Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
Mathew gives a fuller description of the question asked, namely is it lawful to divorce for any reason. This apparently reflected a contemporary debate between the school of Shammai (conservative) and the school of Hillel (liberal).
I am just wondering what we are to make of the "ommission" of this detail in Mark 10. Read by itself it does seem to take a much harder line on divorce than the fuller account in Mathew.
Is it an ommission? Is it possible to fully understand Mark's account without reference to Mathew? Yes we have to take all of scripture into account, but we also need to understand each text in context - including Marks briefer account.
I am just wondering what we are to make of the "ommission" of this detail in Mark 10. Read by itself it does seem to take a much harder line on divorce than the fuller account in Mathew.
Is it an ommission? Is it possible to fully understand Mark's account without reference to Mathew? Yes we have to take all of scripture into account, but we also need to understand each text in context - including Marks briefer account.