a new law, or rather affirms the sanctions of the primitive insti- tution, abrogating the “ bill of divoreement ” excepting in the one case of fornication, and restoring the rite of marriage to its primseval and indissoluble character.
Ver. 11.—Committeth adultery against her (uoiyaras er’ aithy). This must surely mean the wife that has been put away. The adultery is against her, against her rights and interests.
Ver. 12.—This verse should be read thus: And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry ancther, she committeth adultery (nal ay abth amodicaca Toy kvdpa adtijs, yauhon &AAov, worxara). This reading is well supported. These words indicate that, ac- cording to our blessed Lord’s teaching, wives and husbands have equal rights in reference to divorce; and so the Greek, according to the best authorities, is (yauhon) “shall marry,” not (yauné4) “shall be married.” Josephus, however, makes it evident that in his time husband and wife had by no means sais rights in these matters (‘ Antiq.,’ xv. 7, 10).
Ver. 13.—It is worthy of notice that this touching incident follows here, as well as in the parallel passage in St. Matthew (xix. 13), immediately after the discourse about the marriage bond. And they brought unto him (xpocépepov)—literally, were bringing— little children (ma:d{a)—St. Luke (xviii. 15) calls them “ babes ” (8pé¢7)—that he should touch them (iva aynra:abdtay). St. Luke has the same word (iva drtnra); but St Matthew (xix. 13) says “that he should lay his hands on them and pray.” The impos tion of hands implies a formal benediction the invoking of Divine grace upon them, that they might grow up into wise and holy men and women. Why did the disciples rebuke them? Perhaps because they thought it unworthy of so great a Prophet, whose Ee ue haces that of instructing those of full age, to spending his time u little children. - 3 oh
Ver. 14.—But when Jesus saw it (i3dp 32 6 *Inoovs). The Greek shows that there was no interval between the acts of the parents
om. x, 1—52,]