Marcos 10
R.C.H. Lenski · Citado em PreceptAustin
Marcos 10
Lenski - These Pharisees who approach him in Perea are of the same type and temper as those he encountered in Galilee and in Jerusalem, they are entirely hostile to Jesus and bent on ruining him. So their object is not to obtain an answer to this question but to tempt him to make a pronouncement that shall discredit him. (See The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel - Page 414) Danny Akin - The Pharisees in that day, for the most part, followed Rabbi Hillel, made divorce easy and wanted it to stay that way. So they come to Jesus “to test Him” (v. 2). Jesus was, therefore, thrust into a debate like many of us are today. The Pharisees wanted to talk about divorce, but Jesus wanted to talk about marriage and God’s divine blueprint. (Jesus, The Bible, Divorce and Remarriage) 1. The more conservative school followed Rabbi Shammai and said the only ground for divorce was adultery (sexual immorality). 2. The more liberal school followed Rabbi Hillel and said divorce could be granted for “any indecency.” Some Pharisees (pharisaios) came up to Jesus, testing Him - Came up pictures them as coming forward from among the crowd to face Jesus. "Seeking to entrap Him" (Weymouth), "with a design to ensnare him." (Norton) The idea of the verb testing is “to put to the test for the purpose of discovering what good or evil, of power or weakness is in a person or thing.” This is the second time Mark mentions the Pharisees coming to Jesus for the purpose of testing Him (present tense indicating this was a continual attempt to ensnare Him) the first time in Mark 8:11+ by "seeking from Him a sign from Heaven." So as in the first "testing," they were not interested in what He thought, but were only out to trap Him. Testing (3985)(peirazo from the noun peira = test from peíro = perforate, pierce through to test durability of things; cf dokimazo & peirasmos) is a morally neutral word simply meaning “to test”. Whether the test is for a good (as it proved to be in Heb 11:17) or evil (Mt 4:1 "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil") depends on the intent of the one giving the test and also on the response of the one tested. To endeavor to discover the nature or character of something by testing. (2Co 13:5, 1Cor 10:13+) This use can refer to a trial of God by humans, the intent being to put God to the test, to discover whether God really can do a certain thing. Swete says: “With the resumption of the public teaching the Pharisees return to the attack.… But their present attitude marks an advance; for the first time they venture to test the Teacher’s orthodoxy by a leading question.” Kenneth
Marcos 10
Lenski - In order to understand the question they asked we should know that already before the time of Jesus the schools of Shammai and of Hillel (see Wikipedia article; see also note below) differed on the interpretation of Deut. 24:1 (ED: SEE NOTE BELOW). Shammai said: “The man is not to release his wife except he have found something indecent in her.”...Hillel allowed as a charge (ED: OF "something indecent") that in cooking the wife had burned her husband’s food; and Rabbi Akiba, using from Deut. 24:1 the words, “that she find no favor in his eyes,” (ED: BUT THIS TOOK THAT PHRASE OUT OF CONTEXT AND AGAIN MADE IT A PROOF-TEXT! NOTE HOW THE NET TRANSLATES IT = "she does not please him because he has found something offensive in her" ESV ALSO CLEARLY LINKS "NO FAVOR" WITH THE FINDING OF SOME INDECENCY = " if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her") allowed her to be released whenever the husband found a better-looking woman. Shammai was stricter, Hillel utterly lax. The Pharisees are laying Hillel’s teaching before Jesus. This is clearer in Matthew’s account which reports the question as: “Is it lawful to release one’s wife for every charge,” for any and every reason the man may allege? Since it is easier to be lax than to be strict, to go downhill than to go up, Hillel was followed by the Jews; and Josephus, Antiquities 4, 8, 23, writes: “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever—and many such causes happen among men—let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her again as his wife any more, for by these means she may be at liberty to marry another husband although before this bill of divorce be given she is not to be permitted to do so.” So the question is whether Jesus agrees with Hillel’s exposition of Deut. 24:1. (See The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel - Page 414) Hiebert adds that "this absolute formulation of the question (was lawful for a man to divorce a wife) implies that they suspected Jesus was opposed to divorce under all circumstances; their question invited Jesus to commit Himself with a categorical yes or no. Either answer would be sure to arouse opposition and diminish His influence. The question was a test of His orthodoxy: if He opposed divorce, He would prove Himself to be in collision with the Mosaic legislation in Deuteronomy 24:1–4. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary)
Marcos 10
Lenski explains that test Him "means that they tried to make him compromise himself in some way. If, for instance, he should agree with Hillel and the common Jewish practice, the Pharisees would side with Shammai and would reproach Jesus with moral laxity. If he sided with Shammai who contended that only actual shameful conduct could be a cause for divorce Jesus would be reproached for his own friendly treatment of sinners. Either choice would also involve Jesus in the Jewish party dispute. If, however, as the Pharisees most likely expected, Jesus should reject both Hillel and Shammai and declare himself against all divorce, they could charge him with even contradicting the law as stated in Deut. 24:1. The Pharisees were sure that they had a question which Jesus could not answer without great hurt to himself. (See Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, Chapters 15-28 - Page 728) Rabbinic Teachings on Divorce Deuteronomy 24:1 was generally accepted as a statement of legal procedure for divorce, but there were two rabbinic schools that held opposite and extreme views on reasons for divorce. The school of Hillel believed that a man could divorce his wife for almost any reason: spoiling the food, dancing in the streets, talking with a strange man, letting her husband hear her speak disrespectfully about her in-laws, being a loud-mouthed, brawling woman. One rabbi even extended the reason for divorce as being adequate if the husband should find someone he liked better than his wife. In contrast, the school of Shammai gave adultery as the only reason for divorce. Life Application Study Bible note - The Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus with their question. If he supported divorce, he would be upholding the Pharisees' procedures, and they doubted that he would do that. If Jesus spoke against divorce, however, some members of the crowd would dislike his position; some may have even used the law to their advantage to divorce their wives. More important, he might incur the wrath of Herod, who had already killed John the Baptist for speaking out against divorce and adultery (Mark 6:17-28). This is what the Pharisees wanted. The Pharisees saw divorce as a legal issue rather than a spiritual one. Jesus used this test as an opportunity to review God's intended purpose for marriage and to expose the Pharisees' selfish motives. They were not thinking about what God intended for marriage and were quoting Moses unfairly and out of context. Jesus showed these legal experts how superficial their knowledge really was. (See NLT Life Application Study Bible - Page 1683) Question - What were the Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law? Answer: Shammai and Hillel were two influential Jewish rabbis whose commentaries on the Torah shaped Jewish theology and philosophy for hundreds of years. The Shammaite and Hillelite schools were the two dominant approaches to Jewish Law during the years of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Unfortunately, the destruction of the temple in AD 70 resulted in the loss of most records relating to the debates between these two groups. The Hillelite school quickly gained dominance after the temple was razed, so much of what we know about first-century Hillelite and Shammaite law comes exclusively from later Hillelite writers. These writers portray the Shammaite-Hillelite divide in a manner similar to modern two-party politics, with each side seemingly bound and determined to contradict the other on everything. According to tradition, Shammai was a Pharisee who taught in the years just prior to Jesus’ birth. In his commentary on the Law, he emphasized the need for temple rituals, and his interpretation is characterized as strict, literalist, and Israel-centric. The school that followed those interpretations is referred to as the Shammaite interpretation of Jewish Law. Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Shammai, was less concerned with temple worship. His commentary is seen as being more liberal, tolerant, and accepting of Gentiles. Hillel was also known for codifying traditional patterns for exegesis into seven individual rules. His Hillelite school was a rival to the Shammaite approach. After the destruction of the temple, the influence of the Shammaite school faded, and Hillel’s philosophy became the dominant approach to Jewish Law for more than 400 years. Scholars are unsure how many of the differences between the Shammaite and Hillelite schools are factual and how many are the products of revisionist history. While Jewish scholars prior to AD 70 make frequent reference to the disagreements between these two groups, the vast majority of surviving records are from Hillelite writers. It’s possible that the Hillelites exaggerated some of the differences between Shammai and Hillel in order to portray Hillel in a more heroic light. Even with such open questions, it’s clear that the interplay between Shammai and Hillel influenced Judaism during the early Christian era. The rivalry between the two schools greatly contributed to Judaism’s growing belief that the oral law—such as promoted in the Shammaite or Hillelite schools—was as authoritative as the written Torah. Some scholars debate which school, Shammaite or Hillelite, had a greater influence on the theology of the New Testament. Jesus’ restrictive rules on divorce echo those of Shammai, while Hillel allowed for a wider range of acceptable reasons to end a marriage. Jesus also phrased the “Golden Rule” using a more challenging, positive expression, in contrast to Hillel’s lighter, negative expression of the same basic idea. At the same time, Jesus was welcoming of non-Jewish people and often castigated the Pharisees for their excessive legalism. The fact is that Jesus presented the truth, and His agreement with either Shammai or Hillel was secondary and coincidental. Jesus spoke the Father’s Word, and His teaching cannot be seen as a defense of any rabbi (John 12:49). There is also an academic debate over the influence of Shammai and Hillel on the theology of the apostle Paul. On one hand, Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who came from the Hillelite school and might have even been Hillel’s grandson. But, prior to his conversion, Paul (Saul) was hardly a tolerant, Gentile-friendly Pharisee. Rather, in opposition to Gamaliel’s teaching, Paul took a severe stance. And in his letters Paul expresses an Israel-centric, all-or-nothing obedience to the Law (Romans 3:19–28; cp. James 2:10), which many scholars would identify more with Shammai. Of course, as he was writing inspired Scripture, Paul was not concerned with what rabbi might have had a past influence upon him; he was “carried along by the Holy Spirit” and wrote what the Spirit wanted (2 Peter 1:21). Ultimately, the differences between Shammaite and Hillelite interpretations of Jewish Law are more a matter of historical trivia than a major concern for Christianity. While their influence on Jewish theology might have been significant, the teachings of Shammai and Hillel are ultimately irrelevant against the contents of Scripture and the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. (Source: GotQuestions.org) Mark 10:3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" NET Mark 10:3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" NLT Mark 10:3 Jesus answered them with a question: "What did Moses say in the law about divorce?" ESV Mark 10:3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" NIV Mark 10:3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied. GNT Mark 10:3 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τί ὑμῖν ἐνετείλατο Μωϋσῆς; KJV Mark 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? YLT Mark 10:3 and he answering said to them, 'What did Moses command you?' ASV Mark 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? CSB Mark 10:3 He replied to them, "What did Moses command you?" NKJ Mark 10:3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" NRS Mark 10:3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" What: Isa 8:20 Lu 10:25 Joh 5:39 Ga 4:21 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: Matthew 19:7+ They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” JESUS ANSWERS WITH HIS OWN QUESTION R C H Lenski points out that "In Matthew the question about Moses (Mt 19:7) is placed after the exposition regarding the creation of man as male and female (Mt 19:4-6); Mark seems to have the true order. In Matthew the Pharisees raise the question about Moses, in Mark it is Jesus who does so. Mark follows the formal fact, Matthew intends to bring out the detail that this was a question that was always raised by the Pharisees. So in Mark’s account Jesus wants them to speak out on what they have to say about Moses. It was that one passage from Moses (Deut. 24:1) which they imagined decided the entire question. (Borrow The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel page 414) Hiebert notes that Jesus' "counter-question (ED: FOCUSING ON THE WORD OF GOD) was legitimate as at once pointing to the proper basis for any discussion of divorce. Not their hair-splitting rabbinical distinctions but the divine law must decide the answer....Jesus agreed with them in accepting the authority of the law, but He claimed the right to interpret its true meaning and to free it from rabbinical abuse." (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary) And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" - As Jesus often did when ask a question, He responded with a question. Is is worth noting that when engaging in conflict with His adversaries Jesus often appealed first to the written Word of God, a good pattern for all His disciples to seek to emulate. Note the phrase command you, which was directed at His questioners indicating they too must turn to the Word of God for the answer. As is described in more detail below, the Pharisees misinterpreted the command of Moses, as well as taking part of it out of context. Command (order)(1781)(entellomai from en = in, upon + tellomai = to accomplish) means to enjoin, charge, command, commission. The idea of commission recalls Jesus' last commissions - Mt 28:18-20 and Acts 1:8. Friberg on entellomai - (1) give orders to, command, enjoin (Mt 17.9); (2) commission, direct (Mk 13.34); (3) of a covenant ordain, make (Heb 9.20) Uses in Mark - Mk. 10:3; Mk. 13:34 Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY." NET Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her." NLT Mark 10:4 "Well, he permitted it," they replied. "He said a man can give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away." ESV Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." NIV Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." GNT Mark 10:4 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν, Ἐπέτρεψεν Μωϋσῆς βιβλίον ἀποστασίου γράψαι καὶ ἀπολῦσαι. KJV Mark 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. YLT Mark 10:4 and they said, 'Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put away.' ASV Mark 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. CSB Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses permitted us to write divorce papers and send her away." NKJ Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her." NRS Mark 10:4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her." De 24:1-4 Isa 50:1 Jer 3:1 Mt 1:19 5:31,32 19:7 Mark 10 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries TWISTING SCRIPTURE INTO A PROOF-TEXT Related Passages: Matthew 19:7+ They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” Matthew 5:31-32+ “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Deuteronomy 24:1-4+ “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance. Comment on some indecency from NET Note - Literally the Hebrew is "nakedness of a thing." The Hebrew phrase 'ervat davar refers here to some gross sexual impropriety (see also related note below on "indecent" in Deut 23:14). Though the term usually has to do only with indecent exposure of the genitals, it can also include such behavior as adultery (cf. Lev 18:6–18; 20:11, 17, 20–21; Ezek 22:10; 23:29; Hos 2:10). NOTE ON "INDECENT" in Deut 23:14 - Heb "nakedness of a thing"; NLT "any shameful thing." The expression 'ervat davar refers specifically to sexual organs and, by extension, to any function associated with them. There are some aspects of human life that are so personal and private that they ought not be publicly paraded. Cultically speaking, even God is offended by such impropriety (cf. Gen 9:22–23; Lev 18:6–12, 16–19; 20:11, 17–21). They said, "Moses permitted (epitrepo) a man TO WRITE (grapho) A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE (apostasion) AND SEND her AWAY." (apoluo) - They appeal to Moses to give the appearance of divine support for their liberal divorce customs. Ultimately they are seeking to put Jesus in conflict with Moses who was highly esteemed by the Jews. Note the word permitted which means he allowed them to do this (suffered them to do it). The idea of epitrepo is turned over to the Jews. Note it does not say Moses approved of the practice, nor does it say Moses condemned the practice. Notice also how the Pharisees pulled this text out of context to make a proof-text (see below)! In other words, the Pharisees conveniently omitted the section in Deut 24:1 which said "because he has found some indecency in her." They emphasized their "right" to divorce without mentioning the qualification Moses had stated. Note in Mt 19:7 the Pharisees say "Why then did Moses command..." and thus they appeal to Dt 24:1 to claim that Moses actually commanded divorce. That is not what the verse states! It only commands that a "certificate of divorce" being given by the man to the woman before he sends her away!
Marcos 10
Lenski - Looking around on them means that Jesus wanted to impress them deeply with what he was now saying. These words are not to be separated from the preceding narrative. Both treat of the way to salvation, the entrance into the kingdom of God, and both deal with one great obstacle to salvation, the love of riches. What appears in the narrative is more fully elucidated by the words addressed to the disciples. God alone is able to save the rich man. (See The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel - Page 439) How hard (duskolos) it will be for those who are wealthy (chrema) to enter the kingdom of God - The emphasis is on the word hard or "with difficulty." Wealthy is ‘they who have money’ Enter the kingdom of God in this context is equivalent to being saved or being born again. Worldly wealth blinds one to their heavenly need. Wealth is deceptive. Earlier Jesus explained in the parable of the soils that "And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful." (Mk 4:18-19+). No fruit, no root. No fruit, no evidence of salvation. It is hard for the wealthy to enter because they tend to trust in their own resources instead of God's free gift of salvation. David MacKenna - Wealth is a human value with a voracious appetite which binds a person to earth.” (See The Preacher's Commentary) D Edmond Hiebert - How hardly, “with what difficulty,” indicates that wealth does not automatically exclude one from the kingdom, but it does constitute a handicap....In him wealth revealed its power beyond most other things in life to work a deadly effect upon the will when a seeker is confronted with the demand to choose between it and the kingdom. He had made many noble choices, but when he was confronted with this crucial decision, his wealth showed its strong power to weaken his will to choose the highest good. ...Jesus did not envy the rich but rather pitied them. It put them under a terrible handicap in their relationship to the kingdom of God, making it hard for them to submit to His rule in simple trust. (The Gospel of Mark: An Expositional Commentary)