# Mark 10 v Mathew 19



## Eoghan (Nov 13, 2009)

Mathew gives a fuller description of the question asked, namely is it lawful to divorce _for any reason_. This apparently reflected a contemporary debate between the school of Shammai (conservative) and the school of Hillel (liberal). 

I am just wondering what we are to make of the "ommission" of this detail in Mark 10. Read by itself it does seem to take a much harder line on divorce than the fuller account in Mathew.

Is it an ommission? Is it possible to fully understand Mark's account without reference to Mathew? Yes we have to take all of scripture into account, but we also need to understand each text in context - including Marks briefer account.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 13, 2009)

I think some would say Matthew is an addition rather than Mark an ommission. I prefer to trust the Scriptures and say both are Jesus' teaching, each with different details.

This is an excellent example of why we ought not to approach the Scriptures with merely a rulebook mindset. We'll end up asking, "What's the true rule?" and miss the larger point within the context of the gospels and the whole Bible. Jesus has come to restore what is broken about creation, including what's broken about marriage. His redeemed people become so committed to fidelity and restoration that they no longer ask, "What may I get away with?" but rather think of nearly any divorce and remarriage as adultery. The day when cheap marriages and easy divorce were tolerated is over. Jesus is come, and life is more robust!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 13, 2009)

One cannot assume that Mark has a "different take" on Jesus' statements, that is that he "hears him" differently from Matthew, simply because a detail is omitted, or in other cases adds a detail. There are other explanations for such differences.

First, there is Matthew considered as a "self-source," one of the original Twelve, and then Mark as a reporter, the evidence pointing to Peter as his main source. Mark was a likely eyewitness of some of Jesus ministry in person, however he was barely more than a child during Jesus' ministry.

Second, there is the structure and trajectory of each of the Gospels. Mark doesn't expect us to think that he is giving us an exhaustive account of Jesus' ministry, any more that John does. Each man includes aspects of the common account of the eyewitnesses and just so much detail as will further his own presentation, having his own particular aim.

John's Gospel, evidently the last composed and offering mainly significantly different details and events from the Synoptics, has (beyond dispute!) a purpose of providing material that fleshes out and fills in chronological and didactic "gaps" in the Synoptic tradition.

So, on the specific question of whether "Mark's version" of events can be taken _by itself_ as a complete expression of Jesus' teaching on divorce--no, because we need a total look at the Bible on any particular doctrine.

But on the question, "can we understand the event and its place in Mark's account, apart from reference to the rest of the Gospels?" then the answer is "yes" if we mean to comprehend Mark's presentation on its own terms. In another thread, I think I mentioned that in my view, these teachings post-Transfiguration are among the only "kingdom-life" presentations in Mark. He has no passage comparable to the Sermon on the Mount. But He teaches "life in his kingdom" as he walks the road to Jerusalem.

Matthew's is a more "sit-down" Gospel. Jesus "sat-down to teach". Mark's Gospel is one of action, movement. So, abbreviated accounts fit well with that "breathless" presentation.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Nov 13, 2009)

*No Inconsistancy*



Eoghan said:


> Mathew gives a fuller description of the question asked, namely is it lawful to divorce _for any reason_. This apparently reflected a contemporary debate between the school of Shammai (conservative) and the school of Hillel (liberal).
> 
> I am just wondering what we are to make of the "ommission" of this detail in Mark 10. Read by itself it does seem to take a much harder line on divorce than the fuller account in Mathew.
> 
> Is it an ommission? Is it possible to fully understand Mark's account without reference to Mathew? Yes we have to take all of scripture into account, but we also need to understand each text in context - including Marks briefer account.



I would maintain that Matthew's use of the word "fornication" is not the same as adultery. Matthew's gospel is dealing with the issue of a man "engaged" (if you will) to a woman who is guilty of some sexual immorality. In that culture, to get out of a relationship with someone to whom you were betrothed required divorce - not just calling off the wedding. This is evident from Matthew 1:18-19 with Joseph and Mary:



> Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to _divorce_ her quietly.



So a divorce was what was necessary to end it with one to whom you were betrothed. 

Additionally, if Christ had of given an "exception clause" then nothing he said before it would make any sense. Nor would the response of his disciples make any sense:



> Matthew 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."



So there is this one place in Matthew 19 where an exception is given that doesn't appear in any of the other gospels. Either it is what many people think it is today (an excuse to divorce their spouses) which makes everything that Christ says on marriage in Matthew 19 meaningless; or the exception he is giving isn't to married people at all but to those not yet married but betrothed to an unfaithful woman. 

Divorce, even for adultery, runs contrary to everything the Scriptures say about marriage and its picture of the Gospel of Christ and his love for his unfaithful Bride.

The view I espouse is known as the "permanence view" of divorce and remarriage. 

Below are some great resources on this position which do a much better job of explaining and defending it than I can.

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper _By John Piper_

Divorce & Remarriage in the Event of Adultery _By John Piper_

The Tragically Widening Grounds for Divorce _By John Piper_

[Book] Divorce and Remarriage: A Permanence View _by Daryl Wingerd, Jim Elliff, Jim Chrismas, Steve Burchett_


----------

