There is a question, to Jesus, whether a man can divorce his wife for any reason.
Shammai and Hillel are the pharisees school of thought at that time.
Hillel the liberal jew says that you can divorce your wife for any reason.
Shammai, the conservative nationalist jew, says that you cannot divorce your wife unless she commits adultery.
Jesus clearly side with Shammai here.
I think there is a bit of controversy there. As is the case Matthew 5:32 - (NASB) Cause Her to Commit Adultery vs. Makes Her a Victim (NIV)
Some gospel says a husband that divorce his wife commits adultery. Another gospel says that a husband that divorce his wife makes her wife commits adultery. It seems that the latter makes more sense given for those who think that adultery means having sex with someone else's wife. So if a guy divorce her wife, the divorce is "nulled" in the eyes of God. When his wife have sex with another guy she commits adultery. I wonder if that interpretation is even correct.
Jesus' followers quickly asks, in Matthew 19:10
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Why did the disciples ask that?
Is it because the disciples think that marriage is not necessary and hence why bother getting married?
It would be like asking, "Why not just cohabits? Why bother marrying?"
I found this to be strange. Unlike today, ancient marriage serves an important function, namely to give inheritance. Also just having sex outside marriage means STD.
Another interpretation is, "Why bother having sex." Jesus answer after that seems to address this issue. Jesus talks about eunuchs and stuffs. However, it also have problem. The disciples do not ask "Why f*ck?" The disciples ask, "Why get married?" Perhaps the word marriage and the word copulate is the same word in hebrew or something.
Jesus and his disciples are "essenes". I've heard those people abhor pleasure like sex. So that may explain why they effectively, "Why f*uck?"
Could this be true?
Okay what's the story? What's the background?
Actually I would like to know the background of Shammai's reasoning.