St Mark Chapter X : Verses 1-12
 |
| God made them male and female.J-J Tissot. Morgan Museum, New York. |
[2] And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
[3] But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you?
[4] Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away.
[5] To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept.
[6] But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.
[7] For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.
[8] And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[10] And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing.
[11] And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
[12] And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
[1] Et inde exsurgens venit in fines Judaeae ultra Jordanem : et conveniunt iterum turbae ad eum : et sicut consueverat, iterum docebat illos. [2] Et accedentes pharisaei interrogabant eum : Si licet vero uxorem dimittere : tentantes eum. [3] At ille respondens, dixit eis : Quid vobis praecepit Moyses? [4] Qui dixerunt : Moyses permisit libellum repudii scribere, et dimittere. [5] Quibus respondens Jesus, ait : Ad duritiam cordis vestri scripsit vobis praeceptum istud : [6] ab initio autem creaturae masculum et feminam fecit eos Deus. [7] Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem, et adhaerebit ad uxorem suam : [8] et erunt duo in carne una. Itaque jam non sunt duo, sed una caro. [9] Quod ergo Deus conjunxit, homo non separet. [10] Et in domo iterum discipuli ejus de eodem interrogaverunt eum. [11] Et ait illis : Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit super eam. [12] Et si uxor dimiserit virum suum, et alii nupserit, moechatur.
Notes
 |
| Perea |
the coasts of Judea. In Perea, where Jesus could teach publicly with less danger of opposition from the Jews.
multitudes flock, to him again. St Matthew gives further details : the multitudes were great, they followed him, and he healed them there (xix. 2).
multitudes, literally “ crowds.” Our Lord was not necessarily teaching the same people again.
as he was accustomed, he taught them again. St Luke supplies certain omissions of St Mark, and relates that it was on this occasion that Jesus related the parables of
(a) The Unjust Judge (St Luke xviiii. 1-14)
(b) The Pharisee and the Publican (St Luke xviiii. 1-14)
It was probably about this time that Jesus healed the ten lepers. as he was accustomed, may signify that He resumed the practice of instructing, which had been interrupted ; or, He taught in His accustomed manner — by parables. The miracles of healing would, as usual, give greater weight to His doctrine.
2. the Pharisees coming : not to be healed or instructed, but tempting him. The Pharisees tempted (i.e. “ tried ”) our Lord, inasmuch as they possibly hoped to make Him contradict Moses, and to forbid what the prophet had permitted.
Is it lawful for a man, etc. St Matthew adds, “for every cause.” By their question they wished to place our Lord in a dilemma. If He answered in the affirmative, they would probably have accused Him of contradicting Himself, since He had said previously, But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery : and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery (St Matt. v. 32). If He replied negatively, they would have accused Him of condemning the law of Moses and the practice in common usage. They based their sanction for divorce on, If a man take a wife , and, have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness ; he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house (Deut. xxiv. 1). The followers of Hillel held that a woman could be divorced for every cause, i.e. the slightest cause, e.g. if she happened not to please her husband. If the husband chanced to meet a more attractive partner, or if the wife burnt or oversalted a meal, the separation might take place. Josephus tells us that he divorced two wives, and explains that he divorced the second “as being not pleased with her behaviour.” The Rabbis founded their opinion on the words, “ if she hath not found favour in his eyes.” Shammai taught that a woman could only be divorced for a grave cause, such as adultery. It is probable that as Jesus was now in Perea, in the Tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, the Pharisees wished to accuse Him to Herod, should He forbid divorce, and that Herod might then rid them of our Lord as he had murdered St John the Baptist. The question put by the Pharisees hinged on the cause for which a woman might be divorced. They did not doubt the legality of the practice of divorce, since, by the law of Moses, it was tolerated.
3. What did Moses command you ? It was our Lord’s method frequently to ask a counter-question, and to make the answer the base of His instruction. Cf. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days ? (iii. 4). Whose image and superscription is this ? (St Matt. xxii. 20).
4. Moses permitted to write, etc. This permission was based on Deut. xxiv. 1, quoted above. Both our Lord and the Pharisees (in the account as given by St Matthew and St Mark) use the words permit and command. MacEvilly says, “ In the questions on both sides command is used. In the answers on both sides ‘ permit ’ is used. . . . The ordi¬ nance relating to divorce contained a command (or precept) and a permission. It permitted the husbands to divorce their wives on certain conditions ; but it commanded them, in case they availed themselves of the permission, to grant a bill of divorce.”
a bill of divorce. Custom had established a regular legal form for this bill, which was generally drawn up by a scribe. As certain formalities had to be gone through in order to get this “ bill,” its use was a check on divorce, and thus trivial and hasty breaches of the bond of matrimony were prevented.
5. Because of the hardness, etc. : literally “ having regard to the hardness of your hearts.” The law which tolerated divorce among the Jews was not absolutely good, but only relatively so, as being adapted to their imperfect dispositions. This concession which tolerated divorce was doubtless made by the Mosaic Law in view of the low state of morals among the Jews in consequence of their mingling with heathen nations where polygamy and slavery were customary. A general principle is here laid down : it is better to observe a less perfect law (per se ) than to fail completely in the observance of a more perfect one. Thus the Church tolerates mixed marriages for grave reasons and under certain conditions. Were the strict law enforced, that Catholics can only wed one of their own faith, many grievous breaches might follow.
6. the beginning of the creation, etc. : from the time God created man. Our Lord answers the Pharisees’ question by referring to the original institution of marriage, and bases the indissolubility of marriage on three grounds —
(a) God created one man and one woman , and thus showed that plurality of wives was not His design.
(b) The intimate union which exists between man and wife, they two shall be one flesh.
(c) What God hath joined together, no man can put asunder.
7. For this cause a man shall leave, etc. Words of Adam quoted from (Gen. ii. 24). Our Lord in quoting them attributes them to God, and He said, For this cause, etc. (St Matt. xix. 5). The explanation is, that Adam said them by the inspiration of God.
10. in the house. Five times St Mark relates that the disciples questioned Jesus privately concerning His public teaching —
(a) the meaning of the parable of the sower (iv. 10).(b) what defiles a man (vii. 17).(c) concerning their inability to cast out a devil (ix. 28-29).(d) concerning the causes which justified divorce (x. 10-12).(e) the signs of the end (xiii. 3).
again. The Pharisees had first questioned our Lord, now the disciples ask explanations on the same subject.
11. he saith to them, etc. Jesus here repeats what He had previously said to the Pharisees, as we see from St Matt. xix. 9, And 1 say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife , except it be for fornication , and shall marry another , committeth adultery ; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. Our Lord’s doctrine evidently seemed severe even to the Apostles, since they say unto Him : If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry (xix. 10). Though our Lord does not name Herod Antipas, the case He cites manifestly applied to that monarch. From St Matthew we learn that in His private explanation to His disciples He went on to praise voluntary virginity “ for the kingdom of Heaven.” This is a counsel of perfection ; therefore Jesus added, He that can take, let him take it (St Matt. xix. 12). This verse furnishes an answer to those non-Catholics who disapprove of the vow of chastity, as taken by monks and nuns, on the ground that marriage is a divine institution. It is most certainly a holy state, but virginity is still holier for those who are called to it.
12. if the wife shall put away her husband. This was a much rarer case, since Josephus says, “while according to the Jewish laws it is lawful for a husband to dissolve his marriage by giving a bill of divorce to his wife, yet it is not lawful for a wife who voluntarily departs from her husband to be married to another, unless her former husband renounces her” (Josephus, Antiq., xv. 7, 10). The text concerning the bill of divorce quoted above from Deut. (xxiv. 1) merely says the husband was able to ask for a bill of divorce, but it does not deny equal rights to the wife. Among the Greeks and Romans, in the time of our Lord, the wife’s right to free herself was recognised, but among the Jews there was far less freedom on this point ; for though the right was undoubtedly hers, she was often powerless to enforce it.
Additional Notes
Christ’s ministry in Perea and Judea. St Mark has passed over many important events of this ministry, so that between the ix. and x. chapters we must supply the following principal events. (For a complete account of this journey a Synopsis of Gospel History must be consulted.)
(1) Our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles (St John vii. 8-10), during which —
(a) St James and St John ask permission to bring down fire from heaven on the Samaritans (St Luke ix. 51-56).
(b) Jesus teaches the people during the feast (St John vii. 14-51, viii. 12-59).
(c) The Sanhedrin seek to apprehend Him (St John vii. 44).
(d) Jesus cures the man who was born blind (St John ix. 1-41).
(e) He speaks of Himself as the Good Shepherd (St John x. 1-18).
(2) Ministry in Judea and mission of the Seventy disciples (St Luke x. 1-6).
(3) Jesus goes to the Temple for the Feast of the Dedication (St John x. 22-39).
(4) Journey in Perea (St Luke xiii. 22, xvii. 11).
(5) He raises Lazarus to life (St John xi. 1-46).
(6) The Sanhedrin are more determined than ever to put Him to death, and He retires to Ephrem (St John xi. 47-54).
(7) The healing of the ten lepers (St Luke xvii. 11-19).
1. the coasts of Judea , beyond the Jordan. This does not mean that any part of Judea lay beyond the Jordan. The Jews had a few cities on the other side of the river, but these were beyond the confines of Judea proper. Judea and Galilee both lay west of the Jordan. Our Lord seems to have partly traversed Samaria, but being inhospitably received there, He then turned and crossed to the eastern bank of the Jordan; thence He would have travelled southward to Judea. He left Galilee in order to go to Jerusalem. St Mark mentions that Christ “ cometh into the coasts of Judea” (x. 1). St Luke tells us, “when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (ix. 51). ‘‘According to St John our Redeemer privately ascended to Jerusalem, at the Feast of the Tabernacles (in September). He afterwards remained in Judea and proceeded to the parts ‘‘ beyond the Jordan ” as St Matthew and St Mark relate, and finally, six months after, in the month of March, He entered Jerusalem in triumph, immediately before His Passion ” (MacEvilly’s Commentary on St Mark , p. 337).
Probable sequence of facts concerning Christ’s discourse on divorce as related by St Matthew and St Mark.
(1) The Pharisees came to meet Jesus, “beyond the Jordan”; “ tempting him,” they propose the question : “ Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? ” (St Matt. xix. 3).
(2) Our Lord replies by a counter-question : “ What did Moses command you ? ”
(3) The Pharises reply : “ Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce and to put her away ” (St Mark x. 4).
(4) Jesus answers : “Because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you that precept ” (ver. 5) ; and, “ Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female ? ” (St Matt. xix. 4).
Note. — Both Evangelists give our Lord’s emphatic denunciation of divorce in the same words : “ And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder ” (St Mark x. 8, 9 ; St Matt. xix. 6).
(5) The Pharisees understanding that Jesus forbids divorce ask : “ Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away?” (St Matt. xix. 7).
(6) Jesus replies that Moses permitted it on account of the hardness of their hearts, but “ from the beginning it was not so.”
(7) Jesus goes on to affirm that if a husband and wife are divorced, either party marrying again, while the other still lives, is guilty of adultery. (These words had a direct application to Herod Antipas.) (St Matt. xix. 9.) .
(8) The disciples gather round our Lord and question Him again on the matter. Jesus repeats His previous instructions.
(9) The disciples evidently find Christ’s teaching severe, since they say unto Him, “ If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry” (St Matt. xix. 10).
(10) Jesus takes occasion to speak of virginity, and to praise it as the holier state, to be embraced only by him “that can take it,” i.e. who feels that he is able or called to embrace it.
Note. — In speaking of virginity, Jesus refers to three classes of persons —
(a) Those who embrace it from natural inclination.
(b) Those who, from a variety of circumstances, have no choice in the matter.
(c) Those who voluntarily embrace it for “ the kingdom of God,” i.e. that they may be free to work for souls, or to consecrate themselves to God’s service.
There is an admirable fitness and harmony in St Mark’s Gospel in the two narratives which follow the discourse on divorce. Jesus blesses little children, the offspring of the married state, and He invites the rich young man to give up all his possessions and to follow Him, which involved the state of virginity.
Teaching of the Church on divorce.
The Church has always taught, in accordance with holy Scripture, that marriage is indissoluble except by the death of one of the contracting parties. In spite of the divine prohibition, divorce is permitted by the law in many countries. By “divorce ” is understood, a legal dissolution of the marriage contract, and full permission to marry again. This the Church can never sanction, as her teaching is based on the formal prohibition of Christ : “ What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Apart from the sin incurred by the practice of divorce, it should be most strenuously opposed, since the evils to which it leads are so numerous, e.g. —
(a) It tends to encourage evil passions and leads to crime.
(b) It often ruins tire happiness of the children.
(c) It leads to disorder and feuds in families and in society in general.
Note. — For grave reasons the Church tolerates separation of husband and wife, but this differs from divorce, inasmuch as neither party is free to re-marry during the lifetime of the other.
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children's upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they "take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples." [Familiaris Consortio, 22 November 1981]
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
No comments:
Post a Comment