Nick Scolaro

Critical Review of William L. Lane, The Commentary on the Gospel of Mark.

In The Commentary on the Gospel of Mark a great deal of issues about MK 10:1-12 are brought up by the author, William L. Lane, that many other authors I have read never touched on. Lane examines all of the prevalent key subjects such as the placement of the telling of the story, and the marriage of Antipas and Herodias. The uniqueness of this commentary though is the depth he goes into with some of the subjects.

In v. two, Lane mentions what "something shameful" means according to the two schools of Hillel and Shammai just as other authors have. Lane links this action of the test from the Pharisees and Jesus' placement in Perea. He states that Jesus was being tempted only to be seen as John the Baptist was when he was killed by the emperor; as a threat to the emperor. He supports his argument by referencing MK 3:6 and 12:13 where MK mentions more explicitly the intentions of the Pharisees.

Verse 5 of the pericope is when Jesus tells the Pharisees why Moses permitted divorce. I want to mention this discussion in Lane's commentary not because it is extremely cutting - edge but because I disagree with the entire verse, both in it's originality and interpretation to modern scholasticism. Lane says ". . . he was using an established legal category of actions allowed out of consideration for wickedness or weakness." Lane further goes on to say that Moses was choosing a "lesser of two evils" when he gave the law. I think what Lane says about this part of the pericope is not bad but also not correct.

(Not being a noted Biblical scholar, my opinion on this subject should be taken with a grain of salt.) I have a suspicion that Mark added in the verses about the story where the Pharisees ask Jesus about Moses and Jesus' response. The part of the story is unique to MK which is not completely uncommon throughout the Gospels but it is noteworthy. There are two main reasons why I have this thought. The first is that Mark knew his audience well enough to know that they were remotely versed in the teachings of Moses. The second reason is because Moses was much smarter than Jesus is giving him credit for. Moses knew what he said and he was not being unclear as Jesus is presupposing.

Because the audience knew the Torah and the many commandments, they may question this teaching themselves. It is natural to question law in a society and this is one that may come about. Having Jesus address the possible question would give MK a way to combat it. MK had a job of trying to persuade his audience to believe what he is saying. His Gospel is new and unlike the Hebrew Scriptures so his authority was being questioned all the time. Putting these words in Jesus' mouth makes it easier to deal with this question.

The second reason I think that MK added the part of the story to the whole is because have never said this. Moses knew what he was talking about when he spoke. Heck, Moses was the one who went one - on - one with God at Zion! In all seriousness, I think that Moses was smart enough to be clear in his speech. Yes, he is unclear when we look at his words today and even in the late first century. The only reason why he seems to be unclear is because the audience was looking for a way to keep divorce laws the way they were. Jesus was being very radical by putting more restrictions on divorce and making more divorces sinful; it made many people very nervous. Many members of the audience probably had divorced and did not want to hear the news so they reverted to the vagueness of Moses. Moses said that a man could divorce his wife if she was doing something "indecent." What does indecent mean to each individual person? We will never know for sure, but Moses left it somewhat open ended to show that if the actions of a wife make her husband unhappy, he should have her leave him. I suppose that Moses would be upset by the many questions the Pharisees and the clarification they need. Later, in DT 24:5 Moses goes on to say that a man should not go away from his wife for any reason in the first year after marriage in order to make happiness flourish in his home. Here, he is probably wanting to show that a man and wife united are supposed to be joyful and loving. I am sure that Moses did not mean for the love to stop at the end of year but to continue forever. Because Moses supposes love continues forever in a marriage, he would not want one to divorce simply because she annoys him, as the school of Hillel would teach.

Lane notes that Jesus mentions the Pharisees are hard - hearted and he presupposes the "obligation of the original divine institution of marriage . . . and his pronouncement . . . is to obliterate the Mosaic tolerance [of divorce]." If Jesus recognizes the great obligation of the institution of marriage, so would Moses. Moses was not being unclear to his readers, he assumed they knew exactly what he meant. He is only unclear many years later, looking at it in a different culture, time, place, and setting.

In this commentary, Lane goes on to talk about the other verses contained in this pericope. His ideas throughout the rest of his commentary are not highly argumentative from my standpoint. Lane does do a nice job of relating this pericope closer to the creation narrative as well as other verses such as Ex. 21:14 where God's seriousness and "absolute command" is shown. Lane does an great justice to Jesus' Teachings on Marriage and Divorce.