Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Mark 10:10 - 10:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mar_10:10-12. See on Mat_19:9. The two evangelists differ from one another here in respect of the place, of the persons to whom Jesus is speaking, and partially of the contents of what He says. Certainly Matthew has furnished the original shape of the matter, since what Mark makes Jesus say only in the house and merely to His disciples (Mar_10:11 with the not original amplification of Mar_10:12) is withal an essential element of the reply to the Pharisees, and does not bear the character of a special private instruction, whereas the private communication to the disciples, Mat_19:10-12, which as such is just as appropriate as it is original, is indeed “the crown of the whole” (Ewald).
εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ] having come into the house (in which at that time they were lodging). The same brevity of expression occurs at Mar_13:9.
πάλιν οἱ μαθηταί ] again the disciples, as previously the Pharisees.
περὶ τούτου ] (see the critical remarks): upon this subject.
Mar_10:11. ἐπʼ αὐτήν ] in reference to her, the woman that is put away.[132]
Mark has not the μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (Matt.), which makes no essential difference, as this ground of divorce is obvious of itself as such. See on Mat_5:32. Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 410.
Mar_10:12. καὶ ἐὰν γυνὴ ἀπολύσῃ κ . τ . λ .] Matthew has quite a different saying. The narrative of Mark is certainly not original (in opposition to Schenkel), but puts into the mouth of Jesus what was the custom among the Greeks and Romans, namely, that the wife also might be the divorcing party, and very often actually was so (see on 1Co_7:13, and Wetstein in loc.; also Danz in Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. p. 680 ff.), which was not competent to the Jewish wife (Deu_24:1; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10), for the instances of Michal (1Sa_25:41), of Herodias (Mat_14:4 f.), and of Salome (Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10) are abnormal in respect of their rank; and the cases in which, according to the Rabbins, the wife might require that the husband should give her a writing of divorcement (see Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 806 f.) do not belong to the question here, where the wife herself is the party who puts away. The proposition in the passage before us is derived from an Hellenic amplification of the tradition,[133] which, however, in Matthew is again excluded. Comp. Harless, p. 25f. According to Kuinoel (comp. Lange), Jesus purposed to give to the apostles, as future teachers of the Gentiles, the instruction requisite for judging in such a case. But He must have said as much, as the question had reference to the Jewish relation of divorce.
μοιχᾶται ] the subject is the woman (comp. Mar_5:11), not the ἄλλος . Moreover, Grotius appropriately says: “Mulier ergo, cum domina sui non sit … omnino adulterium committit, non interpretatione aliqua aut per consequentiam, sed directe. Ideo non debuit hic addi ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤΌΝ .”
[132] Observe that Jesus here of necessity presupposes the acknowledgment of the principle of monogamy. Theophylact and many others, including Lange, Ewald, and Bleek, have erroneously referred αὐτήν to the second wife. Erasmus appropriately says: “in injuriam illius.” Comp. Calvin and Bengel: “in illam.” It is only thus that its emphatic bearing is brought out; the marrying of the second wife makes him an adulterer towards the first.
[133] According to Baur, from a reflection of Mark on the equal rights of the two sexes.