And the Pharisees coming to him asked him, tempting him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?
και προσελθοντες φαρισαιοι οι φαρισαιοι επηρωτησαν αυτον ει εξεστιν ανδρι γυναικα απολυσαι πειραζοντες αυτον
8 Church Fathers comment on this verse
Observe how they tested the Lord in their malicious intent, seeking to prevent the people from believing in Him. Each time they approached Him, they aimed to humiliate Him and challenge Him with their inquiries. They posed a question that trapped Him between two dire choices: "Is it lawful," they asked, "for a man to divorce his wife?" Whether He stated it was acceptable or declared it was not, they believed they could charge Him with opposing the Law of Moses.
Matthew narrates that once Jesus had completed His teachings, He departed from Galilee and journeyed to the region of Judea, alongside the Jordan River. A multitude followed Him, and there He performed healings. The Pharisees approached Him to test Him, asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” Jesus further commented, “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Mark also recounts this event in a similar order.
It is important to examine whether there is apparent inconsistency regarding the Pharisees' response to Jesus about the permission to issue a certificate of divorce. In Mark, they claim, “Moses permitted it,” while in Matthew, in response to Jesus’ directive grounded in the law—that what God has united, man should not separate—the Pharisees ask about the commandment of Moses, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus responded by rebuking them, stating that Moses permitted divorce due to the hardness of their hearts, indicating that it was not intended that way from the beginning. Mark includes this response directly after the question concerning divorce.
The order or wording in which we receive these accounts does not affect their authenticity. The crucial aspect lies in the dialogue between the Pharisees and the Lord, who prohibited divorce, citing the divine institution of marriage established by God. Whether they referenced the letter of divorce from the same Mosaic law or used that authorization to challenge Jesus’ prohibition, the Lord aimed to clarify why Moses allowed divorce. This intention is reflected in Mark's portrayal. Meanwhile, the Pharisees sought to force Jesus into a contradiction with Moses’ allowance for divorce, which they believed was a fixed point of law, thereby trying to provoke Him into denying it.
Their objective is articulated in Matthew’s account, wherein it is the Pharisees who mention the Mosaic commandment to confront the Lord regarding His disallowance of divorce. The differing intentions of those speaking, along with the purpose behind their words, are made evident by both gospel writers. The distinct narratives employed by each do not lead either away from the truth.
The debate may have unfolded in this manner: Mark starts with Jesus inquiring about the permissibility of divorce by asking the Pharisees, "What did Moses command you?" They claimed that Moses authorized the issuance of a certificate and the subsequent dismissal of a wife. In response, Jesus, as recorded by Matthew, quoted from the very scripture given by Moses, reminding them of God’s original design for marriage: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” The Pharisees then rephrased their initial answer as a question: “What did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce?” Jesus warned them that the reason behind Moses’ allowance was their hard-heartedness. Mark encompasses these admonitions succinctly, even though they serve to refute the Pharisees’ repeated argument, as detailed by Matthew. Nevertheless, this does not undermine the integrity of the account, as Jesus’ precise reply to their claim remains intact, despite the Pharisees reiterating their point.
After facing a series of probing inquiries, the Pharisees sought His approval to pose yet another contentious question: Is divorce allowable? The prominent rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai approached this issue in contrasting ways. Hillel permitted divorce for any minor transgression, while Shammai advocated for a more stringent view. The Lord presented His own resolution, rooted in the fundamental and natural law governing marriage. He affirmed that divorce should not take place except on grounds of infidelity. What God has united, let no man separate. When challenged with the question, ‘How did Moses permit divorce?’ He explained that this allowance was made due to the people's inability to uphold the original law.
This perspective, considering the limited understanding of the indissolubility of marriage at that time, appeared overly rigorous even to His disciples, who later inquired at home (Mk. 10) if they had comprehended His teaching correctly. After receiving confirmation that the Lord recognized only one valid reason for divorce—infidelity—they expressed their belief that it might be better not to marry at all. However, the Lord responded that He could not impose such a requirement upon everyone. Nevertheless, anyone who, whether by natural inclination or personal choice, chooses to remain unmarried in service to the Kingdom of God is bestowed with the gift of celibacy by divine grace and is called to uphold fidelity to this calling.
The inquiry from the Pharisees, “Is it lawful for a husband to dissolve his marriage with his wife for any reason,” posed a challenge for Christ. This was particularly provocative given that Herod Antipas, implicated by John the Baptist for his immoral relationship with his brother's wife, was in power at that time, and the Pharisees anticipated a response from Christ that would be evasive rather than a blunt rejection of the notion of divorce. If He denied its permissibility, He would contradict His own teachings (Matt. 5:31-32). Additionally, there was significant debate among the rabbinical scholars, with some claiming that divorce could occur for any reason while others restricted it to cases of infidelity.
Thus, no matter how Christ responded, He seemed bound to conflict with established beliefs (Matt. 5:31-32).
Furthermore, the Pharisees recognized that while Christ maintained that divorce was only acceptable in cases of adultery, the Mosaic Law allowed for divorce without specific restrictions, only requiring the issuance of a written certificate (Deut. 24:1). The Gospel writers present Christ’s responses in a similar manner, differing mainly in the order of His statements. In Matthew’s account, Christ first refers to the divine intentions regarding marriage from the Garden of Eden before addressing the Mosaic provisions. Conversely, Mark depicts Christ as initially prompting His questioners to declare the Mosaic directive about divorce, then explaining its purpose before reverting to the creation narrative.
The foundation of Christ’s argument rests upon His reference to God’s design in Eden. The Creator established a bond between one man and one woman (Gen. 1:27), illustrating the principle that marriage is intended to be a permanent union. This truth is underscored by a direct command from God: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
The Pharisees approached Him, attempting to test Him with the question, “Is it permissible for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” In His response, Jesus taught about marriage, divorce, and celibacy, specifically addressing the inquiries posed by the Pharisees and later by His disciples. These discussions led to His explanations regarding the permanence of marriage and the concept of celibacy. He clarified that marriage is fundamentally indissoluble, and while He acknowledged the allowance for divorce in cases of adultery, as noted in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:31-32), He firmly opposed the Jewish practice that permitted men to cast aside wives they no longer favored at will. Therefore, Christ affirmed the sanctity of marriage and recognized divorce solely in the context of infidelity.
The narrative of Christ’s interaction with the Pharisees regarding the holiness of marriage closely resembles that found in Matthew, though the articulation of the dialogue is presented with some variation. Certain phrases are restructured; however, this does not impact the core message (cf. Matt. 19:1-12). The inquiry posed was centered around the permissibility of divorce, specifically regarding the phrase “for any reason” (Matthew 19:3). The question of whether divorce is permitted held no real significance for the Pharisees, as the Law of Moses clearly allowed for divorce under specific circumstances. In Matthew’s account, the Lord’s response initially addresses the divine intent for the marital relationship in Eden before discussing its implications under Mosaic law.
Conversely, Mark’s account begins by noting the Mosaic law before referring back to the creation ordinance. Ultimately, both Gospel writers capture Christ’s message succinctly while remaining faithful to its essence. Despite the variations in details that are not fundamental, both accounts communicate the Lord’s teachings with considerable fidelity, reflecting a shared understanding that transcends the specific wording.
Is it allowed for a husband to separate from his wife?
The Pharisees were clearly anticipating the arrival of the Divine Teacher, and upon his presence, they approached him with a challenging inquiry, aiming to ensnare him with the question, "Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for any reason?" The rabbinical views on this matter were significantly divided, leading followers of one perspective to openly scorn those of the opposing view. According to the teachings of Hillel, a man could end his marriage for trivial reasons, while the more stringent interpretation of Shammai permitted divorce only in instances of unfaithfulness by the wife. Consequently, any answer given by the Lord would provoke animosity from the proponents of the opposing stance.
Additionally, the task the Pharisees sought to present to the Lord was further complicated by the established Gospel principle of the indissolubility of marriage articulated in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:32). If he were to claim that divorce was permissible, critics could justifiably ask him, “Why did you teach differently previously?” Conversely, if he reiterated his earlier statements, they could counter him with the law of Moses, which allowed for a husband to issue a certificate of divorce if his wife was found lacking in favor, as it states in Deuteronomy 24:1.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 12 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS