Gospel of Mark/Chapter 10:1-16/Commentary

The Gospel of Mark Chapter 10:1-16 10:1 “And rising up, He went from there to the region of Judea, and beyon the Jordan; and crowds were gathering around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them”: The statement, “beyond the Jordan” refers to the region east of the Jordan River, or Perea. After Jesus had stayed with Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38), He heard of the sickness of Lazarus, returned to Jerusalem, and then retired again (John 11:54). Between this retirement and the final entry into Jerusalem occur most of the events recorded between Luke 10:1 and Luke 18:14, and at the account of the Lord’s taking up and blessing the little children the three Synoptics again coincide (Matthew 19:13; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15) and substantially continue to do so to the end. The time is the last year of Jesus’ life on earth, 30 or 33 A.D., probably around March.

Jesus is apparently on the east side of the Jordan when the crowds reach Him. He may be now opposite Jericho, near the ford of the river where travelers crossed over. Many of these people may have been pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem.

“No wonder the crowds ‘again’ flock together unto Him, which recalls the days before Jesus withdrew to distant and generally lonely places” (Lenski p. 413).

Matthew notes that not only did Jesus teach, but He also healed them (Matthew 19:1-2).

1

10:2 “And some Pharisees came up to Him, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife”: Matthew adds, “for any cause”, that is, every cause satisfactory to the husband. Observe that this question was asked, not for the purpose of understanding God’s truth, but rather, for the purpose of trying to discredit Jesus. The law of divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 was not entirely plain in the minds of the Jewish teachers concerning the admissible grounds of complaint against the wife, and this uncertainty had occasioned endless discussion.

In the first century of the present era the Schools of Shammai and Hillel took opposite views of the Biblical text, Deuteronomy 24:1. The phrase “some unseemly thing” was interpreted by the School of Shammai to mean, “a man may not divorce his wife unless he discovered her to be unfaithful to him”. The School of Hillel, on the other hand, understood the phrase in the sense of “anything unseemly” and declared, “He may divorce her even if she spoil his cooking”. The more lenient opinion of Hillel had been adopted in the first century.

In addition, remember that Jesus is in the territory governed by Herod, whom John the Baptist had rebuked for his unlawful divorce and remarriage and lost his life in the process (Mark 6:17-18).

10:3 “And He answered and said to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’”: They had asked the question, “Is it lawful?”, and Jesus directs them back to the lawgiver. In addition, Jesus is forcing them to take a good hard look at what Moses actually did command in Deuteronomy 24. Many of the Jewish leaders were under the impression that Deuteronomy 24 sgave them permission to put away their wives for every cause.

10:4 “And they said, ‘Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away’”: In Matthew’s account they respond that Moses “commanded” such action (Matthew 19:7). Right here we learn something. They had a definite point of view concerning Deuteronomy 24. They interpreted what Moses had said as giving them a green light to divorce for every reason—just as long as the proper paper work was filed.

2

10:5 “But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment’: Jesus admits that Moses gave the regulation, but He does not view it as the definitive statement on the subject, and neither He agree that Moses gave them a green light for divorce for any cause. The statement, “because of your hardness of heart” means that their stubbornness and rebellion necessitated a law, which would control divorce and protect the wife who was being put away.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 24:1"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance” Observations  The “indecency” or “unseemly thing” in Deuteronomy 24 cannot be adultery, because in the book of Deuteronomy the adulteress is to be put to death (Deut. 22:22). Nor was the “indecency” a suspicion that adultery had occurred, for there was a test for that (Numbers chapter 5). Neither was it the suspicion that the woman one had married was not a virgin when one had married her (Deut. 22:13-21). Such legislation made it unnecessary under the law to have the provision that, in the cause of a mate’s adultery, the guilty partner could be put away, and the innocent could remarry without sin.  Notice that in Deuteronomy 24 God is not commanding men to divorce their wives, rather the verse reads, “when…”. This is legislation that controls something that happens, or anticipates a thing and then regulates 3









certain aspects of what has happened, compare Deuteronomy 24 with Exodus 21:18-36.

God is not commanding the man to divorce his wife, neither is He commanding that the wife remarry, the regulation that is given is found in 24:4, “then”, that is, the return of a divorced woman, after a subsequent marriage, to her first husband is forbidden.

According to Jesus, Moses wrote Deuteronomy 24 because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. If they had not been disregarding God’s revelation about marriage given in the beginning, there would have been no need for this passage. To make matters worse, the Jews interpreted the law in Deuteronomy 24 as meaning they could divorce a wife for any cause.

Some argue that Deuteronomy 24 is a law that was given to be used when the Jews found themselves under Roman rule and could not execute adulterers and adulteresses, yet Jesus did not agree. Jesus noted that the precise reason the law was given was because of the hardness of their hearts.

The Jews in their interpretation missed a very key word in Deuteronomy 24:4, the word “defiled”. Notice that the woman who was put away was “defiled” even if the second husband died. The woman was not defiled by the initial divorce, for the passage infers that the first husband could take her back if she did not remarry. Rather, what “defiled” her was that second marriage. This should have warned the Jewish men that their second marriages were just as defiling! In addition, statements such as “I hate divorce” (Malachi 2:16) should have made the Jews rethink their idea that God had given blanket approval to the practice of divorce.

10:6 “But from the beginning of creation”: Observe the word “from”. Jesus did not say, “at” the beginning it was not this way, but rather He said, “from the beginning”, inferring that God’s will on this matter has been unchanged since the garden of Eden. Some have tried to argue that the teaching in Genesis 2:24 only applied in the garden, but Jesus argues that this has been the will of God “from” the beginning and not merely “at” the beginning. Obviously, if this has been God’s will from the beginning, then this law applies to everyone, for the law in Genesis given before there was any Jew, Gentile, Christian, or non-Christian.

4

When the Jewish leaders asked about whether or not such was “lawful”, they completely ignored the fact that Moses had also written Genesis 2:24. This was as much “law” as Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

10:6 “God made them male and female”: Genesis 1:26 Jesus placed the creation of man “from the beginning of creation”. Billions or millions of years do not separate Genesis 1:1 from Genesis 1:26.

10:7 “For this cause”: The “cause” in Mark 10:6 is the fact that God created the human race into two genders and that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

This rules out the term “marriage” being applied to unions of two men or two women.

10:7 “A man shall leave his father and mother”: (Genesis 2:24). Obviously God’s law applied to others besides Adam and Eve seeing and Adam and Eve did not have a father and mother. Observe that God’s original law is “a man”, and “the two” (10:8). Polygamy was also something, like the divorces of Deuteronomy 24:1 that was tolerated because of the hardness of men’s hearts.

10:8-9 “And the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” The expression “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 infers that God joins men and women together, and consequently, if God joins them together this is not a relationship that is to be ended for “every cause”. In fact, it would infer that it could only be ended on God’s terms or conditions.

10:10 “And in the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again: The disciples have some questions about what Jesus just taught.

10:11 “And He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her”:

5

Matthew adds that there is one exception to this rule, that is sexual unfaithfulness on the part of the one being put away. One can put away their mate for the cause of sexual unfaithfulness and remarry without sin (Matthew 19:9).

Some people are uncomfortable with Mark 10:11-12 because it does not contain the phrase found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 “except it be for fornication”. This should not disturb us any more than the fact that Romans 7:2-3 allows remarriage after the death of a spouse, yet neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke include the “death clause”.

10:11 “Commits adultery against her”: From this some have argued that the adultery is “against” the first wife but not “with” the second wife. That adultery is not sexual in this verse, and is the one time sin of divorcing to remarry. The divorce and remarriage were “adultery” or sinful, but the actual marriage is not sinful.

Other passages clearly demonstrate that the adultery is both against the first wife and with the new mate. In Matthew 19:9 the adultery happens after one marries “another woman”. In Romans 7:3 one is called an adulteress when they are joined to “another man”. In addition, does this definition apply in other areas as well?

If a man is having an affair, is the adultery only against his wife and not with his girlfriend? If the adultery is not with his girlfriend then can he keep that relationship? The idea of “against her” means that this man has not only sinned against God (Psalm 51), and with his new wife (Matthew 19:9), but has also sinned against his first wife.

Definition of Adultery In order to prove that the adultery in Mark 10:11 and Matthew 19 is not “with” the new mate, it must be proven that the adultery in these passages is non-sexual and is the one time sin of divorcing to remarry.  Such an unusual definition does not fit the context. In Matthew 5:32 “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”, this “whoever” could be a single man. Here is someone who has not divorced anyone and yet is said to commit adultery, therefore, adultery in Matthew 5:32 cannot 6

   







be defined as the sin of divorcing to remarry. Note that this man does not commit adultery against some former mate, but in his new marriage.

In Matthew 5:32, the adultery is committed not by a woman who unlawfully divorces her husband and marries another, but by a woman who is unlawfully put away from her husband and marries another.

This new definition does not fit other uses of the term adultery such as Matthew 5:28 and John 8:4 “in the very act”.

This new definition, if it were true, would apply to Christians as well as nonChristians, meaning that Christians could divorce without Scriptural cause and remarry and remain in such marriages!

Lexicons do not agree with this definition: Thayer defines adultery as “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife” and lists Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 as examples (p. 417). This is seen in Matthew 5:28; John 8:4 and Hebrews 13:4, where adultery is mentioned as a specific violation of the marriage bed.

The tense of the term adultery in Matthew 5:32, 19:9 is the present tense, noting that the adultery is not a one-time act. Even Mark 10:11 reads “commits adultery against her”, that is, continues to as long as that second marriage exists. Note the next verse, Mark 10:12 “she is committing adultery”. This is also seen in Romans 7:2-3 where the woman is called an adulteress as long as the first husband liveth.

Even when the term adultery is used in a figurative sense (i.e. spiritual adultery) it never means that one can violate the will of God and then keep or remain in the particular violation. For example, idolatry is spiritual adultery or covenant breaking, but repentance demands in such a circumstance that one gives up idol worship. To argue that adultery is the one time sin of divorcing to remarry and yet one can remain in the new marriage is like saying that the spiritual adultery of idolatry is a one-time sin but one can keep the idols.

The Bible is clear that two married people can commit adultery with each other (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:12; Romans 7:3).

This is really the crux of the matter. If the adultery is a one-time act of divorcing to remarry, then this definition applies to everyone, Christian and non-Christian. If that is true then everyone can remain in whatever marriage they happen to be in, second, third, fourth, etc. The only thing they need to repent of is the sin of 7

divorcing to remarry, but should they do that again, they can stay in that particular marriage. However since the adultery is sexual (what the word means and what the passages reveal), and is continuous as the tense and Romans 7 reveals, then that marriage must cease for the adultery to cease. Even those who argue that adultery is a one time act concede the above point: “If one’s sexual activity in a second marriage following a divorce for a cause other than sexual immorality is adultery, then that practice (which for all practical purposes is to say, that marriage) must cease” (Rethinking Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, Jerry F. Bassett, pp. 96-97).

10:12 “And if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery” This verse distinctively enforces the idea of equal responsibility. The idea of the wife putting away the husband was not practiced by the Jewish people, but by Romans and other Gentiles. This tells us that the teaching of Mark 10 and Matthew 19 applied to everyone, Jew and Gentile. One writer notes, “If it is said that such a law works hardship in many cases, the answer is that all laws that are for the general good sometimes work hardship while sin continues. But the purity and the permanency of the family are worth so much to mankind that individuals may well afford to suffer hardship rather than contribute to the overthrow of so precious an institution” (Bible Study Textbook, p. 275).

Jesus Blesses the Children 10:13 “And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; and the disciples rebuked them”: “Why the disciples wanted to prevent the children from coming to Jesus is not stated. Perhaps they wanted to protect His privacy and shield Him from needless interruptions” (Gaebelein p. 713). Luke says that such “children” included “infants” (Luke 18:15); it is likely that this is a mixed group of children and babies. This action demonstrates that many people considered Jesus to be a very righteous individual. It is not unlikely that the parents, having observed Him lay His hands on the people He healed, would naturally consider it a special privilege for their children to be blessed by Him. 8

McGarvey notes that children were often brought to the presidents of the synagogue in order that they might pray over them. The prayers of a good man in our behalf have always been regarded as a blessing. It was customary to put the hand upon the person prayed for, probably following the patriarchal precedent (Genesis 48:14-15). Compare with Acts 6:6” (p. 541).

10:14 “But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant”: Anger does have a place in our lives. Jesus was indignant with anyone who thought that children were unimportant. “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”. How many children have been hindered by parents who were angry with God, unfaithful and inconsistent in their example, too selfish to serve God themselves, and too busy for their children?

How much of our present society is in effect hindering children from believing in and following Jesus?

10:15 “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it at all”: If we are to become like children, then obviously little children are not born depraved or lost inheriting the sins of their parents. So many Calvinists point to little children and see depravity. Jesus looked at little children and He saw innocence, humility, and other wonderful qualities. See also 1 Corinthians 14:20; Romans 7:9. Remember, we must become what the child is “by nature”. Jesus is stressing a little child’s relationship to his or her parents. Little children are teachable, fully trusting, devoted, willing to serve, and wanting to please. These are the qualities stand in contrast with the self-serving and desire for importance upon the disciples. True Christianity is about being completely dependent upon God, wanting to please Him, wanting to learn more, and fully trusting His will.

Have we become like little children yet? In addition, the disciples were so caught up in thinking how they stood in position to each other that they completely forgot that in God’s kingdom everyone is inferior to the Master. Every “position” in the kingdom is one of service, even that of elders (1 Peter 5:1-5).

10:15 “Like a child”: God can only use humble servants. People who place themselves second, people who completely trust God’s word, rather than their own opinions or the values of the world. People who only desire to please their 9

heavenly Father (Matthew 6:33), these are the people who accomplish great things for the kingdom. “The great are not the powerful, the rich, the self-seeking the self-important who, because they are too proud to serve, demand for themselves service from others” (Fowler p. 693). It is only the in climate of true humility and utter dependence upon God that service can happen. People who are too caught up in themselves, who view themselves smarter than other people, are people that God can’t use in His kingdom. True humility also involves rejoicing at the successes of others, contentment, and when others are honored, no insistence on one’s own rights, no proud demands, and no pretentiousness. We see such humility in the following examples (Matthew 8:5-13; 15:21-28; Luke 7:36-50; 19:1-10; Mark 14:3-9).

10:15 “Shall not enter at all”: It is all or nothing. It is become like a child or miss heaven. There is no lesser heaven that one might receive if they reject this passage.

10:16 “And He took them in His arms and began blessing them, laying His hands upon them”: Clearly Jesus loved children. Observe there is no justification in these passages for baptizing infants, for the passages that deal with baptism clearly require faith and repentance prior to baptism (Mark 16:15; Acts 2:38).

Many people read these passages and see justification for infant baptism, the problem is that Jesus received these children and blessed them. He did not rebuke or preach to them. They were in no spiritual danger. How often do we pray for our children? Do we view them as distractions or blessings? Do we appreciate their age of innocence? Do we do all we can to protect them? Do we try to keep them from corruption or do help the corruption that is in the world?

10