Adultery - Matt 19:1-9; Mark 10:1-12

I’m not really sure about the time line of everything and where Jesus goes, in fact I should probably find a map of some sort that details his travels so that I can follow the time line. Jesus and his disciples, presumably, leave Galilee and “came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.” This large crowd attracts the attention of none other than the Pharisees, which I would assume were those Pharisees who were local to that part of the country; I can’t imagine that a group of Pharisees would follow Jesus around just so they could heckle him. The Pharisees bring up the topic of marriage, which other Pharisees have brought up before, whether these two groups knew about the previous conversations or not, I’m not sure.

Matthew explains the question put forth to Christ saying, “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” I want to first note the difference in writing styles between the authors of the gospels, contrasting Matthew’s statement with Mark’s statement of the same situation. Mark says, “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? Tempting him.” Matthew indicates the Pharisees motivation before the question, but Mark puts it at the end.

Also the answers are recorded differently, with Matthew recording a long 3 verse response where Jesus expounds the creation in which God, “at the beginning made them male and female.” He emphasizes the commitment that one must make to his wife, that they become “one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The Pharisees then counter with “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” In Mark accounts the same question but given by Jesus instead of the Pharisees, and in place of the lengthy explanation of the purpose of creation. In Mark’s record Jesus answers the Pharisees question with “What did Moses command you?”

There are a couple of reasons that this is significant. First it indicates that there were two distinct writers. The writing styles are different, the phraseology is different, and Mark’s recounting of the incident is void of many details that would have stood out in the mind of someone who actually witnessed the exchange first hand. This corroborates what the IM tells us of Mark not being “among the original disciples of Jesus Christ, but he later converted, became an assistant to the Apostles Peter, and wrote his gospel based on what he learned from Peter.” Another reason why this is important is because Matthew’s account shows Jesus linking his answer to the earliest and therefore purest aspects of the gospel. By not deferring to Moses as the ultimate authority, he’s placing his words at the forefront of what is to be done. Mark’s recording of Jesus’ answer as asking what Moses taught implies that the end all be all of religious authority is the law of Moses, and we know that Christ has come to make a new law. This is like the taking the letter of the law as instituted by Moses and commanding the spirit of the law as instituted by the Savior.

Referring to Matthew’s account, it’s interesting the wording used there because I just so happened to be listening to the December 2017 Ensign article entitled, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: A Refuge and Protection,” where Getulio Walter Jagher e Silva comments, “We are protected as we are faithful in marriage. The Lord promises us that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage can be eternal. This doctrine of exaltation is a refuge from the relationship falsehoods that plague our world… President Spencer W. Kimball explained the all-encompassing nature of this commandment: ‘When the Lord says all thy heart, it allows for no sharing nor dividing nor depriving… The words none else eliminate everyone and everything. The spouse then becomes preeminent in the life of the husband or wife, and neither social life nor occupational life nor political life not any other interest not person nor thing shall ever take precedence over the companion spouse.’ To be protected from the attacks of the enemy, our eyes and hearts should be turned only to our spouse and to the Lord. We must not permit our eyes to wander or desire someone other than our spouse. We need to lock our hearts and minds to be protected from that temptation. This is the Lord’s recipe for success in marriage.”

This concept has caused me to reflect to the time when I was married. I loved being married, especially in the beginning. It never occurred to me to look for anyone else, it wasn’t even an option. I guess I could liken it to eating rocks, eating rocks is not an option for me so it never even crosses my mind. I’m married, dating someone else or looking for another man is not an option so it’s completely off my radar. But it’s really interesting to watch someone devolve into an adulterer. It’s really something I can’t even describe and this train of thought has really upset me, thinking about the downfall of my own marriage to a man that I genuinely loved and a relationship that I really worked hard to preserve. The last year has been interesting because my work schedule has been chill that I’m not running around crazy and I’m able to decompress a little bit. This is the first time in my life that I haven’t been in survival mode, and with this extra freedom of resources, I feel like I’m finally being able to grieve, grieve for everything, and I’m tired. My favorite definition of grief is “love with no where to go.”

Anyway, I’m moving on because this is depressing to me and I don’t want to think about that anymore. The Pharisees are waiting for Jesus to contradict the Law of Moses so that they can accuse him of blasphemy, and have him executed. Jesus answers their question by explaining the law of Moses instead of contradicting it. He tells them that Moses gave them the law of divorcement because “of the hardness of your hearts… but from the beginning it was not so.” He’s keeping the authority by citing the “beginning” but he’s also putting the condemnation back on the men who divorced because of “hard hearts.” Jesus gives the only reason allowable for divorce as “fornication,” though I don’t believe that he would force abusers to be excused in their actions. Thinking about it, do those who abuse their spouse and children usually also cheat? In my experience, yes, not always but most of the time, so this allows a divorce to be initiated for fornication which is evidence based and definitive, instead of abuse which can sometimes be subjective. Anyone who divorces because of any reason other than cheating, “committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Like His teachings on divorce in Luke, Jesus is putting the responsibility and sin directly on the shoulders of the men, who control the marriage and divorce decisions in this ancient culture.