Vers. 2—12. Parallel passage: Matt. xix. 3—12.—Doctrine of divorce. L Evunts IN THE INTERVAL. ‘There is a gap in the narrative of St. Mark between the events of the preceding and present chapter. We need nut do more than intimate them, and that for the continuity of the history. They are the following :—1l. His journey to Jerusalem on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles. 2. Occurrences by the way: (1) Inhospitality of certain Samaritan villages; (2) rebuke of the “Sons of Thunder ” by the Saviour ; (3) journey continued through Samaria rather than Perma; (4) cleansing of the ten lepers as he passed through Samaria. 38. The sending out of the seventy, and its similarity to the previous mission of the twelve. 4. Presence and preaching at the Feast of Tabernacles. 5. Various discourses during that feast, as recorded in the eighth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, and escape from a murderous assault. 6. Ministra- tions in Judea, recorded in part by St. Luke (x.—xiii.) and partly by St. John (ix.—xi.), including ths following :—(1) Instruction of a lawyer, explanation of “ neighbourhood,” and parable of the good Samaritan; (2) hospitality of the family of Bethany, disciples taught to pray, and return of the seventy; (3) cure of a man born blind, our Lord’s comparison of himself to the Good Shepherd, celebration of the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem, retirement to Bethabara beyond Jordan, and subsequent raising of Lasarus at Bethany; also his retirement to Ephraim. 7. His towr through Perca, referred go in Matt. xix. 1, 2, and Mark x. 1; his teaching during that tour, recorded St. Luke (xiii. 22—xviii. 10), including, among other things, (1) the multitudes from all quarters in the kingdom of God, the great feast and_generous invitation, also true discipleship; (2) parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and prodigal son; (3) parables of the unjust steward, Dives and Lazarus, importunate widow, the Pharisee snd publican.
Il. A wxw perarrurx. The Pharisees now change their tactics, and adopt a new mode of opposition. Thay, in fact, make a new departure. The old hostility remains bitter as ever, or perhaps is increasing in intensity, but the manner of its manifestation is new. Up till this period their method of attack consisted in fault-finding —objecting to the conduct of our Lord and his apostles, or taxing them with violations of the Law; henceforth it consists in questioning—eaptious questioning—for the purpose of eliciting his opinion on doubtful or debatable matters in order to entangle him. The subjects on which his views were sought were those keanly discussed by the Jews of that day, and an answer could scarcely fail to give offence to some party or expose him to peril on some side. ‘The present question was eminently one of this class. It was likely
om. x.1—52.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 96
te entrap him into the charge of lax morality on the one hand, or of want of respect for the authority of Moses on the other; perhaps to embroil him with the tetrarch Herod Antipas, in whose dominions he now was,
THE ORIGINAL MARRIAGE LAW. In the days of our Lord one of the burning questions was the law of divorce. The school of Shammai limited the law of divorce, and allowed it only in the case of adultery ; that of Hillel affirmed its legitimacy in case of dislike, or disobedience, or incompatibility in general, thus granting an arbitrary or discretionary power in the matter. The ground of the controversy is found in a difficult or obscure expression in Deut. xxiv. 1, 2, where we read, “ When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some wncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorce- ment, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.” The difficulty or obscurity of this passage arises from the original words ervath davar, rendered “some uncleanness ” in the text of our version, and in the margin, “ matter of nakedness,” or more exactly still, “nakedness of word or matter.” The important point to be determined, and that which produced such diversity of opinion in its determination, was whether the expres- sion referred to meant lewdness or merely something disagreeable.
IV. NaTorE OF THE BILL OF DIVORCEMENT. The bill of divorcement was called “a writing of cutting off” (sepher kerithuth). This bill or writing of divorcement itmplied, not only a mere separation from bed and board, as some restrict it, but a complete severance of the marriage tie. It was a certificate of repudiation, and either stated or omitted the cause of such repudiation. If the cause was adultery or a suspicion of adultery, the husband might prove himself (S{eaes) fest (vide Matt. i, 19), that is, a strict observer of the Law in dismissing the guilty wife with a bill of divorcement; and yet, not wishing to expose her, he might send her away privately. If, however, the guilty person or the suspected person were brought openly to justice, and the crime proved, certain death was the penalty, as is distinctly stated in Ley. xx. 10, “ The man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Most commonly, therefore, when a bill of divorcement was resorted to in accordance with the Mosaic permission, it was for some less cause or minor offence than cas infidelity ; and in such cases it served the wife as a certificate of character.
. Reason OF THIs WRITING. Our Lord, in his reply, to the original marriage law; first, however, accounting for the Mosaic SAB rages te. That regulation is regarded by many as a relaxation of the Law; but it can scarcely be viewed in that light, because it would thus appear to be a lowering of the standard in favour of wrong-doing. It was rather a remedy for harsh treatment of wives, resultang from violations of the Law; it was rather a relief bill for wives who suffered from the unkindness of cruel husbands acting in defiance of the Law. It was aremedial measure to check the bad effects of their hardness of heart; it was to (pds) this the lawgiver had respect. It was, in fact, to minimize the evil results that proceeded from their transgression of the Law rather than any relaxation of the Law itself. Of two evils it was the less, and even the less owed its existence to their hardness of heart. Besides, it was not an express command, as the Pharisees ap to make it from the word ésere(x@re in Matthew, but a permissory injunction (érérpeye), as subsequently acknow- ledged by the Pharisees themselves.