Mark 10 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

1599then he, answering, said to them, "What did Moses command you people?" 10.4 So then1597(...continued)Can the question mean, "Does the husband have absolute authority over the wife,being able to send her away, or call her back to himself, at his whim or desire, with the wifehaving no rights in such matters?"Whenever the verb avpolu/sai, apolusai is translated as a technical legal termsignifying "to divorce," the implication is easily taken in our modern understanding that alegal process has been gone through; but it is much more likely that this question has to dowith an arbitrary, spur of the moment matter, in which an angry husband simply tells hiswife to "get out!", and then later, when his anger has subsided, tells her that she mayreturn.The infinitive is found in the Greek Bible at Tobit 3:13 (be released from the earth);Matthew 1:19 (Joseph plans to divorce Mary quietly); 15:32 (sending away a crowdhungry); 19:3, 7, 8 (parallel to Mark 10); Mark 10:2 (here), 4; Luke 23:20 (Pilate desires torelease Jesus); John 19:10, 12 (similar to Luke 23:20) and Acts 28:18 (the Romansdesired to release Paul because he was not guilty).1598The active participle peira,zontej, peirazontes is ambiguous. The verb peira,zein,peirazein is commonly used in two different senses: (1) "to test"; and (2) "to tempt," "tosolicit to evil." It is probably used here with this first meaning: the Separatists were"putting Jesus to the test" concerning a controversial aspect of his teaching. But it is alsoprobable that the Separatists were desiring to "ensnare" Jesus by their question, thus, in asense, "tempting" him, doing everything they could to make him take a wrong step thatwould get him into serious trouble with the Jewish authorities.Swete speculates that "They may have heard a rumor as to his view of the matterand wished to verify it, but it is unlikely that they hoped to draw him in a moment offorgetfulness into a denial of his earlier teaching...Rather they expected a negative reply,and were prepared to turn it to their own purposes. It might be used to excite the anger ofAntipas, who had put away his first wife and married again...More probably their intentionwas simply to place him in apparent opposition to Moses, who had permitted divorce." (P.215)Taylor holds that "The question whether it is right for a man to put away his wife ishostile and suggests that it was known or felt that on this issue the teaching of Jesus wasdistinctive." (P. 415)Lane agrees with Swete on this latter point, stating that "The question of thelawfulness of divorce and remarriage had been the immediate occasion for John theBaptist's denunciation of the conduct of Herod Antipas and Herodias (6:17-18) and had ledto his violent death. In Perea Jesus was within the Tetrarch's jurisdiction. The intentionbehind the question, apparently, was to compromise Jesus in Herod's eyes, perhaps inthe expectation that the Tetrarch would seize him even as he had John." (P. 354)887