« PreviousContinue »
35. So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if ye forgive not L each his brother from your hearts.]
The details of the parable do not seem altogether consistent. After v.23 we seem to have a story of a wealthy merchant and his slaves, rather than one of a king and his ministers. The story has quite probably been adapted by the editor to suit the context. But the main point, that an unmerciful disposition will meet with the divine wrath, is quite clear. The parable begins with the formula "the kingdom of heaven is like.” This means nothing more than that a lesson may be drawn from what follows, which all who hope to enter the kingdom should lay to heart.
E-XIX. 1-XX. 34. JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. XIX. 1-12. From Mk 101-16.
1. And it came to pass, when Jesus finished these words.] For E the formula, cf. 728 119 1368 261.
He departed from Galilee, and came into the boundaries of M Judæa beyond Jordan.] Mk 101 has : “And He arose thence, and cometh into the boundaries of Judæa, and beyond Jordan.”—10ev] for Mk.'s hist. present, as often. The addition of årò cñs Talidaías marks the editor's perception of a new stage in Mk.'s Gospel.
2. And there followed Him many multitudes; and He healed them M there.) Mk. has: "And there journey with Him (?) again multitudes; and as He was wont, He was teaching them.”—ýkoloúOnoar] Mt., as often, avoids the hist. pres. OutTrOpeřovtan. He omits Mk's Semitic åvaotás as in 1521 = Mk 724 and 2660 = Mk 1457, and omits also, as often, Mk.'s máli.-epánevoer] The editor substitutes healing for teaching in 1414 = Mk 684, and in 2114 = Mk 1118. —öylo mollo.] For the addition of molloi, cf. 425 81. 18 131580.
In Mk. most MSS. have ouvrOpeúortal záliv öxlou. This is the only occurrence in Mk. of the plural öxlo.. But D SI a b c ffi ik q have the singular. Ouvropeveobai occurs only here in Mk. D has συνέρχεται, cf. Mk 320. συνπορεύεσθαι πρός is awkward, and the reading of D al may be original.
3. And there came to Him Pharisees, tempting Him, and saying, M Is it lawful to put away a wife for every cause ?] Mk. has: “And Pharisees came and were questioning Him, if it is lawful for a man to put away a wife, tempting Him.” At first sight Mt. seems more likely to be original than Mk. The Jews did not question the legality of divorce. That was legalised by Dt 241.2. But they debated about the scope and limits of reasons for divorce. Cf. Gittin 90", where the views of the schools of Hillel and of Shammai are given. The former allowed divorce for trivial offences, the latter only for some unchaste act. But it is clear that Mt. is editing Mk., and that in κατά πάσαν αιτίαν and (εί) μή επί πορνεία, ν.9, he
has inserted into Mk.'s narrative matter which is really inconsistent with it. In Mk. the Pharisees first put their leading question, Is it lawful to divorce a wife? They themselves would have no doubt of the legality of this, but they test Christ (trelpáčovtes, Mk 2), knowing probably from previous utterances of His that He would reply in words which would seem directly to challenge the Mosaic law. Cf. His criticism of the distinction between clean and unclean meats, Mk 714-23. Christ answers with the expected reference to the law, What did Moses command? They state the Old Testament law. Moses sanctioned divorce. Christ at once makes His position clear. The law upon this point was an accommodation to a rude state of society. But a prior and higher law is to be found in the Creation narrative, “Male and female He created them,” Gn 127 LXX, i.e. God created the two sexes that they might be united in the marriage bond, which is, therefore, ideally indissoluble. In answer to a further question of His disciples, the Lord enforces the lesson. A man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. A woman who puts away her husband and marries another commits adultery. Upon this point Christ's teaching passes beyond the ordinary conditions of Jewish society. No woman could divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why the Lord should not have expressed himself as Mk. records. There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine. Cf. Salome, Jos. Ant. xv. 259: sent him (Costobar) a bill of divorce, though this was against the Jewish law (and dissolved her marriage with him).” And there is no reason why He may not have been acquainted with the possibility of divorce by women in the West, or why, even if He had not this in view, He may not have emphasised His point by stating the wrongfulness of divorce on either side of the marriage tie. All this is logical and consistent. Compare with it Mt.'s account. The Pharisees are represented as inquiring, Is it lawful to put away a wife on any pretext? Christ answers as in Mk., that marriage from an ideal standpoint is indissoluble. The Pharisees appeal to the law against this judgement. In reply we should expect the Lord, as in Mk., to state the accommodating and secondary character of the legal sanction of divorce, and to reaffirm the sanctity of marriage. But instead, He is represented as affirming that topvela constitutes an exception. Thus He tacitly takes sides with the severer school of Jewish interpretation of Dt 24, and acknowledges the permanent validity of that law thus interpreted in a strict sense, which immediately before He had criticised as an accommodation to a rude state of social life. This inconsistency shows that Mk. is here original, and that katà trâoav airíav and (el) un éni topvela are insertions by the editor of Mt. into Mk.'s narrative. The motive of these insertions can only be conjectured. But in
view of other features of the Gospel, it is probable that the editor was a Jewish Christian who has here judaised, or rather rabbinised Christ's sayings." Just as he has so arranged vv.16-20 as to represent Christ's attitude to the law to be that of the Rabbinical Jews, who regarded every letter of the law as permanently valid, so here he has so shaped Christ's teaching about divorce as to make it consonant with the permanent validity of the Pentateuchal law, and harmonious with the stricter school of Jewish theologians. It is probably to the same strain in the editor's character, the same Jewish Christian jealousy for the honour of the law and for the privileges of the Jewish people, that the prominence given to Peter (see on 1619, p. 180), and the preservation of such sayings as 105-6. 28 is due. And to the same source may probably be attributed the judaising of Christ's language, in such expressions as "the kingdom of the heavens,” “ The Father who is in the heavens.”
3. ei E COTIV] See note on 1210. -Katà Tâoav airlav) cf. Jos. Ant. iv. 253: γυναικός δε της συνοικούσης βουλόμενος διαζευχθήναι καθ' ασδηποτούν αιτίας.
4. And He answered and said, Have ye not read, that the M Creator from the beginning made them male and female 1) Mk. has : “But from the beginning of the creation male and female He made them.” ο κτίσας απ' αρχής is an adaptation to suit the altered order of Mk.'s år' åpxñs ktíoews, for which cf. Pesikta R. K. 21 (Wünsche, p. 205): DS by ma nonno. ápoev kai Onav eroinrev autóvs is a quotation from the LXX of Gn 127 5%
5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave the father and the M mother, and shall be joined to his wife ; and the two shall become one flesh.] Mk. has no “and said," and omits the second clause of the quotation. The editor has inserted kaì citev to separate the two quotations, and inserts the clause omitted by Mk. The passage comes from the LXX (the Hebrew has no "two”) of Gn 224, which has αυτού after πατέρα and after μητέρα. Luc omits the second autoll. So Mk. Mt. omits both.
The idea involved in the verses seems to be that God created a single pair, who were therefore destined for one another. It was also written that a man should forsake his parents and cleave to his wife, and that he and his wife should be one flesh. In other words, married couples were in respect of unity, as the first pair created by God, destined for one another. Divorce, therefore, should be out of the question. This conclusion is expressed in the next verse.
6. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore M God joined together, let not man separate.) So Mk. Divorce, therefore, is from an ideal standpoint not to be thought of. 7. They say to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill M
See also p. 167, note 1.
of divorce, and put away (a wife)?] In Mk. this clause occurs earlier in the narrative in the form, “And he answered and said, What did Moses command you ? And they said, Moses allowed us to write a bill of divorce, and to put away (a wife).” Mt., as usual, avoids the question in the mouth of the Lord. No Jew would regard Dt 241ff. as anything else than a Mosaic command to adopt certain forms in cases of divorce. And yet, as grammatically construed, the passage does not command the giving of a bill of divorce, but assumes that as a matter of practice it will under certain circumstances be given. See Driver, in loc.
8. He saith to them, that Moses for the hardness of your heart allowed you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.] That is to say, the toleration of divorce by the law is a departure from the high standard of morality presupposed in the creation of a single pair. Divorce is a bad custom which has grown up amongst a degenerate people, and the Mosaic law tolerated it as an accommodation to a low level of moral custom. Mk. haş : “And Jesus said, For the hardness of your heart he wrote for you this commandment."
9. Mk. has here: “And in the house again, the disciples were asking Him about this.” Mt., as elsewhere, omits Mk.'s vague
references to a house. See on 9? 1515. 21 1719. M 9. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, save
for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery.] Mk. has :
And He saith to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, commits adultery against her. And if she who has put away her husband shall marry another, she commits adultery.” –λέγω δέ] for Mk.’s και λέγει, to make an antithesis with v., cf. Introduction, p. xxxi. The editor omits the last clause as inconsistent with Jewish custom. See on v.8. Some of the copyists of Mk. have also found it inconvenient, and modified it so as to get rid of the conception of divorce by a woman. See critical note in Swete. A parallel to this saying has already been recorded in 582. See note there.
And he who marries her that is put away, commits adultery.] This clause is not in Mk. If genuine (see below), it may be meant to compensate for the omission of Mk 12.
10. The disciples say to him, If the reason (of divorce) between a man and his wife be so, it is not convenient to marry.] The editor adds three verses which are not in Mk. Vv.10.11 are probably an editorial link to connect 12 with the preceding. aitía refers back to αιτία of v.3. If the cause or reason of divorce between man and wife be so, i.e. if it is to be limited to unchaste acts, it is better not to marry, because marriage with a woman of bad temper or malicious tongue, e.g., is in that case an intolerable burden which cannot be thrown off.
11. And He said to them, All do not receive this saying, but those E to whom it has been given.] That is, “what you say about the expediency of abstaining from marriage has some truth in it. But it is not practicable for all men, but only for some for whom providence has so destined it, e.g. physical eunuchs, and those who abstain from marriage in order to obey a religious call. If a man feels himself called to do so, let him.” It is clear that if the passage be so interpreted, the disciples instead of receiving an explanation and solution of their difficulty that marriage without facility for divorce would be a burden, receive what amounts to a commendation of abstention from marriage for the kingdom's sake. In other words, whilst vv.1-9 are calculated to heighten the conception of marriage, vv. are clearly intended to increase respect for those who renounce marriage. This can hardly be an original connection. V.12 is probably added here by the editor simply because it is concerned in a negative way with the subject of marriage, which has been the subject of vv.1-9.
If v.11 be a historical saying of Christ, it looks very much as though it were originally connected with the exposition of Christ's about divorce as given in Mk., and not with this teaching as modified by Mt. For the saying of the disciples, that if Christ's exposition of the question of divorce were to hold good, marriage would be a burden better left alone, seems to arise naturally enough from the strict teaching that divorce is not permissible, whilst it is very unexpected in the mouths of Christ's disciples as a protest against the doctrine that divorce should be limited to cases of adultery. Could not Christ's disciples endure what the disciples of Shammai submitted to?
It might be possible to interpret the passage in a different direction by referring tòv dóyov Toûtov not to the question of the disciples, but to the statement by the Lord of the indissoluble character of the marriage bond, vv.1-9. “Not all can receive this estimation in their understanding and carry it into practice in their life, but those to whom it has been given by the divine grace. But these can receive it; for just as there are physicial eunuchs, so there are spiritual eunuchs, who, knowing marriage to be a sacred and indissoluble bond, abstain from it for the purpose of dedicating their lives to the kingdom.” But the logical consequence of "not all receive this saying (vv.1-9) but those to whom it has been given," is not for there are some who abstain from marriage, but for there are some who recognise the sacred nature of the bond, and live married lives without recourse to divorce. The whole section in Mt. suffers from inconsistency of thought due to literary revision and compilation. (ei) un éri Topvela is inconsistent with v.°, and whilst this verse, and the whole paragraph, 1-9, exalts marriage as an institution of the Creator; v.'?, without depreciating it, emphasises