2<\/strong>. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife<\/em> ] “for every cause?” as St Matthew adds (Mat 19:3<\/span>). On this point the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai were divided, the former adopting the more lax, the latter the stricter view: the one holding that any dislike<\/em>, which he felt towards her, would justify a man in putting away his wife; the other, that only notorious unchastity could be a sufficient reason. It has also been suggested that the object of the question may have been to involve Him with the adulterous tetrarch, in whose territory He was.<\/p>\n Mar 10:2-12<\/span><\/p>\n Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?<\/em><\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n The family relation<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the most pathetic incidents found in the narrative of one of the arctic explorations, is that of the attempt made to induce a native of that terribly inhospitable region to journey away with the returning navigators to a more sunny clime. Won by the enthusiastic descriptions of a land of orchards and meadows, of purling brooks and singing birds, he did indeed surrender himself to go. But hardly were they on the way out from among those mountain bergs of ice and dismal fields of snow, directing their course towards the latitudes where the blue tops of distant hills told of freshening verdure, before they missed their simple-hearted comrade. He had gone back clandestinely to the cheerless scenes of his former life. Cold and uninviting to a stranger, those northern solitudes were welcome to him because they had been his home ever since he was born. We smile at his simplicity, but how quickly, after all, do we give him our sympathy in the feeling! We love our homes unaffectedly and almost illogically at times; not because they in every case are better than others, but because they are ours.<\/p>\n I. <\/strong>The family is a Divine institution. We are not left to look upon it as a chance arrangement of individuals of the human species; it is a definitely fixed form of association.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It was ordained by the Creator himself when the race began (see Mar 10:6<\/span>; Gen 2:18-25<\/span>). This order therefore cannot be changed irreverently, nor disturbed without peril.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It has been recognized all along the ages by the providence of God. When David (Psa 68:6<\/span>) says: God setteth the solitary in families, a more literal and more pertinent translation would give us this: God maketh the lonely to dwell in a home. The all-wise Creator has provided in the wide adaptations of nature for an abode of its own sort for every creature of His hand. He has set the coney in the rock, the ant in the sand, the fish in the river, and the whale in the sea; but to no one of them all has He given a home but to man.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>It has been sanctioned by God in His Word (see Mar 10:7-9<\/span>).<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>It has been symbolized and spiritualized in the Church (see Eph 3:15<\/span>). And the relation between Christ and His people is like that between a husband and wife (see Eph 5:22-32<\/span>). John saw the Church, the bride, the Lambs wife, descending out of heaven, having the glory of God (Rev 21:9-10<\/span>).<\/p>\n II. <\/strong>The family is a religious institution. That is to say, it has a distinct and valuable purpose to serve in aiding men to glorify God and enjoy Him forever as their chief end.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It is designed to perfect Christian character. The relations of a believer to his Saviour are essentially filial. The saints are the children of God. The Almighty Father, taking upon Himself the three obligations of a parent-government, education, and support-calls upon each Christian for the three duties of a son-subordination, studiousness, and grateful love. Hence, all our celestial connections with God are most perfectly and easily taught through our earthly connections with each other in a well-ordered home.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Again: the family relation is designed to concentrate Christian power. For it is the earliest outflow into practical use of the principle that in union there is strength.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>In the third place, the family relation is designed to cultivate the Christian spirit. There ought to be in all organizations which are worth anything what the French people call esprit de corps<\/em>; a peculiar, pervading tone of public sentiment and opinion, full of a generous confidence and pride, running through all its members. Each soldier feels his connection with the company to which he owes allegiance, thence with the regiment, and so with the entire corps. He is jealous of its honour, he is zealous for its name.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>Once more: the family relation is designed to increase the Christian census. Children belong to the kingdom of God (see Mar 10:14<\/span>). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The law of marriage<\/strong><\/p>\n I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The nature of this contract. It is for life, and dissoluble only for one sin. It is subject to Divine laws. It is mutual. It must be based upon affection. It implies the surrender of various rights, but not of all, i.e. <\/em>conscience. In case of difference of opinion, and within proper limits, the authority is with the husband.<\/p>\n II. <\/strong>The duties imposed by this relation upon both is imposed chastity. Likewise mutual affection. Also the duty of mutual assistance. The husband made by Scripture and by law the head of the domestic society; hence the duty of submission. Virtue and dignity of submission. (Dr. Wayland.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Gods law greater than mans<\/strong><\/p>\n We are here taught that marriage, being an institution of God, is subject to His laws alone, and not to the laws of man. Hence the civil law is binding upon the conscience only in so far as it corresponds to the law of God. (Dr. Wayland.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Influence of a Christian wife<\/strong><\/p>\n There was a company of rough men together at one oclock one night, and a man says: My wife is a Christian, and if I should go home at this hour, and order her to get us an entertainment, she would get it with good cheer, and without one word of censure. They laughed at him, and said she would not. They laid a wager, and started for his home, and they knocked at one or two oclock in the morning. The Christian wife came to the door, and her husband said: Get us something to eat! get it right away! She said: What shall I get? And he ordered the bill of fare, and it was provided without one word of censure. After his roystering companions had gone out of the house, he knelt down and said: Oh! forgive me! I am wicked! I am most wicked! Get down and pray for me! and before the morning dawned on the earth, the pardon of Christ had dawned on that man. Why? His wife was a thorough Christian. He could not resist the power of her Christian influence. (Dr. Talmage.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Marriage<\/strong><\/p>\n The special duties belonging to marriage are love and affection. Love is the marriage of the affections. There is, as it were, but one heart in two bodies. Love lines the yoke and makes it easy; it perfumes the marriage relation. Like two poisons in one stomach, one is ever sick of the other. In marriage there is mutual promise of living together faithfully according to Gods holy ordinance. Among the Romans, on the day of marriage, the woman presented to her husband fire and water: signifying, that as fire refines, and water cleanses, she would live with her husband in chastity and sincerity. (Thomas Watson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A cure for divorces<\/strong><\/p>\n A gentlemen who did not live very happily with his wife decided to procure a divorce, and took advice on the subject from an intimate friend-a man of high social standing. Go home and court your wife for a year, said this wise adviser, and then tell me the result. They bowed in prayer, and separated. When a year passed away, the once-complaining husband called again to see his friend, and said: I have called to thank you for the good advice you gave me, and to tell you that my wife and I are as happy as when first we were married. I cannot be grateful enough for your good counsel. I am glad to hear it, dear sir, said the other, and I hope you will continue to court your wife as long as you live.<\/p>\n The marriage tie and the married life<\/strong><\/p>\n The sacred institution of marriage has been fiercely assailed. The attempt is to shake off the authority of the great God who made and rules all things. Thus with regard to marriage, men tell us it is simply an agreement between two persons, which the State takes notice of only for the sake of public convenience, like it does of the lease of a house. This leaves out of view the most powerful part of matrimony-the religious. True, it is a legal engagement; but it is also a solemn engagement before God. Whom God hath joined together, etc. See, the golden links of matrimony are of heavenly temper. What hand can be so impious as to try to burst them asunder? The law of God has been transgressed of late years by the doctrine of polygamy as boldly proclaimed by the Mormon blasphemy. Everywhere Christ and His apostles speak of one wife; as the great God only created one man and one woman. It is a solemn moment when two immortal beings venture out on lifes stormy sea in the bark of matrimony, with no aid but their own to help them. A mistake in matrimony is a mistake for life. Do not Christians find it important to avoid the friendship of the irreligious; what then is likely to be the effect of marriage with the ungodly? Married life is a detector of the real character. After marriage, faults are discovered, perhaps, to be greater than was expected, and excellences less. Disappointment springs up; contempt follows. Do you find much you did not expect? Remember you also are showing much that was not expected, and as you do not like in consequence of your faults to cease to be loved, so also do not let the faults you see kill your own love. Do not gloomily meditate on each others failings, for that will make them seem greater than they are. If you would see your life partners faults amended, you should set the example by amending your own. Gentleness, firmness, forbearance, cheerfulness, openness, must be the chains with which husband and wife try to keep marriage love from escaping.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The want of experience is often a great hindrance to the happiness of married life; hence it frequently happens that the first years of married life are not the happiest.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The married life is often disturbed by the extravagance and folly of the husband or wife; for difficulties arise therefrom, and much bitterness is likely to spring up. Love is the universal law of marriage. Love will not easily find fault or rashly give offence. Poverty cannot quench it. The Christian rule for all applies doubly to man and wife-weep with them that weep, and rejoice with them that rejoice. Different dispositions and tastes may sometimes make mutual sympathy difficult. The sympathy of love and the sympathy of taste are distinct things. A source of unhappiness in married life is the habit of dwelling on individual right instead of remembering that love should not measure the service it bestows, nor that it receives. If difference of opinion does arise, the Christian duty is for the wife to yield. The marriage life was intended to promote human happiness; but it brings with it peculiar duties, and the happiness marriage was intended to impart will be wanting, if the duties of the married life are neglected. (A. Bibby, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?<\/B><\/I>] See this question about divorce<\/I> largely explained on Mt 19:3-12<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Matthew adds, for every cause, <\/I>that is, for any cause, unless for adultery, for so the Pharisees had interpreted the law permitting divorce, Deu 24:1<\/span>, taking advantage of those words, that she find no favour in his eyes, <\/I>and interpreting the term uncleanness<\/I> following, of any deformity, or other cause of dislike. <\/P> <\/p>\n And the: Pharisees came unto him<\/strong>,…. As they every where did; not to be instructed by him, but to ensnare him;<\/p>\n and asked him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife<\/strong>? that is, as Matthew adds, “for every cause”, [See comments on Mt 19:3]<\/span>: for, a divorce might be lawfully made for a cause, or reason, namely, adultery, but not for any, or every cause; which is the sense of this question of the Pharisees; and, which they put, not for information, but<\/p>\n tempting him<\/strong>; trying to entangle him by opposing the authority of Moses, should he deny the lawfulness of divorces, or by objecting his former doctrine, Mt 5:32<\/span>, and so expose him as an inconsistent preacher, should he allow them to be lawful for every reason. This clause is placed in the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions before the question.<\/p>\n Tempting him <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). As soon as Jesus appears in Galilee the Pharisees attack him again (cf. Mark 7:5<\/span>; Mark 8:11<\/span>). Gould thinks that this is a test, not a temptation. The word means either (see on Mt 4:1<\/span>), but their motive was evil. They had once involved the Baptist with Herod Antipas and Herodias on this subject. They may have some such hopes about Jesus, or their purpose may have been to see if Jesus will be stricter than Moses taught. They knew that he had already spoken in Galilee on the subject (Mt 5:31f.<\/span>). <\/P> <\/p>\n Tempting. See on Mt 6:13<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) ”And the Pharisees came unto Him, and asked Him,” <\/strong> (kai, peoselthontes Pharisaioi eperoton auton) ”And approaching Him the Pharisees quizzed Him,” in an attempt to bring Him in collision with what Moses taught in the Law.<\/p>\n 2) ”Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?”<\/strong> (ei eksestin andri gunaika apolusai) “Whether or not it was lawful (according to Moses) for a man to dismiss or divorce a wife.” Mat 19:3<\/span> also recounts the occasion. Jesus also discussed the matter, Mat 5:31-32<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Tempting Him.”<\/strong> (peirazontes auton) “Simply testing Him,” to find fault with Him, to try to entrap Him. Their question was with ulterior motive, not to find moral or ethical truth, nor to give respect to His judgement.<\/p>\n A. JESUS IS QUESTIONED ABOUT MARRIAGE 10:2-12<\/strong><\/p>\n TEXT 10:2-12<\/strong><\/p>\n And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the twain shall become one flesh: so that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.<\/p>\n THOUGHT QUESTIONS 10:2-12<\/strong><\/p>\n 500.<\/p>\n Where was Jesus when the Pharisees approached Him?<\/p>\n 501.<\/p>\n Read the parallel account in Matthew to understand the question was not only a matter of divorce but of the cause for divorce.<\/p>\n 502.<\/p>\n In what sense was this a trial question?<\/p>\n 503.<\/p>\n Read Deu. 24:1<\/span>Tell what relation this text has to the question.<\/p>\n 504.<\/p>\n Both Jesus and the Pharisees referred to Moses but with very different resultsshow why.<\/p>\n 505.<\/p>\n What is meant in Mar. 10:5<\/span> by the statement hardness of heart?<\/p>\n 506.<\/p>\n Wasnt Moses compromising the law of God by writing the commandment of Deu. 24:1<\/span>?<\/p>\n 507.<\/p>\n Why refer back to the conditions existing at the time of creation?<\/p>\n 508.<\/p>\n For what cause will a man leave his father and mother?<\/p>\n 509.<\/p>\n What is the meaning of the word cleave as here used?<\/p>\n 510.<\/p>\n Just how is the relationship of one flesh effected? In what sense are the two one?<\/p>\n 511.<\/p>\n When, where and how does God join the husband and wife together?<\/p>\n 512.<\/p>\n Is Jesus forbidding all divorce?<\/p>\n 513.<\/p>\n Discuss the force of the expression put asunder.<\/p>\n 514.<\/p>\n Why did the disciples continue the question of the Pharisees?<\/p>\n 515.<\/p>\n Please show how completely and finally the words of Jesus answered the question.<\/p>\n 516.<\/p>\n Can marriage ever become adultery? When?<\/p>\n 517.<\/p>\n Are there any innocent persons in these acts of adultery? Discuss.<\/p>\n COMMENT 10:2-12<\/strong><\/p>\n TIMEA.D. 30Probably the month of March. PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat. 19:3-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n OUTLINE1. The trial question, Mar. 10:2<\/span>. 2<\/span>. The answer of Jesus, Mar. 10:3-9<\/span>. 3<\/span>. The disciples ask further questions, Mar. 10:10-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n ANALYSIS<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n THE TRIAL QUESTION, Mar. 10:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n Posed by Pharisees.<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n Asked as a snare.<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n Can a man divorce his wife? (for every cause)<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n THE ANSWER OF JESUS, Mar. 10:3-9<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n What did Moses command you?<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n Moses was very lenient as recorded in Deu. 24:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n This commandment was a concession for your weaknessand hardness of heart.<\/p>\n 4.<\/p>\n From the beginning God created two to become one.<\/p>\n 5.<\/p>\n What God has joined together man can not and should not divide.<\/p>\n III.<\/p>\n THE DISCIPLES ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS, Mar. 10:10-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1.<\/p>\n This occurred in a house.<\/p>\n 2.<\/p>\n The reason a man should not divorce his wife (except for fornication) is because when he marries again he commits adultery against his wife.<\/p>\n 3.<\/p>\n The same principle applies to the wife in regard to her husband.<\/p>\n EXPLANATORY NOTES<\/strong><\/p>\n I.<\/p>\n THE TRIAL QUESTION.<\/p>\n Mar. 10:2<\/span>. The questioners are the Phariseesomnipresent tempters!and the old practice of trying to catch him by questions still survives.Is it lawful. Perhaps not asked in the narrowest technical sense, as if calling for an interpretation of the Mosaic law, but more generally, asking the judgment of the Rabbi: May a man put away his wife? The law of divorce in Deu. 24:1<\/span> was not entirely plain in the statement of the admissible grounds of complaint against a wife, and the ambiguity had occasioned endless discussion. The schools of Shammai, the stricter, and Hillel, the more lax, contended about it, and the people were divided. Therefore, however Jesus might reply, his answer could be trusted to make him enemies. Moreover, he was in the territory of Herod, under whom the Baptist had suffered for his boldness in the matter of an adulterous marriage, Matthews addition, for every cause, was as nearly as possible the translation of the current phrase justified by the lax school of Hillel; and so the question meant, Is the lax school right?<\/p>\n II.<\/p>\n THE ANSWER OF JESUS.<\/p>\n Mar. 10:3-4<\/span>. His answer drove them back to their own authorities. The law under which all their discussions were, and ought to be, conducted was the law of Moses, and what he said must be first considered. What did Moses command you? was the first legitimate question. But their answer was evasive. They stated the permission as if it were unlimited, omitting all references to the occasions of divorce which the law recognized.<\/p>\n Mar. 10:5-9<\/span>. Yet he accepted their report of the law, imperfect as it was, without criticism. They had omitted the crucial point, the determination of occasions for divorce, and so would he. They had spoken of permission; of permission he would speak. Divorce was a permitted thing, and the permission was so vague that there might be difficulty in defining its limits. It was permitted, but why? For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. The preposition means on account of, or out of regard for. The noun means hard-heartedness; spiritual dullness and incapacity; unresponsiveness to God, amounting to inability to accept high motives. Moses wrote you this precept, said Jesus (in Matthew, he suffered you to put away your wives), because you were not up to the level of a better precept. He said that Moses wrote the precept; but, according to their view of the matter and according to his (see Mar. 7:13<\/span>), the legislation of Moses expressed the appointment of God. It was Jehovah himself who permitted them to put away their wives.But this precept was not given because there was not a better one at hand, A better was provided in the constitution of man. From the beginning of the creationfrom the very origin of thingsGod, the Creator, made them male and female. An exact quotation from Gen. 1:27<\/span>, Septuagint. Mar. 10:7<\/span> and half of Mar. 10:8<\/span> are exactly quoted from Gen. 2:24<\/span>, Septuagint, though in Mark some manuscripts (and Tischendorf) omit and cleave to his wife.<\/p>\n This passage from the narrative of the Creation was cited to show that the distinction of sexes was originally constituted the ground of marriage. By this law marriage is the union of a male and a female of the human race; and it is such a union as shall form a new centre of life to both. For this causei.e. because he created them male and femalea man shall leave the parents, into natural unity with whom he was born, and find the centre for a new unity in his union with a fellow-being of the opposite sex. Thus the distinction of the sexes was given as the foundation of the family.Now, the duration for which God intended this union may be inferred from his own testimony as to its closeness and completeness. This testimony Jesus now quotesand they twain shall be one fleshand then he adds his own emphatic restatement of the fact: so then they are no more twain, but one fleshthat is, the union that is founded on the relation of the sexes makes the two to be one flesh, makes each to be, physically, part and property of the other. Marriage has wrought an actual unity which is not to be broken. It is the union of one man and one woman, and the blending of life in sexual union establishes between that one man and that one woman a real unity. By establishing such a relation the Creator showed his intention that a union thus formed should be irrevocable and inviolable, to be legitimately terminated only by death.<\/p>\n In Mar. 10:9<\/span> is given the better precept that springs from this original order. The verb is in the aorist, not in the perfect; and the reference is not to special cases in which God hath joined together two given individuals, but to the original constitution of the race, in establishing which he joined together in permanent unity every pair who should ever come together in the union of sex with sex.What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. That one flesh or one body (see 1Co. 6:16<\/span>, where Paul expressly recognizes the truth that physical union establishes true and permanent unity) which has been formed in accordance with Gods appointment in the creation of man, let not man put asunder.Note the contrast between God and man: man may not break what God has made. Man may break this unity, either by personal unfaithfulness to the obligation of marriage or by contradictory enactments permitting dissolutions that God does not permit. Of the possible dissolution, for one cause, he speaks below.<\/p>\n This law of exclusive and permanent union was the original law of marriage; and this law Jesus reaffirms. But a lower law was given in that legislation which Jesus distinctly recognized as the work of God. Now, Jesus declares that that law was given because of the incapacity of men for this. He thus announces the imperfection of the Mosaic lawnot only its incompleteness, but its imperfectionand asserts also its educational purpose. It was meant to train men for a better life than they could then accept. Accordingly, there was in the law a certain amount of what is called accommodation. God often speaks and gives law, not as he himself is able to do, but as we are able to hear (Chrysostom, on Psalms 95<\/span>)a sound principle, but always to be accompanied by this: When God thus speaks and gives law, it is in order that he may make us able to hear all that he is able to say to us. We need have no difficulty in admitting that God has dealt in rudimentary instruction, and, so far, in inferior instruction, if only we keep steadily in view his purpose of moral education for men.<\/p>\n III. THE DISCIPLES ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS.<\/p>\n Mar. 10:10-12<\/span>. Mark alone tells of the later inquiry of the disciples. In Matthew the address to the Pharisees is continued, with the solemn assertion that he who puts away his wife, except for fornication, and marries another commits adultery. In Mark except for fornication is omitted; but it is sufficiently implied. The statement in both Gospels is that a man is charged with adultery when he enters into a new sexual union while the first is still unbrokeni.e. when he breaks the exclusive unity of flesh with his wife by an act of union with another. Of course an equal union of sexes can be broken by either member; and so the except for fornication is implied clearly enough in principle in Mark. Mar. 10:12<\/span>, indeed, distinctly enforces the principle of equal responsibility. The custom to which it alludes, of the wife putting away the husband, was a custom, not of Jews, but of Romans and of other Gentiles. Possibly Jesus saw that there was danger, under Roman influence, of its coming in among the Jews.Here, in Mar. 10:11-12<\/span>, is our Lords own answer to the original question, whether a man might put away his wife. It is, No, unless she has already broken her unity with him. Sexual unfaithfulness forfeits the bond, but nothing else does.<\/p>\n The teaching of this passage is strong and conclusive for all who acknowledge the authority of Jesus Christ. The inviolability of marriage is grounded, not in any principles of expediency or advantage, right as these might be, but in its correspondence to the constitution of man as male and female. The sexual element in marriage makes of the two one fleshi.e. it was meant that sexual union should be inseparable from permanent personal unityand only by sexual unfaithfulness can the unity, once established, be broken. This is not to affirm that sexual unfaithfulness is necessarily more guilty than any other sina life-long course of drunkenness and abuse may be as guiltybut the sexual relation is the groundwork of the family, and its purity is absolutely essential to the physical and moral welfare of mankind. With good reason, therefore, God has made faithfulness in this relation the determining element in the perpetuity of marriage. To this divine appointment human laws should be made to correspond, Separations for other causes than adultery there may be, but dissolution of marriage, never. If it is said that such a law works hardship in many cases, the answer is that all laws that are for the general good sometimes work hardship while sin continues. But the purity and the permanency of the family are worth so much to mankind that individuals may well afford to suffer hardship rather than contribute to the overthrow of so precious an institution.<\/p>\n FACT QUESTIONS 10:2-12<\/strong><\/p>\n 545.<\/p>\n Is the attitude of the Pharisees the same throughout the ministry of our Lord? Why?<\/p>\n 546.<\/p>\n Who was Shammai and Hillelwhat school of thoughts did they represent? What reference in the Old Testament was of particular concern on the matter of divorce?<\/p>\n 547.<\/p>\n How was the question of the Pharisees framed in such a way to put Jesus in an undefendable position?<\/p>\n 548.<\/p>\n Why raise the question about Moses? Who raised itsee Mat. 19:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n 549.<\/p>\n What is meant by hardness of heart?<\/p>\n 550.<\/p>\n What was originally constituted the ground for marriage?<\/p>\n 551.<\/p>\n Why mention the thought of the two becoming one? When does this occur?<\/p>\n 552.<\/p>\n How is the imperfection and incompleteness of the Mosaic law shown?<\/p>\n 553.<\/p>\n What is meant by saying that in the law of God a certain amount of accommodation is found?<\/p>\n 554.<\/p>\n How can it be said that the exception of divorce for fornication is inferred by Mark? Explain.<\/p>\n 555.<\/p>\n Does Jesus say a person guilty of sexual unfaithfulness is necessarily more guilty than any other sinner? Discuss.<\/p>\n 556.<\/p>\n Does Jesus add anything to the Mosaic law by saying a wife could put away her husband?<\/p>\n 557.<\/p>\n Why is the home the most precious institution in the world?<\/p>\n (2-12) And the Pharisees came to him.<\/strong>See Notes on Mat. 19:3-12<\/span>. We are not surprised to find St. Mark omitting the hard saying about the eunuchs of Mat. 19:12<\/span>. It was hardly likely, even if he knew it, to commend itself to him as adapted for the Gentile readers for whom he wrote his Gospel. Probably, however, for the reason thus given, it was not part of the current teaching of the Church, and was recorded by St. Matthew as something exceptional.<\/p>\n ‘And there came to him Pharisees and asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” testing him out.’<\/p>\n ‘Testing Him out’ may not necessarily mean in a bad sense. These were not the Pharisees he had been dealing with in Galilee, even though they did want to know His calibre and position. But possibly a hint of antagonism is intended, and it may be that their intention was to see if He would dare condemn Herod who had notoriously put away his wife. By speaking out boldly on divorce in Peraea (if He was in Peraea, see above) He could be represented as an enemy of Herod, as John the Baptiser had been considered to be before Him.<\/p>\n There were two opposing views among the Pharisees themselves about divorce, which had been declared by two great Rabbis of the past who had taken up two different positions. Both, however, gave their interpretations based on Deu 24:1-4<\/span>. In that passage Shammai and his followers, whose interpretations of the Law always tended to be stricter, interpreted the ‘some unseemly thing in her’ of Deu 24:1<\/span> as signifying adultery or sexual impropriety. Hillel and his followers on the other hand taught that it should be interpreted more widely and could mean anything that her husband found unsatisfactory in her such as letting the food burn or losing her beauty. Thus both allowed divorce, but while Shammai did so only on a limited basis, Hillel was more free and easy and allowed divorce for almost any cause, and only too many had taken advantage of the fact. As Josephus could say quite glibly, ‘At this time I divorced my wife, not liking her behaviour’.<\/p>\n Jesus Firmly Establishes The Creation Ordinance of Marriage and Rejects Divorce As Contrary To God’s Purpose (10:2-10).<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n As Jesus was conducting a teaching ministry it was inevitable that Pharisees would soon attach themselves to the crowd (although if we accept some manuscripts the questioners were unidentified). These may have been different Pharisees from those that He had previously encountered (they were spread all over Palestine), and while they came to test His quality we need not assume that they were particularly hostile, at least to begin with, although it is possible that the subject of their question was with the hope of getting Him to condemn Herod as John had done, in which case their hostility would be apparent.<\/p>\n What Jesus is questioned about is divorce, but as we read on in the narrative it becomes clear that, while the Pharisees are totally wrapped up in the question of divorce, Jesus wishes to turn their question round and make a solemn pronouncement on the sacredness and permanence of marriage under the Kingly Rule of God, while at the same time giving an authoritative answer to their question which sweeps aside the decisions on the subject which had been made by prominent Rabbis.<\/p>\n Analysis.<\/p>\n a <\/strong> And there came to Him Pharisees, and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Testing Him And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” And they said, “Moses allowed the writing of a certificate of divorce, and to put her away (Mar 10:2-4<\/span>).<\/p>\n b <\/strong> But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment, but from the beginning of the creation, ‘Male and female made He them’ ” (Mar 10:5-6<\/span>).<\/p>\n c <\/strong> For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh, so that they are no more two, but one flesh (Mar 10:7-8<\/span>).<\/p>\n b <\/strong> What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate (Mar 10:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n a <\/strong> And in the house the disciples asked Him again of this matter, and He says to them, “Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her, and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she commits adultery” (Mar 10:10-12<\/span>).<\/p>\n Note that in ‘a’ the Pharisees ask Him about putting away a wife, and in the parallel the disciples ask Him about it, and declares that a man shall not put away his wife. In ‘b’ He reminds them that God made man as male and female, and in the parallel He says that what God has joined together man must not separate. Centrally in ‘c’ He declares the basic creation ordinance concerning the unique oneness of a man and a woman who have been married, a oneness which must not be broken because it is of God.<\/p>\n The Pharisees tempt Christ with a question:<\/p>\n v. 2<\/strong>. And the Pharisees came to Him and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting Him.<\/strong><\/p>\n v. 3<\/strong>. And He answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?<\/strong><\/p>\n v. 4<\/strong>. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement and to put her away.<\/p>\n <\/strong> The Pharisees were still dogging Christ’s footsteps. As soon as a multitude gathered about Christ, they felt it their duty, in the interest of the Jewish Church, to interfere, and to keep Him from teaching the people. Here they purposely put their question in a broad manner, in order to lead the Lord into a trap, which they thought they had skillfully concealed. If He answered in the negative, they could accuse Him of disagreeing with Moses, and the people would be displeased, since the morals, so far as the Sixth Commandment was concerned, were very loose. If He answered in the positive, they could accuse Him of furthering the prevailing looseness of morals. But Jesus saw through their scheme, and prepared to catch them in their own trap. It was a fine battle of wits. He asked them what Moses had commanded them, with the accent on the verb “command. ” He wanted them to state what God had said at the institution of marriage concerning the strength of the marriage-tie. They, in turn, hoped to avoid an unpleasant corner in the argument, by referring to Deu 24:1<\/span>, and stating what Moses had permitted. In order to safeguard the position of the wife at least to some extent and to prevent the looseness of the marriage-tie, which was such a scandal in all heathen countries, Moses had, in his legislative enactments, at the instigation of God, enjoined the giving of a writ of divorcement, of a letter properly setting forth the reasons why a man rejected his wife. The object was to prevent divorces for all kinds of trivial reasons.<\/p>\n 2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his<\/em> wife? tempting him. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 2. See Trapp on “<\/em> Mat 19:3 “<\/em> <\/p>\n 2 9.<\/strong> ] See notes on Matt., with whose account ours is nearly identical. Compare however our Mar 10:3-5 with Mat 19:7-9<\/span> , and we have testimony to the independence<\/em> of the two reports for such an arbitrary alteration of arrangement is inconceivable.<\/p>\n Mar 10:2-12<\/span> . The question of divorce<\/em> (Mat 19:3-12<\/span> ). : the question is put absolutely, the qualifying clause in Mt. being omitted. Thus put the question presupposes knowledge of Christ’s high doctrine as to marriage, and is an attempt to bring Him into collision with the Mosaic law, as absolutely interdicting what it allowed.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 10:2-9<\/p>\n 2Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. 3And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”<\/p>\n Mar 10:2 “Pharisees” See Special Topic: Pharisees at Mar 2:16.<\/p>\n “testing” This word periaz has the connotation of testing with a view toward destruction (cf. Mar 8:11; Mar 10:2; Mar 12:15; Special Topic on terms for “testing” at Mar 1:13). This question was meant to (1) polarize both the people and rabbis over the opinions of the two rabbinical schools of Shammai (conservative) and Hillel (liberal) or (2) arouse Herod Antipas’ anger.<\/p>\n “whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife” Notice that the Pharisees’ question is about divorce, not remarriage. Also, notice that Jesus is responding to a specific question. Jesus is not discussing this subject in a neutral setting. These Pharisees are trying to trap Him into alienating Himself from (1) the followers of Hillel, who had a liberal attitude toward divorce. Mat 19:3 expands the question to include the “Why” of divorce or (2) Herod Antipas because he was divorced (cf. Mar 6:17-20).<\/p>\n The term “lawful” could refer to the Mosaic Law or the rabbinical traditions (i.e., the Talmud). In response Jesus quotes a passage from Deuteronomy.<\/p>\n Mar 10:4 “to write a certificate of divorce” The quote is from Deu 24:1-4. Moses enacted a legal procedure to protect the wife (cf. Exo 21:1-11). This legal procedure would have several requirements.<\/p>\n 1. it took some amount of time<\/p>\n 2. it took a priest or Levite to write it<\/p>\n 3. it probably required the return of the dowry<\/p>\n Hopefully, these procedures would give the couple a chance to reconcile.<\/p>\n It must also be stated that Deuteronomy 24 assumed the right of remarriage for both the man and woman. However, the Deuteronomy passage in context was not addressing the cultural issue of divorce as much as (1) assuring the virginity and faithfulness of the bride and (2) outlining the specific procedures and limits on the remarriage.<\/p>\n The real problem occurred in the liberal interpretation of this passage by the rabbinical school of Hillel (cf. The Christ of the Gospels by J. W. Shepherd, pp. 451-457). This school picked up on the term “indecency” and extended its original time frame and meaning. The Pharisees were only quoting Moses to trick Jesus. They were not seeking information.<\/p>\n Jesus confirmed the intent of God for marriage as one man, one woman for life. Anything else is not the ideal. The problem comes in how to balance Jesus’ words in this context with His words of forgiveness in other contexts. The standard for Kingdom followers is high, but so, too, is the grace of God! In this area a case-by-case approach is better than rigid legal rules.<\/p>\n In the OT YHWH used divorce to describe His actions toward Israel because of their idolatry (cf. Isa 50:1; Jer 3:1-8; Hos 2:2). There are examples in the OT where divorce is required (cf. Gen 21:8-14; Exo 21:10-11; Deu 21:10-14; Ezra 9-10). There is an excellent thought-provoking article in the “Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society” vol. 40 # 4, entitled “Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage” by Joe M. Sprinkle.<\/p>\n Mar 10:5 “‘Because of your hardness of heart'” Jesus describes the Israelites as “hard hearted” (cf. Eze 2:4; Eze 3:7). The term “stiff-necked” is a synonymous metaphor (cf. Exo 32:9; Exo 33:3; Exo 33:5; Exo 33:9; Deu 9:6; Deu 9:13). They always wanted to do things their way. This is always fallen mankind’s propensity! This attitude was even present in His disciples (cf. Mar 3:5; Mar 6:52).<\/p>\n The subject of divorce is a good example of the problem of proof-texting. We must allow all of the Bible to speak on every subject. This is not the only biblical passage on divorce and remarriage.<\/p>\n This statement of Jesus is distressing to me. How would I know that Deu 24:1-4 was not YHWH’s final word on this subject? It is in the Bible. If Jesus had not been confronted with this issue, I probably would never have known its limited relevance. The problem is how many other OT texts are involved in “the hardness of heart” and how many are God’s will for mankind? The only comfort comes in a truly systematic approach to theological subjects, taking into account both Testaments and historical situations (e.g., Mar 7:14-23). Modern evangelical Christians are too quick to proof-text absolute truth from isolated, atomized texts.<\/p>\n Theologically, Jesus’ rejection of Moses is startling. It was a powerful way of asserting His authority. These Jewish disciples would have been so surprised that Jesus knew why Moses did something and that he had the power and authority from YHWH to overturn it. This section in Mark is theologically parallel to Mat 5:17-48.<\/p>\n Mar 10:6 “from the beginning of creation” See SPECIAL TOPIC: KTISIS following.<\/p>\n SPECIAL TOPIC: KTISIS <\/p>\n “‘God made them male and female'” Marriage was in God’s original plan of creation (cf. Gen 1:27). Sex was\/is a gift from God to accomplish His purpose of a filled earth (cf. Gen 1:28).<\/p>\n Mar 10:7 “‘a man shall leave his father and mother'” This is another quote from Genesis (cf. Mar 2:24). It shows the high status of marriage, even over parental authority. There was a necessary mental separation from parents even if not a physical separation (i.e., several generations lived together).<\/p>\n Mar 10:8 “‘and the two shall become one'” This quote is also from Gen 2:24. In marriage, two become onephysically, emotionally, and in every way. This shows the permanency of marriage in God’s plan.<\/p>\n Moses lived many years away from the events recorded in Genesis. In the creation section of Genesis he reads the later issue of the priority of marriage back into a setting of the first couple.<\/p>\n Mar 10:9 “‘God has joined together'” This is literally “yoked together.” Divorce is one of fallen humanity’s ways of breaking apart what God has established as a societal norm (i.e., marriage is a pillar for stable society, cf. Deu 5:16; Deu 5:33; Deu 4:40; Deu 32:47, “that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you on the land which the Lord your God gives you”). This is a good example of a covenant believer preferring his\/her will to God’s will.<\/p>\n “‘let no man separate'” This is a present active imperative with the negative particle, which usually meant to stop an act already in process. For a good discussion on marriage, family, and divorce see Frank Staff’s New Testament Theology, pp. 296-302.<\/p>\n Pharisees. App-120. <\/p>\n Is it lawful. ? = If it is lawful. ? Putting the condition as a simple hypothesis. App-118. <\/p>\n a man = a husband. Greek. aner. App-123. Not the same word as in Mar 10:7, <\/p>\n 2-9.] See notes on Matt., with whose account ours is nearly identical. Compare however our Mar 10:3-5 with Mat 19:7-9, and we have testimony to the independence of the two reports-for such an arbitrary alteration of arrangement is inconceivable.<\/p>\n the Pharisees: Mar 8:15, Mat 9:34, Mat 15:12, Mat 23:13, Luk 5:30, Luk 6:7, Luk 7:30, Luk 11:39, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Luk 16:14, Joh 7:32, Joh 7:48, Joh 11:47, Joh 11:57 <\/p>\n Is it: Mal 2:16, Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32, Mat 19:3, 1Co 7:10, 1Co 7:11 <\/p>\n tempting: Mar 8:11, Mat 16:1, Mat 22:35, Joh 8:6, 1Co 10:9 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Mar 12:15 – Why<\/p>\n 2<\/p>\n In Matthew’s account of this conversation (chapter 19:3) the Pharisees add the words “for every cause.” Mark says they asked the question for the purpose of tempting Jesus. They hoped he would say something that would disagree with the law a .d thus give them an occasion for accusing him.<\/p>\n Mar 10:2. Mark omits for every cause (Matthew), but the whole subject is brought into discussion,a dangerous topic in the territory of Herod, the husband of Herodias.<\/p>\n THE DIVORCE PROBLEM<\/p>\n Mat 19:3-12, and Mar 10:2-12. And the Pharisees coming to Him, asked Him if it is lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting Him. The Jews were very lax in their matrimonial relations, often sending away their wives for very trivial causes. Even a great man like Josephus chronicles apparently innocently as he writes his histories, This day I sent away my wife. These Pharisees, as well as the people generally, were very appreciative of their privilege in this easy way to get rid of their wives. Consequently they interrogate Jesus on the subject, hopeful to catch something from His lips on which they can found an accusation, or at least render Him odious with the people.<\/p>\n He, responding, said to them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses permitted us to write a tablet of divorcement, and to put her away. Matthew says that Moses permitted divorcements on account of the hardness of their hearts; i.e., the incompatibility of tempers. The Mosaic dispensation being the infantile department of the Church, the standard was not so high as that of the gospel. Jesus, responding, said to them, Moses wrote to you this commandment on account of the hardness of your heart; but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. On account of this, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh. Therefore what God hath joined together, let not man separate. And again, His disciples in the house asked Him concerning this. And He says to them, Whosoever may put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery with reference to her; and if a woman may put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.<\/p>\n Matthew: But I say unto you that whosoever may put away his wife, not for fornication, and may marry another, committeth adultery; and the one having married her who is put away, committeth adultery. The E. V. in Mat 5:31, says, Whosoever marrieth a divorced woman committeth adultery. There is a great popular illusion and misunderstanding arising from the above erroneous translation in the E. V. The word apolelumenen does not mean the divorced woman, but simply, as R. V. has it, the cast-off woman. The truth of it is, she has no right to a divorce, and her husband has run her off for some unjustifiable cause. Consequently she is still his wife, and will be so as long as they both live. Therefore the reason why the man marrying her commits adultery, is because he has married the other mans wife. Instead of there being a prohibition on the marrying of divorced people, the truth is diametrically opposite a Scriptural divorce liberating the parties for another marriage, only in the Lord. (1Co 7:39)<\/p>\n a. The Divine, Edenic institution of matrimony unifies husband and wife, so they are no longer twain, but one flesh; not one spirit, as the spiritual unity is with God alone. Consequently no man has a right to interfere with the religious liberty of his wife, nec contra.<\/p>\n b. There is absolutely but one justifiable cause of divorce, and that is the dark sin of adultery, which in its very nature destroys the conjugal unity, and thus nullifies the matrimonial covenant, making them twain again, the divorcement being but a recognition of the fact that their matrimonial unity, being destroyed, is now null and void.<\/p>\n c. Apostasion, divorcement, is the word which, slightly modified, has been transferred to the English language; i.e., apostasy. Consequently you readily apprehend the meaning of a divorce. Just as, apostasy takes the soul out of the kingdom of God back into the dominion of Satan, so the Scriptural divorce takes your body out of the matrimonial covenant and puts it back in the realm of celibacy; i.e., the divorce so utterly rescinds the nuptial alliance as to return both parties into celibacy.<\/p>\n d. The States are all filled up with unlawful divorces, the civil government granting them for a diversity of causes other than the one specified by the Savior. Of course, all such divorces are null and void, the parties standing in the sight of God as if they had never been given.<\/p>\n e. Of course, the design of the divorce is the relief and protection of the innocent party. But as you can not have a marriage without two, the same is true in reference to divorcement. Consequently the legal divorce affects the guilty along with the innocent. You say it is not right, as he is in no way entitled to it. The admission of your premise does not change the conclusion. Many dark sins never receive their just retribution in this life. The man who overtly violates the matrimonial covenant in order to get a divorce, must meet God, and account for the dark crime, not only of adultery, but perjury. Turn him over to God. He is certain to give him justice.<\/p>\n f. We should be very careful not to grieve those whom God has not grieved. I find the Lords people, in many localities in my travels, grieved, afflicted, snubbed, ostracized, and in some cases publicly denounced, on the charge of having two living wives or two living husbands, when really the parties have been Scripturally divorced from their former consorts before marrying the latter. This is unjust. If you are Scripturally divorced, she is no longer your wife, or he is no longer your husband. Consequently it is not true that he has two living wives, or that she has two living husbands.<\/p>\n g. In my extensive travels I meet all sorts of matrimonial complexities, which bring me to my knees before God, that He may give me-light to answer the complicated questions propounded by the good and sincere people, who are anxious to do the will of God and get to heaven: e.g., men and women who during the unsaved period of their lives, got married and separated, receiving civil, but unscriptural, divorcement; then, marrying others, have families of children, homes, and a diversity of domestic interests. Meanwhile they have been converted to God, are Church members, and frequently professors of sanctification. I have found them much disturbed over this problem, preachers and prominent saints having told them that they ought to separate. now, before God and the judgment- bar, let me warn you to slowly, lest the last error be worse than the first. If it is your duty to administer temporal support to a former companion from whom you illegally separated, be sure that you satisfy your conscience when, on your knees, you tell God all about it. You see in these Scriptures that Moses granted a divorcement on account of the hardness of their hearts; i. e., when they fell out, and could not live together in peace. Under the new dispensation of-entire sanctification, the normal attitude of the gospel Church contemplates the removal of all of these evil tempers, so there is no need of a divorce.<\/p>\n h. Though we are not under the dispensation of Moses, I am sorry to say that the rank and file of the Church, both clergy and laity, are there to-day. This is evinced in the fact that they neither preach, seek, nor enjoy full salvation, which is the standard of the New Testament Church. Now, I assure you the Mosaic dispensation is a million times better than that of the devil. Therefore, if your matrimonial relations are not fully up to the New Testament standard, you can fall back and live in the dispensation of Moses. But be sure that you go on your knees, and settle all this matter before God, who, in infinite mercy, requires no impossibilities. Perhaps there are matters in your past life which it is impossible for you to rectify. Then turn it all over to God, and put it under the blood. Do the best you can, and where impossibilities intervene, your blessed Heavenly Father will take the will for the deed, and in the end say, Well done. Be sure you do nothing rashly, and without the triple illumination of heaven through Gods Word, Spirit, and providence.<\/p>\n Jesus’ instruction about marriage 10:2-12 (cf. Matthew 19:3-12)<\/span><\/p>\n This teaching grew out of the Pharisees’ attempt to trap Jesus. The incident occurred in Perea, Herod Antipas’ territory. Perhaps the Pharisees wanted to get Jesus to explain His view of divorce because they suspected it was the same as John the Baptist’s. John had lost his head literally because of his views on marriage. Probably Jesus’ critics hoped that He would also antagonize the Roman ruler with His views. The form of their question implied they thought that Jesus was against divorce for any reason.<\/p>\n The Pharisees all believed that the Old Testament permitted Jewish men to divorce their wives and to remarry (Deu 24:1-4). They disagreed among themselves on the grounds for divorce. Followers of Rabbi Shammai believed Moses meant the only ground was fornication, sexual sin. Rabbi Hillel’s disciples held that anything a wife did that displeased her husband constituted legitimate grounds for divorce.<\/p>\n And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? tempting him. 2. Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ] “for every cause?” as St Matthew adds (Mat 19:3). On this point the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai were … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 10:2”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
PLACEOn the farther side of the Jordan, near the borders of Judea.<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"