HOME | BOOKS/BOOKLETS | THE MAGAZINE
SITE MAP | EMAIL

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT

PAGE 77

WE have considered the divine ideal of marriage as laid down in Eden and reaffirmed by the Lord Jesus. We have seen how the ways of men in Old Testament times fell below the ideal; and how the law of God in Israel permitted "putting away" while at the same time it aimed at deterring men from so acting. But the very regulation which should have restrained was made the ground of considerable licence as Israel's teachers strove about its meaning. Jesus, however, turned the thoughts of men back to God's ideal as the rule which should be followed. At the same time he allowed an "exception"; and in opposition to the views of some modern scholars who would discard the "exceptive clause" as an editorial addition, we found that it should stay in the text; and we also suggested that the reason why Jesus allowed the exception could be found in God's attitude to adultery as illustrated in the stern provisions of the death penalty under the Mosaic law for marital unfaithfulness. We then examined Paul's teaching, and his advice, in view of the lax marriage bonds prevailing in his day, on the domestic problems which arose when one partner obeyed the gospel. If the pagan partner chose to leave it had to be allowed: the tie, such as it was, thereby was broken. All the matters we have considered should be

PAGE 78

kept in mind in any effort to understand the teaching of Jesus. The old Testament history, the background of social custom in his day, the counsel of Paul who was not only acquainted with the words of Jesus, but quotes them in the context of his advice, all contribute some help as we try to comprehend the meaning of the words of the Lord.

We indicated, without attempting an explanation, the problem which emerged from a comparison of Matthew's and Mark's records of the discussion on divorce. The omission of the exceptive clause by Mark, and the change in the emphasis on the question at issue, raise problems which many have sought to solve while others have frankly regarded them as insoluble apart from alteration of the text. It may seem hardy to venture an explanation, and it may be vain to expect general assent. But an effort should be made.

Since the discussion on divorce (Matthew 19; Mark 10) arose from the Pharisees "tempting" Jesus by raising the question of the lawfulness of divorce, we might assume that Jesus had previously spoken on the matter in such a way that encouraged them to hope they might entangle him. We do find that he had included the subject in his discourse called the Sermon on the Mount. This address would be repeated in many places; in fact, we know from Luke 6 that the Sermon (or part of it) was repeated. We turn then to the Sermon to consider his teaching in the original context.

At once we are faced with the method of the Lord's teaching. We call his words commandments, and so they are, inasmuch as they express certain imperative demands

PAGE 79

required of those who would obey Jesus. But in the main they differ essentially from the legal enactments of the Law given through Moses. A man had to put a balustrade around his house, and it was evident whether he had obeyed or not. He had not to move his neighbour's landmark, and evidence of fact determined whether the boundary stone had been moved. A man injured his fellow, or stole his cattle, and evidence determined his guilt. The "ten commandments" dealt largely with overt acts. A man made an image or he did not: he was guilty of killing, stealing or committing adultery, or he was not. But not all the "ten" were so clear-cut. How could a man keep holy the Sabbath? What things in emergency were permitted? Which took precedence -- the law of circumcision on the eighth day, or the Sabbath law, when the day of the child's birth brought the two laws into conflict? What of other duties arising from sickness and accident? The effort to keep the law led to numerous enactments and interpretations which at last practically subverted the original law. So with honour to parents -- where did a son's duty begin and end? And at last, the corban law in Christ's day provided a means of complete evasion of filial duty. While then there are these elements of the Law which had not sharp definitions, yet on the whole it can be said that the law of Moses was a social code, and infringements which were punishable were determined by evidence of what a man had done. The law largely was concerned with actions, and through action with motives.

The teaching of Jesus, on the other hand, emphasized motive and then action. What a man was determined what he did, and Jesus lays down what a person should be. Significantly, then, the Sermon begins with declaring certain

PAGE 80

kinds of people to be blessed: the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart. These are qualities that cannot be fitted into a frame that defines limits -- they permeate a person's life. They give to all his actions a tone which characterizes the individual. So with the reference to men being "salt" and "light"; qualities are indicated qualities revealed truly in action, but it is the quality and not the action that Jesus talks about. Because of this much of the teaching of Jesus is expressed without any qualification. The brevity and pregnancy of his style also did not permit of qualification. Therefore we find a truth expressed in its extremest form that emphasis may be given to it. "Give to him that asketh" if taken literally would lead to harm by demoralizing the recipients, which has more than once happened. Be generous, perhaps briefly expresses what Jesus meant; and the giver must use judgment in his giving, as many an inspired proverb shows.

A modern writer on The Teaching of Jesus (T. W. Manson) has aptly expressed this feature of the Lord's method of teaching in the words:

"There are no half-tones; but all is drawn in the sharpest contrast of black and white. What is set before us is not duties and privileges about which we may haggle and bargain, seeking the minimum that will satisfy the requirements of a law, or devising extenuating circumstances that will excuse us from obeying it, or again defining its terms to suit our own convenience; but rather living characters between which we must choose. There are a dozen ways in which we may evade the commandment 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'. We may point out that we cannot control our feelings; we may define neighbour in half a hundred different ways, any one of which will enable us to escape from the commandment. But there is no escaping

PAGE 81

from the Good Samaritan and his opposites in the parable. Once we have seen them fairly and squarely the real issue is before us in a form in which we cannot evade it: and to the 'Go thou and do likewise' of Jesus there is not, nor can be, any answer."

The same writer well illustrates the marked difference between the method of Jesus and the Jewish teachers by putting in parallel columns the quotation from Mark 10 and an extract from the Mishnah which we take the liberty of reproducing:

PAGE 82

On this Manson comments:

"It is clear we have here two contrasted methods of approach to the question. The Rabbinical discussion is occupied entirely with the definition of the terms of the written law. Everything turns on the construction of such phrases as 'unseemly thing' and 'find favour'. The school of Shammai would restrict the meaning of 'unseemly thing' to acts of unchastity. The school of Hillel would give the term a wider connotation so as to cover any failure on the part of the wife in her domestic duties. The dictum of R. Akiba based on another part of the same text goes farther still. The method of Jesus, on the other hand, is analogous to that of the prophet Malachi, He brushes aside not merely the question of the meaning of Deut. 24:1, but also the sacred text itself. (But see chapter 3 on Deut. 24:1) The permission to divorce is a mere concession made by Moses. Jesus will make no concession. The real question is what was God's intention when he instituted marriage. In the eyes of Jesus it is a life-union whose claims are superior even to those of parents. Malachi gives out bluntly the statement that God hates divorce. That is the negative side. Jesus gave the positive will of God in relation to marriage.

"As the expositor of God's will Jesus thus occupies a position in the new community of his followers analogous to that held by Moses in Israel; and his way of life as shown by his example and his precepts becomes the norm for Christians. Hence Paul can speak of the law of Christ as the Old Testament speaks of the Law of Moses."

The peculiar quality of the teaching of Jesus can be better appreciated when we remember that he was enunciating the rules of life that belong to the New Covenant of which his shed blood was the ratification. Entrance

PAGE 83

into this new covenant relationship was by a new birth -- a man must be born again, as Jesus told Nicodemus. The prophets foretold the differences between the new and the old covenants in a way that illustrates this. They are speaking, of course, of Israel when inducted into the New Covenant. "I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them an heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes" (Ezek. 11:19; cf 36:25-29) "I will make a new covenant ... I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts" (Jer. 31:31-34) Paul works out the significance of these statements. The gospel, the new covenant, which he preached was by the Spirit written not on tables of stone, but on the fleshy tables of men's hearts. The law, written on stones, though it came with glory, was yet a ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3; see also Heb. 8). The material upon which the law was inscribed corresponded to the stony heartedness of the men who sought righteousness by law. It was outward, as circumcision was external; it prescribed conduct but did not empower to perform -- rather it reacted the other way in stirring up the native waywardness of man. The true Jew is one inwardly, whose circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter (Rom. 2:29); his worship is in spirit and in truth, not in outward ritual and type (John 4:23, 24). The teaching of Jesus concerns a law inscribed on the heart; it is not so much outward enactments as a definition of the inner motives and aims. The subject of the method of the teaching of Jesus is capable of considerable elaboration, but if the Sermon is read with these observations in mind we are in a better position to follow the Lord's teaching on the relationship of man to woman.

PAGE 84

Let us observe that, as a preface to a series of contrasts between what was said by them of old time and what he had to say, Jesus demands a righteousness that exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees. He is therefore contrasting the Jewish tradition with his own teaching, a view confirmed by the addition of "and hate thine enemy" to the command "thou shalt love thy neighbour" (Matt. 5:43), for this addition was a part of the oral exposition of the Law. The scribes, interpreting the law, taught that men should not kill; Jesus demands that men should not have the angry feeling that leads to killing. The latter was beyond human judgment, but Jesus with the authority of the Son to whom judgment is committed says the angry feeling will be judged. The scribes amplified the law that men should not perjure themselves with puerile distinctions of oaths by heaven or by earth; the whole system implying that a man's word standing alone could not be trusted, and varied in reliability with different oaths. But Jesus says that a truthful man is content with Yes and No, and his simple word is true because he is true. The law of retribution -- an eye for an eye -- was made the basis of exaction, but Jesus enjoins non-resistence to evil. The inference that love of neighbour implied hatred of enemy denotes a double-mindedness. Love of neighbour covers even enemies, as God in His love showers His good things on the evil as well as the good.

We come then to Christ's teaching on adultery. The Mosaic law and Rabbinic exposition was clear: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But Jesus goes behind the act to the desire: "I say unto you: That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." "To look ... to lust" denotes the harboured desire in which the act is done in the cherished

PAGE 85

thought; and that, too, says Jesus, is adultery. That leads him to give some earnest counsel that anything which causes to stumble, whether eye, hand or foot, should be cut off. Better do without some good and useful things if misuse of them leads to sin; in plainer language, do not use eyes in sinful ways. So he passes to divorce as illustrating his meaning. The rabbis taught, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement" (we have before noted their perversion of Deut. 24:1 when that is correctly translated -- see chapter 3). Against this Jesus says: "I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

We have noticed how common adultery was in the days of Jesus -- divorce obtained for trivial reasons. A further marriage was always in contemplation, and was almost inevitable for a young woman. A man would cast off his wife, and for her to live almost required that she should re-marry. Her thoughts then turn to another not her husband, and she is led to an association in which desires which properly only belong to the first husband are evoked. So the one who marries a divorced person is moved by feelings that ought not to find such expression because those feelings are already properly pledged to another. To follow the thought of Jesus we must remember the facility for divorce, and the consequent light-hearted engagement in another marriage. This re-marriage is an ever present background in his listeners' minds. In spirit, Jesus says, this breaks the law which forbids adultery. We have said "in spirit" to interpret the words of Jesus, for as we turn to his expansion of thought in Matthew 19, we shall note that his words call for a definition of both

PAGE 86

"marriage" and "adultery". The marriage that follows divorce, wantonly sought and undertaken, is so abhorrent to God's mind that Jesus, who had just defined harboured thought as adultery, now says this is like it. Such a marriage is so far from God's standards that it can be described equally with the sinful thought as adultery.

In Matthew 19 Jesus is asked if it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause -- a question which reflected current controversy. The teaching in the Sermon, while dealing with the social evil arising from the general freedom of divorce and re-marriage, does not specifically refer to this dispute. Here in answer he turns his questioners back to the Edenic law of Genesis 2 which, although not expressed, must also have been behind the thought in the sermon. The Pharisees cite the law of Deut. 24:1, that Moses commanded a bill of divorcement be given and so a wife put away. This, says Jesus, was a concession to the hardness of men's hearts, but it was not the original law or purpose of God. Then in opposition to the attitude which demanded freedom to cast aside marriage bonds as men take off a coat, Jesus says such an aim is adulterous in character. "I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." A divorce was generally sought with a view to re-marriage; the mind was upon another partner and such a desire was like a married man desiring another man's wife and seeking to gratify his desires.

We must now point out that to understand the words of Jesus we must resolve a tension in his words. We do this

PAGE 87

probably unconsciously, in one way or another, according to our approach. The relationships between a man and his wife are not adulterous: but Jesus says a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. We must understand either "marries" or "adultery" in a sense other than the literal. To represent the matter in type we must say he that "marries" her commits adultery, or he that marries her commits "adultery", by the quotation marks showing we use the word in a special sense. We must either interpret the words of Jesus as (1) he that with a divorced woman goes through a form of marriage which is not really marriage therefore commits adultery; or (2) he that enters a marriage covenant under those conditions is allowing desires to control him which are comparable to those which a man has who desires to commit adultery. In other words, while such a marriage is a binding contract, judged by motive it can be put in the category of adultery.

In both references to this subject in Matthew's gospel Jesus has the qualifying "exceptive clause". Where there has been unfaithfulness the bond is already snapped and an innocent partner is not then a dissembling wanton who has bonds of loyalty which should deny the freedom to seek another partner.

This teaching, so apparently severe against the prevailing customs when he spoke, led his disciples to exclaim that if such was the rule, it were better not to marry. Jesus rejoined by a form of parable about eunuchs, the consideration of which belongs to the practical considerations next to be made.

Keeping in mind this suggested approach to the teaching in Matthew's gospel, we can turn to Mark. It is difficult

PAGE 88

on any interpretation to explain the change from the question in Matthew whether it was right to divorce for every cause (with the implied, or for one cause only -- to which Jesus answered, Only for one) to the question in Mark whether divorce was right in any circumstances. In neither question nor answer in Mark does the "exceptive clause" find a place. Unless we are determined not to admit that there can be apparent conflict between the records, we shall recognize here a problem. Some casement is found (1) in the view advanced above and (2) in the fact that Matthew wrote in the first place for the Jews.

Taking (2) first: the minds of all Jewish readers were familiar with the conflict between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The strictest of Jews would have admitted divorce for unfaithfulness. The sayings of Jesus as reported to them called for his reference to the exceptive clause to make his teaching clear. At the same time the number of divorces for this cause, when divorce for any cause was possible, must have been proportionately few. The Jew knew that God's law prescribed death for unfaithfulness; the marriage was at an end. The exceptive clause to the Jew did not impair the high standard of Christ's teaching nor take away his sweeping condemnation of all other divorces. Mark, however, wrote for Gentiles who were not concerned with the distinctions and contentions of the Jewish schools. Adultery was common and was not regarded as a ground for divorce; in any case, if a man wished, he could ask his wife for her keys of the house and turn her out. Under such conditions the broad issue was the one that mattered.

Must we then decide that Mark adapted and modified his Master's teaching? Not necessarily -- we would suggest

PAGE 89

that both the Sermon and the reports of the discussion in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are very brief summaries of what Jesus said. His amplification may have been such that permits both summaries in Matthew and Mark to be correct.

With regard to (1), when the teaching of Jesus is seen to be an enunciation of principles and motives expressed for emphasis in terms of the concrete and in extreme form, the difference between Matthew and Mark is one of application. The fact that along this line so much reconciliation of the records in Matthew and Mark is accomplished is a powerful commendation of that interpretation.

It must not be thought that this approach minimizes the seriousness of the teaching of Jesus. On the contrary, it condemns the motive which precedes the act, even as it judges motive which does not culminate in act. When any earnest man puts his actions under the searchlight of this teaching he may groan as Paul did at the weakness of human nature; and any man seeking divorce with remarriage will arrest his course by the self-examination demanded by the words of Jesus which strips the action of the veneer of legality and judges a person for what he is, and not as the cloak of the law makes him to appear.

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT