Mark 10:2

Mar_10:2-12

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?

The family relation

One of the most pathetic incidents found in the narrative of one of the arctic explorations, is that of the attempt made to induce a native of that terribly inhospitable region to journey away with the returning navigators to a more sunny clime. Won by the enthusiastic descriptions of a land of orchards and meadows, of purling brooks and singing birds, he did indeed surrender himself to go. But hardly were they on the way out from among those mountain bergs of ice and dismal fields of snow, directing their course towards the latitudes where the blue tops of distant hills told of freshening verdure, before they missed their simple-hearted comrade. He had gone back clandestinely to the cheerless scenes of his former life. Cold and uninviting to a stranger, those northern solitudes were welcome to him because they had been his home ever since he was born. We smile at his simplicity, but how quickly, after all, do we give him our sympathy in the feeling! We love our homes unaffectedly and almost illogically at times; not because they in every case are better than others, but because they are ours.

I. The family is a Divine institution. We are not left to look upon it as a chance arrangement of individuals of the human species; it is a definitely fixed form of association.

1. It was ordained by the Creator himself when the race began (see Mar_10:6; Gen_2:18-25). This order therefore cannot be changed irreverently, nor disturbed without peril.

2. It has been recognized all along the ages by the providence of God. When David (Psa_68:6) says: God setteth the solitary in families, a more literal and more pertinent translation would give us this: God maketh the lonely to dwell in a home. The all-wise Creator has provided in the wide adaptations of nature for an abode of its own sort for every creature of His hand. He has set the coney in the rock, the ant in the sand, the fish in the river, and the whale in the sea; but to no one of them all has He given a home but to man.

3. It has been sanctioned by God in His Word (see Mar_10:7-9).

4. It has been symbolized and spiritualized in the Church (see Eph_3:15). And the relation between Christ and His people is like that between a husband and wife (see Eph_5:22-32). John saw the Church, the bride, the Lambs wife, descending out of heaven, having the glory of God (Rev_21:9-10).

II. The family is a religious institution. That is to say, it has a distinct and valuable purpose to serve in aiding men to glorify God and enjoy Him forever as their chief end.

1. It is designed to perfect Christian character. The relations of a believer to his Saviour are essentially filial. The saints are the children of God. The Almighty Father, taking upon Himself the three obligations of a parent-government, education, and support-calls upon each Christian for the three duties of a son-subordination, studiousness, and grateful love. Hence, all our celestial connections with God are most perfectly and easily taught through our earthly connections with each other in a well-ordered home.

2. Again: the family relation is designed to concentrate Christian power. For it is the earliest outflow into practical use of the principle that in union there is strength.

3. In the third place, the family relation is designed to cultivate the Christian spirit. There ought to be in all organizations which are worth anything what the French people call esprit de corps; a peculiar, pervading tone of public sentiment and opinion, full of a generous confidence and pride, running through all its members. Each soldier feels his connection with the company to which he owes allegiance, thence with the regiment, and so with the entire corps. He is jealous of its honour, he is zealous for its name.

4. Once more: the family relation is designed to increase the Christian census. Children belong to the kingdom of God (see Mar_10:14). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

The law of marriage

I. The nature of this contract. It is for life, and dissoluble only for one sin. It is subject to Divine laws. It is mutual. It must be based upon affection. It implies the surrender of various rights, but not of all, i.e. conscience. In case of difference of opinion, and within proper limits, the authority is with the husband.

II. The duties imposed by this relation upon both is imposed chastity. Likewise mutual affection. Also the duty of mutual assistance. The husband made by Scripture and by law the head of the domestic society; hence the duty of submission. Virtue and dignity of submission. (Dr. Wayland.)

Gods law greater than mans

We are here taught that marriage, being an institution of God, is subject to His laws alone, and not to the laws of man. Hence the civil law is binding upon the conscience only in so far as it corresponds to the law of God. (Dr. Wayland.)

Influence of a Christian wife

There was a company of rough men together at one oclock one night, and a man says: My wife is a Christian, and if I should go home at this hour, and order her to get us an entertainment, she would get it with good cheer, and without one word of censure. They laughed at him, and said she would not. They laid a wager, and started for his home, and they knocked at one or two oclock in the morning. The Christian wife came to the door, and her husband said: Get us something to eat! get it right away! She said: What shall I get? And he ordered the bill of fare, and it was provided without one word of censure. After his roystering companions had gone out of the house, he knelt down and said: Oh! forgive me! I am wicked! I am most wicked! Get down and pray for me! and before the morning dawned on the earth, the pardon of Christ had dawned on that man. Why? His wife was a thorough Christian. He could not resist the power of her Christian influence. (Dr. Talmage.)

Marriage

The special duties belonging to marriage are love and affection. Love is the marriage of the affections. There is, as it were, but one heart in two bodies. Love lines the yoke and makes it easy; it perfumes the marriage relation. Like two poisons in one stomach, one is ever sick of the other. In marriage there is mutual promise of living together faithfully according to Gods holy ordinance. Among the Romans, on the day of marriage, the woman presented to her husband fire and water: signifying, that as fire refines, and water cleanses, she would live with her husband in chastity and sincerity. (Thomas Watson.)

A cure for divorces

A gentlemen who did not live very happily with his wife decided to procure a divorce, and took advice on the subject from an intimate friend-a man of high social standing. Go home and court your wife for a year, said this wise adviser, and then tell me the result. They bowed in prayer, and separated. When a year passed away, the once-complaining husband called again to see his friend, and said: I have called to thank you for the good advice you gave me, and to tell you that my wife and I are as happy as when first we were married. I cannot be grateful enough for your good counsel. I am glad to hear it, dear sir, said the other, and I hope you will continue to court your wife as long as you live.

The marriage tie and the married life

The sacred institution of marriage has been fiercely assailed. The attempt is to shake off the authority of the great God who made and rules all things. Thus with regard to marriage, men tell us it is simply an agreement between two persons, which the State takes notice of only for the sake of public convenience, like it does of the lease of a house. This leaves out of view the most powerful part of matrimony-the religious. True, it is a legal engagement; but it is also a solemn engagement before God. Whom God hath joined together, etc. See, the golden links of matrimony are of heavenly temper. What hand can be so impious as to try to burst them asunder? The law of God has been transgressed of late years by the doctrine of polygamy as boldly proclaimed by the Mormon blasphemy. Everywhere Christ and His apostles speak of one wife; as the great God only created one man and one woman. It is a solemn moment when two immortal beings venture out on lifes stormy sea in the bark of matrimony, with no aid but their own to help them. A mistake in matrimony is a mistake for life. Do not Christians find it important to avoid the friendship of the irreligious; what then is likely to be the effect of marriage with the ungodly? Married life is a detector of the real character. After marriage, faults are discovered, perhaps, to be greater than was expected, and excellences less. Disappointment springs up; contempt follows. Do you find much you did not expect? Remember you also are showing much that was not expected, and as you do not like in consequence of your faults to cease to be loved, so also do not let the faults you see kill your own love. Do not gloomily meditate on each others failings, for that will make them seem greater than they are. If you would see your life partners faults amended, you should set the example by amending your own. Gentleness, firmness, forbearance, cheerfulness, openness, must be the chains with which husband and wife try to keep marriage love from escaping.

1. The want of experience is often a great hindrance to the happiness of married life; hence it frequently happens that the first years of married life are not the happiest.

2. The married life is often disturbed by the extravagance and folly of the husband or wife; for difficulties arise therefrom, and much bitterness is likely to spring up. Love is the universal law of marriage. Love will not easily find fault or rashly give offence. Poverty cannot quench it. The Christian rule for all applies doubly to man and wife-weep with them that weep, and rejoice with them that rejoice. Different dispositions and tastes may sometimes make mutual sympathy difficult. The sympathy of love and the sympathy of taste are distinct things. A source of unhappiness in married life is the habit of dwelling on individual right instead of remembering that love should not measure the service it bestows, nor that it receives. If difference of opinion does arise, the Christian duty is for the wife to yield. The marriage life was intended to promote human happiness; but it brings with it peculiar duties, and the happiness marriage was intended to impart will be wanting, if the duties of the married life are neglected. (A. Bibby, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE DIVORCE PROBLEM

Mat 19:3-12, and Mar 10:2-12. “And the Pharisees coming to Him, asked Him if it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting Him.” The Jews were very lax in their matrimonial relations, often sending away their wives for very trivial causes. Even a great man like Josephus chronicles — apparently innocently — as he writes his histories, “This day I sent away my wife.” These Pharisees, as well as the people generally, were very appreciative of their privilege in this easy way to get rid of their wives. Consequently they interrogate Jesus on the subject, hopeful to catch something from His lips on which they can found an accusation, or at least render Him odious with the people.

“He, responding, said to them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses permitted us to write a tablet of divorcement, and to put her away.” Matthew says that Moses permitted divorcements “on account of the hardness of their hearts;” i.e., the incompatibility of tempers. The Mosaic dispensation being the infantile department of the Church, the standard was not so high as that of the gospel. “Jesus, responding, said to them, Moses wrote to you this commandment on account of the hardness of your heart; but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. On account of this, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh. Therefore what God hath joined together, let not man separate. And again, His disciples in the house asked Him concerning this. And He says to them, Whosoever may put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery with reference to her; and if a woman may put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

Matthew: “But I say unto you that whosoever may put away his wife, not for fornication, and may marry another, committeth adultery; and the one having married her who is put away, committeth adultery.” The E. V. in Mat 5:31, says, “Whosoever marrieth a divorced woman committeth adultery.” There is a great popular illusion and misunderstanding arising from the above erroneous translation in the E. V. The word apolelumenen does not mean the divorced woman, but simply, as R. V. has it, “the cast-off woman.” The truth of it is, she has no right to a divorce, and her husband has run her off for some unjustifiable cause. Consequently she is still his wife, and will be so as long as they both live. Therefore the reason why the man marrying her commits adultery, is because he has married the other man’s wife. Instead of there being a prohibition on the marrying of divorced people, the truth is diametrically opposite — a Scriptural divorce liberating the parties for another marriage, “only in the Lord.” (1Co 7:39)

a. The Divine, Edenic institution of matrimony unifies husband and wife, so they are “no longer twain, but one flesh;” not one spirit, as the spiritual unity is with God alone. Consequently no man has a right to interfere with the religious liberty of his wife, nec contra.

b. There is absolutely but one justifiable cause of divorce, and that is the dark sin of adultery, which in its very nature destroys the conjugal unity, and thus nullifies the matrimonial covenant, making them twain again, the divorcement being but a recognition of the fact that their matrimonial unity, being destroyed, is now null and void.

c. Apostasion, “divorcement,” is the word which, slightly modified, has been transferred to the English language; i.e., apostasy. Consequently you readily apprehend the meaning of a divorce. Just as, apostasy takes the soul out of the kingdom of God back into the dominion of Satan, so the Scriptural divorce takes your body out of the matrimonial covenant and puts it back in the realm of celibacy; i.e., the divorce so utterly rescinds the nuptial alliance as to return both parties into celibacy.

d. The States are all filled up with unlawful divorces, the civil government granting them for a diversity of causes other than the one specified by the Savior. Of course, all such divorces are null and void, the parties standing in the sight of God as if they had never been given.

e. Of course, the design of the divorce is the relief and protection of the innocent party. But as you can not have a marriage without two, the same is true in reference to divorcement. Consequently the legal divorce affects the guilty along with the innocent. You say it is not right, as he is in no way entitled to it. The admission of your premise does not change the conclusion. Many dark sins never receive their just retribution in this life. The man who overtly violates the matrimonial covenant in order to get a divorce, must meet God, and account for the dark crime, not only of adultery, but perjury. Turn him over to God. He is certain to give him justice.

f. We should be very careful not to grieve those whom God has not grieved. I find the Lord’s people, in many localities in my travels, grieved, afflicted, snubbed, ostracized, and in some cases publicly denounced, on the charge of having two living wives or two living husbands, when really the parties have been Scripturally divorced from their former consorts before marrying the latter. This is unjust. If you are Scripturally divorced, she is no longer your wife, or he is no longer your husband. Consequently it is not true that he has two living wives, or that she has two living husbands.

g. In my extensive travels I meet all sorts of matrimonial complexities, which bring me to my knees before God, that He may give me-light to answer the complicated questions propounded by the good and sincere people, who are anxious to do the will of God and get to heaven: e.g., men and women who during the unsaved period of their lives, got married and separated, receiving civil, but unscriptural, divorcement; then, marrying others, have families of children, homes, and a diversity of domestic interests. Meanwhile they have been converted to God, are Church members, and frequently professors of sanctification. I have found them much disturbed over this problem, preachers and prominent saints having told them that they ought to separate. now, before God and the judgment- bar, let me warn you to slowly, lest the last error be worse than the first. If it is your duty to administer temporal support to a former companion from whom you illegally separated, be sure that you satisfy your conscience when, on your knees, you tell God all about it. You see in these Scriptures that Moses granted a divorcement on account of the hardness of their hearts; i. e., when they fell out, and could not live together in peace. Under the new dispensation of-entire sanctification, the normal attitude of the gospel Church contemplates the removal of all of these evil tempers, so there is no need of a divorce.

h. Though we are not under the dispensation of Moses, I am sorry to say that the rank and file of the Church, both clergy and laity, are there to-day. This is evinced in the fact that they neither preach, seek, nor enjoy full salvation, which is the standard of the New Testament Church. Now, I assure you the Mosaic dispensation is a million times better than that of the devil. Therefore, if your matrimonial relations are not fully up to the New Testament standard, you can fall back and live in the dispensation of Moses. But be sure that you go on your knees, and settle all this matter before God, who, in infinite mercy, requires no impossibilities. Perhaps there are matters in your past life which it is impossible for you to rectify. Then turn it all over to God, and put it under the blood. Do the best you can, and where impossibilities intervene, your blessed Heavenly Father will take the will for the deed, and in the end say, “Well done.” Be sure you do nothing rashly, and without the triple illumination of heaven through God’s Word, Spirit, and providence.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 10:2-12 . The question of divorce (Mat 19:3-12 ). ἀπολῦσαι : the question is put absolutely, the qualifying clause κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν in Mt. being omitted. Thus put the question presupposes knowledge of Christ’s high doctrine as to marriage, and is an attempt to bring Him into collision with the Mosaic law, as absolutely interdicting what it allowed.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 2. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?] See this question about divorce largely explained on Mt 19:3-12.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(2-12) And the Pharisees came to him.—See Notes on Mat_19:3-12. We are not surprised to find St. Mark omitting the “hard saying” about the eunuchs of Mat_19:12. It was hardly likely, even if he knew it, to commend itself to him as adapted for the Gentile readers for whom he wrote his Gospel. Probably, however, for the reason thus given, it was not part of the current teaching of the Church, and was recorded by St. Matthew as something exceptional.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife] “for every cause?” as St Matthew adds (Mat_19:3). On this point the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided, the former adopting the more lax, the latter the stricter view: the one holding that any dislike, which he felt towards her, would justify a man in putting away his wife; the other, that only notorious unchastity could be a sufficient reason. It has also been suggested that the object of the question may have been to involve Him with the adulterous tetrarch, in whose territory He was.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the: Pharisees came unto him,.... As they every where did; not to be instructed by him, but to ensnare him;

and asked him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? that is, as Matthew adds, "for every cause"; see Gill on Mat 19:3, for, a divorce might be lawfully made for a cause, or reason, namely, adultery, but not for any, or every cause; which is the sense of this question of the Pharisees; and, which they put, not for information, but

tempting him; trying to entangle him by opposing the authority of Moses, should he deny the lawfulness of divorces, or by objecting his former doctrine, Mat 5:32, and so expose him as an inconsistent preacher, should he allow them to be lawful for every reason. This clause is placed in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions before the question.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Ver. 2. {See Trapp on "Mat 19:3"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matthew adds, for every cause, that is, for any cause, unless for adultery, for so the Pharisees had interpreted the law permitting divorce, Deu 24:1, taking advantage of those words, that she find no favour in his eyes, and interpreting the term uncleanness following, of any deformity, or other cause of dislike.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And there came unto him Pharisees the article should be omittedand asked him they came forward before the people, and publicly questioned himIs it lawful for a man to put away his wife? St. Matthew (Mat_21:3) adds to the question the words, "for every cause." There were causes for which it was lawful. They put this question to our Lord, tempting him; of course with an evil intent. This question about 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 disciples, 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 imperfect and carnal, although he professed to be a spiritual Teacher of a perfect system, sent down from heaven.

HOMILIES BY J.J. GIVEN Vers. 2-12. Parallel passage: Mat_19:3-12. Doctrine of divorce.

I EVENTS IN THE INTERVAL. There is a gap in the narrative of St. Mark between the events of the preceding and present chapter. We need not do more than intimate them, and that for the continuity of the history. They are the following:

1. His journey to Jerusalem on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles.

2. Occurrences by the way:

a. In hospitality of certain Samaritan villages;

b. rebuke of the "Sons of Thunder" by the Savior;

c. journey continued through Samaria rather than Peraea;

d. cleansing of the ten lepers as he passed through Samaria.

3. 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. Ministrations in Judaea, recorded in part by St. Luke (10-13) and partly by St. John (9-11), including the following:

(1) Instruction of a lawyer, explanation of "neighborhood," 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 Lazarus at Bethany; also his retirement to Ephraim.

7. His tour through Peroea, referred to in Mat_19:1, Mat_19:2, and Mar_10:1; his teaching during that tour, recorded by St. Luke, (Luk 13:22-18:10) 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 and publican.

II A NEW DEPARTURE. The Pharisees now Change their tactics, and adopt a new mode of opposition. They, in fact, make 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 captious 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 keenly discussed by the Jews of that day, and an answer could scarcely fail to give offense to some party or expose him to peril on some side. The present question was eminently one of this class. It was likely to 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.

III 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 Deu_24:1, Deu_24:2, where we read, "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, 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 expression referred to meant lewdness or merely something disagreeable.

IV NATURE OF THE BILL OF DIVORCEMENT. The bill of divorcement was called "a writing of cutting off" (sepher kerithuth). This bill or writing of divorcement implied, 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 (dikaiov) just, (vide Mat_1:19) 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 Lev_20:10, "The man that committeth adultery with another man"s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor"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 offense than conjugal infidelity; and in such cases it served the wife as a certificate of character.

V REASON OF THIS WRITING. Our Lord, in his reply, proceeds to the original marriage law; first, however, accounting for the Mosaic regulation referred to. 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 favor of wrong-doing. It was rather a remedy for harsh treatment of wives, resulting 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 a remedial measure to check the bad effects of their hardness of heart; it was to (prov) 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 appear to make it from the word eneteilato in Matthew, but a permissory injunction (epetreqe), as subsequently acknowledged by the Pharisees themselves.

VI ORIGINAL MARRIAGE LAW. The Savior argues the indissoluble nature of the marriage law from the original unity of male and female, from the extreme closeness of the marriage bond taking precedence of every other union even parental and filial; above all, from its Divine origin.

Marriage was thus an ordinance of God; it was instituted in Paradise in those bright and sunny bowers before sin had marred the freshness and the loveliness of the new-created world. Even then God saw that it was not good for man to be alone, and accordingly he gave him a help meet for him one that was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto literally, be glued unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." It was an ordinance of God himself, an ordinance nearly coeval with the creation, an ordinance made for man even in his unfallen state of innocence, an ordinance which our blessed Redeemer himself, when in sinless humanity he trod our earth and tabernacled among our race, honored with his presence, and at the celebration of which he was graciously pleased to work his first miracle. In Cana of Galilee, at the marriage at which Jesus and his disciples and his mother were present, Jesus made the beginning of his miracles by turning water into wine, manifesting forth his glory, "and his disciples believed on him." "Living, he own"d no nuptial vow, No bower to Fancy dear: Love"s very self for him no need To nurse, on earth, the heavenly seed: Yet comfort in his eye we read For bridal joy and fear.

The conclusion at which he arrives is in keeping with all this that an institution created by God at first, coeval with our race, and confirmed by so many sanctions, can neither be nullified nor modified by any human enactment, nor set aside by any authority other than his who created it. "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

VII ONE EXCEPTION TAKEN FOR GRANTED. Conjugal infidelity, as it is a violation of the marriage vow, is a virtual dissolution of the marriage relation. This is implied or taken for granted in the passage before us, though it is expressly stated, in the parallel passage of St. Matthew, where it is written, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." With respect to marriage with the divorced wife, there is a great and important diversity of sentiment. This diversity is in a certain way and to some extent connected with the right rendering of the word apolelumenhn in Mat_19:9.

1. Some translate it as if it were preceded by thn , and so equivalent to "her which is put away," or "the divorced woman." Thus it stands in the common English Version, and reference to the woman lawfully divorced, that is, for fornication, is presumed.

2. Others, more accurately, render it "her when she is put away," as it is translated in the Revised Version, the reference being thus to her who is unlawfully divorced, that is, divorced not on the ground of adultery. This view is maintained by Stier and Meyer, the latter confirming it by the fact that "under the Law the punishment of death was attached to adultery,... and consequently, under the Law, the marrying of a woman divorced for adultery could never happen.

3. There is, however, another rendering, namely, "a divorced woman," that is, any divorced woman. This is the rendering advocated by Wordsworth, who says, "In no case does our Lord permit a person to marry a woman who has been divorced." This is the view of the matter taken by the Latin Church, which declares marriage with a divorced woman under any circumstances unlawful. The Oriental and most Reformed Churches, on the contrary, hold that, in the excepted case, both husband and wife may contract a fresh marriage. These are the two extreme views; but what of the ease of unlawful divorce, that is to say, where the wife has been divorced for some other and less offense than that of adultery, or porneia , which is of widest extent, comprehending ante-nuptial as well as postnuptial unchastity (moiceia)? This is the case to which the guilt of subsequent marriage attaches, for it is that in which the marriage bond has not been really ruptured. The delay connected with getting a divorce or after its being granted might give time for better counsels to prevail; second thoughts might be found preferable; angry passion might in the mean time cool down, and reconciliation and reunion be effected. J.J.G.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Matt. v, 31; Matt. xix, 7; Luke xvi, 18.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Pharisees tempt Christ with a question:

v. 2. And the Pharisees came to Him and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting Him.

v. 3. And He answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

v. 4. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away.

The Pharisees were still dogging Christ’s footsteps. As soon as a multitude gathered about Christ, they felt it their duty, in the interest of the Jewish Church, to interfere, and to keep Him from teaching the people. Here they purposely put their question in a broad manner, in order to lead the Lord into a trap, which they thought they had skillfully concealed. If He answered in the negative, they could accuse Him of disagreeing with Moses, and the people would be displeased, since the morals, so far as the Sixth Commandment was concerned, were very loose. If He answered in the positive, they could accuse Him of furthering the prevailing looseness of morals. But Jesus saw through their scheme, and prepared to catch them in their own trap. It was a fine battle of wits. He asked them what Moses had commanded them, with the accent on the verb "command. " He wanted them to state what God had said at the institution of marriage concerning the strength of the marriage-tie. They, in turn, hoped to avoid an unpleasant corner in the argument, by referring to Deu 24:1, and stating what Moses had permitted. In order to safeguard the position of the wife at least to some extent and to prevent the looseness of the marriage-tie, which was such a scandal in all heathen countries, Moses had, in his legislative enactments, at the instigation of God, enjoined the giving of a writ of divorcement, of a letter properly setting forth the reasons why a man rejected his wife. The object was to prevent divorces for all kinds of trivial reasons.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2–11. The Pharisees came to him. Somewhere on the east of the Jordan, while on his way. For notes on this conversation about marriage and divorce, see Matt. 19:3–13. Compare Luke 16:18.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

2. Φαρισαῖοι ([2112][2113][2114][2115][2116]) rather than οἱ Φαρ. ([2117][2118][2119][2120][2121] ἐπηρώτων ([2122][2123][2124][2125][2126][2127][2128]) rather than ἐπηρώτησαν ([2129][2130][2131][2132][2133]).

[2112] Codex Alexandrinus. 5th cent. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to King Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel. Photographic facsimile, 1879.

[2113] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[2114] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[2115] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

[2116] Codex Petropolitanus. 9th cent. Gospels almost complete. Mar 16:18-20 is in a later hand.

[2117] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2118] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mar 1:17 to Mar 6:31, Mar 8:5 to Mar 12:29, Mar 13:19 to Mar 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[2119] Codex Purpureus. 6th cent. Full text in Texts and Studies v. No. 4, 1899. Contains Mar 5:20 to Mar 7:4; Mar 7:20 to Mar 8:32; Mar 9:1 to Mar 10:43; Mar 11:7 to Mar 12:19; Mar 14:25 to Mar 15:23; Mar 15:33-42. See below on Ψ.

[2120] Codex Mosquensis. 9th cent.

[2121] odex Monacensis. 10th cent. Contains Mar 6:47 to Mar 16:20. Many verses in 14, 15, 16 are defective.

[2122] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2123] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[2124] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mar 1:17 to Mar 6:31, Mar 8:5 to Mar 12:29, Mar 13:19 to Mar 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[2125] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mar 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[2126] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[2127] Codex Campianus. 9th cent. At Paris. Gospels complete.

[2128] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

[2129] Codex Alexandrinus. 5th cent. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to King Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel. Photographic facsimile, 1879.

[2130] Codex Purpureus. 6th cent. Full text in Texts and Studies v. No. 4, 1899. Contains Mar 5:20 to Mar 7:4; Mar 7:20 to Mar 8:32; Mar 9:1 to Mar 10:43; Mar 11:7 to Mar 12:19; Mar 14:25 to Mar 15:23; Mar 15:33-42. See below on Ψ.

[2131] Codex Monacensis. 10th cent. Contains Mar 6:47 to Mar 16:20. Many verses in 14, 15, 16 are defective.

[2132] Codex Oxoniensis. 9th cent. Contains Mark, except Mar 3:35 to Mar 6:20.

[2133] Codex Petropolitanus. 9th cent. Gospels almost complete. Mar 16:18-20 is in a later hand.

2. Φαρισαῖοι. No art.; see crit. note. It is not implied that they are the same Pharisees as those who assailed Him previously (Mar 2:16, Mar 7:1, Mar 8:11). But all do what is customary; multitudes throng Him, He teaches them, Pharisees attack Him. [2424] and Syr-Sin, omit the approach of the Pharisees, leaving the ὅχλοι as nom. to ἐπηρώτων.

[2424] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mar 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

πειράζοντες αὐτόν. They perhaps had heard that He condemned divorce (Mat 5:31-32), which was recognized by the Law, and they hoped to get Him committed to a clear contradiction of the Law. And possibly they wished to embroil Him with Antipas, who had divorced his wife in order to marry Herodias; but this is less probable.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2-9.] See notes on Matt., with whose account ours is nearly identical. Compare however our vv. 3, 4, 5 with Matt. vv. 7, 8, 9, and we have testimony to the independence of the two reports—for such an arbitrary alteration of arrangement is inconceivable.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. Καὶ προσελθόντες Φαρισαῖοι ἐπηρώτων αὐτόν—And Pharisees came to him and asked him. πειράζοντες αὐτόν—testing him. This was a test, not a temptation. He claimed to be a Rabbi, and they proposed to put him to a test by propounding to him one of their puzzles. The law of divorce itself allowed it in case of the wife’s coming into disfavor with her husband because of his finding something unseemly in her. The school of Shammai, which was in general the stricter school, interpreted this to apply only to cases of adultery, while the opposite school of Hillel licensed divorce under it for any cause. See Deu 24:1. The ambiguity of the passage, and the disputes of the Rabbis, made it a cause célébre, fitted to test, and possibly to discredit, the superior wisdom claimed by Jesus.

Omit οἱ, the, before Φαρισαῖοι, Treg. WH. RV. ABL ΓΔΠ, two mss. Lat. Vet. ἐπηρώτων, instead of ἐπηρώτησαν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDLM Δ.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Tempting. See on Mt 6:13.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.