BACK
every cause, but only for fornication. In this he is saying the same thing as he said to the disciples in the passage already considered. The idea has been put forward that the exception for fornication is not genuine, that is, Christ did not actually say it. This is because it does not appear in the other Gospels. However, there is no manuscript authority for excising it from the text. It could as easily be argued that it did originally appear in the other Gospels but was taken out by copyists or some other persons who thought they new better than the Gospel writers what Christ actually said ! It is usually, incidentally, easier to excise a bit of text than to concoct an extra bit of text and insert it where it would not look too out of place.

Christ in answering the Pharisees goes back to the beginning, that is, before the law of Moses and shows what God's original thought was. He does not say as some that the marriage bond cannot be broken, but that it should not be broken. We should not separate what God has joined together. It is wrong to do so and, if we do, it suggests that we are assuming to know better than God.

The truth is that if a man loves his wife he would not want to put her away. Isaac loved his wife, Rebecca, (Genesis 24:67) and the marriage was very successful and resulted in a life-long relationship. If a wife is in fact sent away it suggests that the husband does not have tender feelings for her and does not really care about her welfare. In sending her away he would cease to house, feed and clothe her; she would practically be left to her own devices. All this would be involved in Christ's reference to "your hard-heartedness" (verse 8). If a wife is in fact not worthy of the position of being a wife to one husband, she would not be fit to be a wife to another and in practice second marriages following on divorce are often no more successful than the first.

Christ's disciples, who were apparently listening to his conversation with the Pharisees, appear to have appreciated the point Christ was making and suggest that if the situation is as he said it was it would be better not to marry in the first place. Christ does not repudiate what they say, but in replying points out that not all can remain celibate. It is interesting that Christ speaks of eunuchs. The prophet Isaiah says that the time would come when the king of Judah's sons would be "eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon" (Isaiah 39:7). This was probably fulfilled in Daniel and his three companions as there is no mention of their having wives when they were in the service of the king of Babylon (see Daniel 1:3-5). If a man can remain celibate (a eunuch) it is well, but if not he should stick with his wife. Although not mentioned in the passage, there is also the question of any children of the union to be considered. In making the marriage tie permanent God in his wisdom no doubt had their welfare in mind. In the case of Hagar who was sent away by Abraham, her son, Ishmael, was sent with her, but this may not always have been the practice under Mosaic law. It may also be mentioned that if all men were eunuchs there would be no offspring to carry on the race. What Christ says agrees with what Paul says: "On account of fornications, let each have his own wife" and "It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7:2 & 9). The danger is that in some cases not marrying could lead to illicit sexual relationships, and might also have adverse mental effects, for the urge to marry is strong in some. Others may be able to remain celibate.

Mark 10:1-12 ~ This passage appears to deal with the same event as that in Matthew 19 which we have just considered. However, there are certain points to note in this account which are not covered in Matthew. Before considering these it will be noticed that the question Christ is called on to answer here is not identical with that in Matthew. The words: "for every cause" do not appear, and consequently Christ does not deal with this point in his answer. There is no: "except for fornication". Christ does not deal with the question of grounds for putting away. His answer is general - putting away is simply condemned. If his answer were meant to be all embracing it would contradict what is said in Matthew which makes an exception in the case of fornication. There are other examples in Scripture where we get a general statement, but the statement is not all embracing because there are certain cases where the general rule does not apply. For instance, we have the statement in Hebrews 9:27 "It is the portion of men once to die". Clearly there are exceptions, for Enoch and Elijah did not die and the Lord's people who are on the earth when Christ comes for his own will be caught up without dying at all. Further, we have it said: "All have sinned" (Romans 3:23), but clearly this does not include Christ for he "did no sin" (1 Peter 2:22). Where Scripture wants to make a statement that is all embracing rather than one that is generally true we often get a reinforcement in the statement. Thus we have: "Everyone whosoever" in Romans 10:13 and in Acts 17:30 we have: "all everywhere". These passages would still apparently have the same meaning without the 'everyone' and the 'all', but they clearly strengthen what is said and preclude exceptions.

This passage shows that the disciples had taken in what Christ had said in answer to the Pharisees regarding divorce and asked him about the matter again in the house. Christ then makes the point that the putting away of a wife and the marrying another is an offence against the first wife, so we have it said that he: " commits adultery against her" (verse 11). It is not only an offence against God but against the wife also. Sin has a Godward aspect as in Genesis 3 (eating the forbidden fruit), but in Genesis 4 (Cain killing Abel) it also has a manward aspect. Christ makes the point that the woman's marital rights are being denied her. She has a right to his body as Paul says: "The husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife" (1 Corinthians 7:4).

Finally, and probably having Roman law in mind (it is thought that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome and particularly for Romans). Christ says that the same rule applies if the wife should put away her husband (verse 12). In doing so she would be depriving him of his conjugal rights as Paul says: "The wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband" (1 Corinthians 7:4).

NEXT