Chapter LXII.—Of the Harmony Subsisting Between Matthew and Mark in the Accounts Which They Offer of the Time When He Was Asked Whether It Was Lawful to Put Away One’s Wife, and Especially in Regard to the Specific Questions and Replies Which Passed Between the Lord and the Jews, and in Which the Evangelists Seem to Be, to Some Small Extent, at Variance.

120. Matthew continues giving his narrative in the following manner: “And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, He departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan; and great multitudes followed Him; and He healed them there.616    [Augustin entirely ignores the most perplexing problem in the Gospel history, namely, the proper distribution of the matter peculiar to Luke and John, at this point in the narrative. The passages are: Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14 and John vii. 2-xi. 54. These events cover about six months, but Matthew and Mark omit all reference to them. The difficulty is all the greater, since Luke inserts in his narrative many things that evidently belong to an earlier period (e.g., chaps. xi. 14-xiii. 19). There are also peculiar difficulties connected with the chronology of John x. and xi.—R.] The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” And so on, down to the words, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”617    Matt. xix. 1–12. Mark also records this, and observes the same order. At the same time, we must certainly see to it that no appearance of contradiction be supposed to arise from the circumstance that the same Mark tells us how the Pharisees were asked by the Lord as to what Moses commanded them, and that on His questioning them to that effect they returned the answer regarding the bill of divorcement which Moses suffered them to write; whereas, according to Matthew’s version, it was after the Lord had spoken those words in which He had shown them, out of the law, how God made male and female to be one flesh, and how, therefore, those [thus joined together of Him] ought not to be put asunder by man, that they gave the reply, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” To this interrogation, also [as Matthew puts it], He says again in reply, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” There is no difficulty, I repeat, in this; for it is not the case that Mark makes no kind of mention of the reply which was thus given by the Lord, but he brings it in after the answer which was returned by them to His question relating to the bill of divorcement.

121. As far as the order or method of statement here adopted is concerned, we ought to understand that it in no way affects the truth of the subject itself, whether the question regarding the permission to write a bill of divorcement given by the said Moses, by whom also it is recorded that God made male and female to be one flesh,618    Gen. ii. 24. was addressed by these Pharisees to the Lord at the time when He was forbidding the separation of husband and wife, and confirming His declaration on that subject by the authority of the law; or whether the said question was conveyed in the reply which the same persons returned to the Lord, at the time when He asked them about what Moses had commanded them. For His intention was not to offer them any reason for the permission which Moses thus granted them until they had first mentioned the matter themselves; which intention on His part is what is indicated by the inquiry which Mark has introduced. On the other hand, their desire was to use the authority of Moses in commanding the giving of a bill of divorcement, for the purpose of stopping His mouth, so to speak, in the matter of forbidding, as they believed He undoubtedly would do, a man to put away his wife. For they had approached Him with the view of saying what would tempt Him. And this desire of theirs is what is indicated by Matthew, when, instead of stating how they were interrogated first themselves, he represents them as having of their own accord put the question about the precept of Moses, in order that they might thereby, as it were, convict the Lord of doing what was wrong in prohibiting the putting away of wives. Wherefore, since the mind of the speakers, in the service of which the words ought to stand, has been exhibited by both evangelists, it is no matter how the modes of narration adopted by the two may differ, provided neither of them fails to give a correct representation of the subject itself.

122. Another view of the matter may also be taken, namely, that, in accordance with Mark’s statement, when these persons began by questioning the Lord on the subject of the putting away of a wife, He questioned them in turn as to what Moses commanded them; and that, on their replying that Moses suffered them to write a bill of divorcement and put the wife away, He made His answer to them regarding the said law which was given by Moses, reminding them how God instituted the union of male and female, and addressing them in the words which are inserted by Matthew, namely, “Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?” and so on. On hearing these words, they repeated in the form of an inquiry what they had already given utterance to when replying to His first interrogation, namely the expression, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” Then Jesus showed that the reason was the hardness of their heart; which explanation Mark brings in, with a view to brevity, at an earlier point, as if it had been given in reply to that former response of theirs, which Matthew has passed over. And this he does as judging that no injury could be done to the truth at whichever point the explanation might be introduced, seeing that the words, with a view to which it was returned, had been uttered twice in the same form; and seeing also that the Lord, in any case, had offered the said explanation in reply to such words.

CAPUT LXII. Quando interrogatus est utrum liceat dimittere uxorem, quemadmodum inter se consentiant Matthaeus et Marcus, maxime de ipsis interrogationibus vel Domini vel Judaeorum atque responsis, in quibus videntur aliquantulum variare.

120. Sequitur Matthaeus, ita narrans: Et factum est, cum consummasset Jesus sermones istos, migravit a Galilaea, et venit in fines Judaeae trans Jordanem: et secutae sunt eum turbae multae, et curavit eos ibi. Et accesserunt ad eum Pharisaei, tentantes eum, et dicentes: Si licet homini dimittere uxorem suam quacumque ex causa, etc., usque ad illud ubi ait, Qui potest capere capiat (Id. XIX, 1-12). Hoc et Marcus commemorat, eumdem ordinem tenens (Marc. X, 1-12). Sane videndum est, ne repugnare videatur, quod idem Marcus a Domino dicit interrogatos Pharisaeos, quid eis Moyses praeceperit, atque ita illos interroganti respondisse de permisso sibi libello repudii: cum Matthaeus dixerit verbis Domini, quibus ostenderat ex Lege Deum conjunxisse masculum et feminam, et propterea non eos debere ab homine separari, illos retulisse responsionem, Quid ergo Moyses mandavit dari libellum repudii, et dimittere? Quibus iterum ait, Quoniam Moyses ad duritiam cordis vestri permisit vobis dimittere uxores vestras: ab initio autem non sic fuit. Nam et Marcus hanc Domini responsionem non tacet, sed posteaquam ei responderunt interroganti de libello repudii.

121. In quo ordine vel modo verborum hoc intelligere debemus, ad rei veritatem nihil interesse utrum Domino separationem prohibenti et sententiam suam de Lege firmanti, ipsi intulerint quaestionem de libello repudii per eumdem Moysen sibi permisso, per quem et illud scriptum est, quod Deus conjunxerit masculum et feminam (Gen. II, 24); an hoc idem illi de praecepto Moysi eos interroganti responderint. Nam et voluntas ejus ita se habebat, ut non eis redderet 1136 rationem cur illud Moyses permiserit, nisi prius ipsi hoc commemorassent; quae voluntas ejus, ea quam Marcus posuit, interrogatione significata est: et illorum voluntas ipsa erat, ut de auctoritate Moysi, quoniam mandavit darili bellum repudii, tanquam concluderent eum separationem sine dubio vetaturum; hoc enim dicturi etiam tentantes accesserant. Quae voluntas eorum sic expressa est per Matthaeum, ut non eos esse commemoraret interrogatos, sed ultro intulisse de mandato Moysi, quo velut convincerent Dominum separationem conjugum prohibentem. Cum ergo voluntas loquentium, cui debent verba servire, ab Evangelista utroque monstrata sit, nihil interest quam diversus inter ambos fuerit narrandi modus, dum ab eadem veritate neuter abscederet.

122. Potest etiam hoc intelligi, quod, sicut dicit Marcus, prius eos de uxore dimittenda interrogantes Dominus vicissim interrogaret, quid eis praeceperit Moyses: qui cum respondissent, Moysen permisisse libellum repudii scribere, et dimittere, respondit eis de ipsa Lege per Moysen data, quomodo Deus instituerit conjugium masculi et feminae, dicens ea quae ponit Matthaeus, id est, Non legistis quia qui fecit ab initio, masculum et feminam fecit eos, et caetera. Quibus auditis illi id quod ei primo interroganti responderant, repetiverunt, dicentes, Quid ergo Moyses mandavit dari libellum repudii, et dimittere? Tunc Jesus causam ostendit esse duritiam cordis ipsorum, quam Marcus brevitatis causa prius ponit, tanquam illi priori, quam Matthaeus intermisit, eorum responsioni redditam; nihil deperire judicans veritat, quocumque loco eisdem ipsis verbis quae bis dixerant redderetur, quoniam ipsis verbis eam reddiderat Dominus.