Bible Study on Divorce: Mark 10:1-12

One of the most challenging passages in Mark to teach is Jesus discourse on divorce. Not only are there numerous interpretive challenges, but there’s almost no issue that touches us more than the subject at hand.

So, ‌I think we’ll also benefit from some brief comments on unity two important Biblical truths:

‌First:

Jeremiah 31:33–34 CSB – 33 “Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”—the Lord’s declaration. “I will put my teaching within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them”—this is the Lord’s declaration. “For I will forgive their iniquity and never again remember their sin.

‌Jeremiah foreshadows the New Covenant and says that God’s teaching will be within, and from the least to the greatest, we’ll all know the Lord because the sin that separates us from him will be forgiven. As much as we apply our best to understand difficult subjects like these, it’s necessary that we recognize that the people we disagree with also know God. And, if they approach him with sincere hearts, they too are just trying to understand what pleases the Lord.

‌Second:

Philippians 3:15–16 CSB – 15 Therefore, let all of us who are mature think this way. And if you think differently about anything, God will reveal this also to you. 16 In any case, we should live up to whatever truth we have attained.

‌One of the hardest realities to cope with in the Christian faith is what to do with fellow brothers and sisters who don’t see things eye-to-eye. Paul’s answer is to entrust them to God, knowing that he will reveal his way even to those whose spiritual understanding is immature. He simply encourages every Christian to live up to the measure of Christ’s everlasting truth that they have attained. Where we see things differently, we must simply live up to the truth that we do understand from Jesus, trusting that God will reveal what we lack in due time if we remain humble and teachable.

‌So, while we should strive towards the same mind in all things (1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 2:2), our unity must not be based on something as fallible as human understanding, but upon Christ, our commitment to him, and the love we receive for him for one another.

Please keep these things in mind as you weigh the contents of this study.

‌Mark 10:1 CSB – 1 He set out from there and went to the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Then crowds converged on him again, and as was his custom he taught them again.

‌To begin we have a minor difference among the copyists with Mark’s geography: the most substantiated reading is “in the region of Judea and across the Jordan”, while others read “into the coasts of Judaea beyond the Jordan”.

‌Here’s the NET’s translator’s notes:

Alexandrian and other witnesses (א B C* L Ψ 0274 892 2427 pc co) read καὶ πέραν (kai peran, “and beyond”), while Western and Caesarean witnesses (C2 D W Δ Θ f1, 13 28 565 579 1241 al) read πέραν (simply “beyond”). The majority of the witnesses (A 𝔐) read διὰ τοῦ πέραν (dia tou peran, “through the other side”), perhaps trying to indicate the direction of Jesus’ travel.

‌Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible Translator’s Notes

‌The coasts of Judea are not “beyond the Jordan”. So it’s most likely that Mark is trying to indicate the direction of Jesus’ travel, which is “through Judea and across the Jordan”, which is how the CSB has chosen to render this clause.

Jesus has been moving incognito in order to focus on teaching his disciples (Mark 9:30), but now he’s turned his attention back to teaching the crowds, which is the setting for this discourse where some Pharisees challenge Jesus to trap him on the question of divorce.

‌Mark 10:2–3 CSB – 2 Some Pharisees came to test him, asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He replied to them, “What did Moses command you?”

‌The Pharisees were a sect within Judaism who have largely rejected Jesus. And here they intend to use one of the most divisive subjects of their day to trap him. “Divorce” was both politically and religiously controversial.

Politically speaking, since Jesus and his disciples were in Perea, which was Herod Antipas’ territory, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the Pharisees hoped to see Jesus suffer the same fate as John the Baptist when he denounced Antipas’ marriage to Herodias. Recall that Herodias left her husband and Herod Antipas divorced his wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabateans. And this whole affair created a political crisis that resulted in war between Galilee and the Nabatea. Rome eventually had to intervene to restore peace, which prevented Antipas from losing his kingdom. And all of this is why Antipas couldn’t tolerate John’s criticism of his divorce: it posed a serious threat to his political power.

‌Religiously speaking, Jews generally agreed that divorce was allowed, but they debated over how to interpret Moses’ teaching:

Deuteronomy 24:1 CSB – 1 “If a man marries a woman, but she becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, he may write her a divorce certificate, hand it to her, and send her away from his house.

‌Their debate centered around what Moses meant by “something indecent”?

‌Two schools of thought emerged over time:

1. ‌The school of Shammai: applied this to morally indecent behavior, in particular, to adultery. ‌
2. The school of Hillel: applied this broadly to almost any displeasing behavior.

‌So the Shammai school of thought limited the grounds for divorce while the Hillel school of thought broadened the grounds for divorce to almost any offense, even permitting husbands to divorce their wives if they burned their food!

‌So their trap is set in this context and intends to force Jesus to either oppose divorce and risk Antipas’ wrath (and perhaps hurt his popularity), or to oppose John the Baptist’s views and risk discrediting himself.

‌Mark 10:3 CSB – 3 He replied to them, “What did Moses command you?”

‌Jesus answers their question in good rabbinic form with a question, referring them to Moses.

‌Mark 10:4–5 CSB – 4 They said, “Moses permitted us to write divorce papers and send her away.” 5 But Jesus told them, “He wrote this command for you because of the hardness of your hearts.

‌Jesus allows them to interpret Moses and then tells them the reason Moses permitted divorce was because of “the hardness of their hearts.” He validates Moses’ command, upholds John the Baptist’s teaching, and exposes what’s behind their question all in one.

‌The imagery of “hardened hearts” calls forward Ezekiel’s prophecy about the restoration of God’s people, which I believe illustrates the kind of heart that God wants us to have in marriage relationships:

Ezekiel 36:25–26 CSB – 25 I will also sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

‌The backdrop behind this prophecy is Israel’s spiritual infidelity: Ezekiel is prophesying about the New Covenant that will restore God’s people by curing them at the heart level. God will give them a new heart and put a new spirit within them, removing their heart of stone and giving them a living heart.

‌And we see the backdrop of Israel’s spiritual infidelity described by the prophets:

‌Jeremiah 3:1 CSB – 1 If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him to marry another, can he ever return to her? Wouldn’t such a land become totally defiled? But you! You have prostituted yourself with many partners— can you return to me? This is the Lord’s declaration.

Hosea 5:4 CSB – 4 Their actions do not allow them to return to their God, for a spirit of promiscuity is among them, and they do not know the Lord.

​Isaiah 54:7–8 CSB – 7 “I deserted you for a brief moment, but I will take you back with abundant compassion. 8 In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, but I will have compassion on you with everlasting love,” says the Lord your Redeemer.

‌God uses marriage language to describe their unfaithfulness to him. He describes Israel’s idolatry as an unfaithful wife who prostitutes herself with many partners. He says that their spirit of promiscuity prevented them from returning to him. He spoke about his putting them away and hiding his face from them in the moment of his anger, which he compares to writing a certificate of divorce for their faithless generation and scattering them among the nations. Yet, in all this, God promised to remain faithful to his covenant and pleads with them to return. He would not put Israel away and find another people. Instead, he would restore them whatever it takes. He was faithful despite their unfaithfulness.

‌Ezekiel 36:25–26 CSB – 25 I will also sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

‌Ezekiel’s promise to restore Israel and replace their hardened hearts is meant to call to mind how God was faithful to his covenant vows despite their spiritual adultery. God’s heart was not hard towards them despite their unfaithfulness, but instead, determined to show them compassion with everlasting love. And this compassionate heart is the very heart God seeks to now create in his people.

‌So Jesus’ comment about divorce being permitted because of their hardened hearts is a subtle reminder of how God’s heart wasn’t hard towards Israel in their time of spiritual adultery, but was willing and eager to take them back. If God didn’t nullify his covenant with Israel because of their spiritual adultery, how can we nullify our marriages when our spouses are likewise unfaithful?

‌Mark 10:6–9 CSB – 6 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother 8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

‌Next Jesus refers to Moses’ creation narrative as a kind of “creation ordinance”: God creates humanity in his image — “male and female” — and says “the two will become one”. Jesus looks to God’s original design as the binding ordinance that governs how we’re to understand marriage.

‌So Jesus presents his thesis principle: “Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” He makes the case that husband and wife are joined together as one by God, and should, therefore, not separate.

‌After this, Jesus applies this principle as he explains this question privately to his disciples:

‌Mark 10:10–12 CSB – 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples questioned him about this matter. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 Also, if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

‌Because there are some differences between Matthew’s divorce-narratives and Mark’s and Luke’s narratives, we need to work out how we understand these together. Are some gospel writers superior to others, or does each gospel writer write complete answers in their own context?

‌Let’s compare:

Matthew 19:9 (CSB) — I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

‌Mark 10:11 (CSB) — He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.

‌Luke 16:18 (CSB) — Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and everyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

‌Some have proposed the Matthean-dominance theory, which argues that Mark’s and Luke’s divorce narratives should be interpreted through Matthew’s divorce narratives, suggesting that Mark’s and Luke’s accounts are incomplete. Since ‌Matthew’s gospel includes an “exception clause” to Jesus’ prohibition against divorce on the grounds of “sexual immorality”, his gospel completes what Mark’s and Luke’s accounts are missing.

Support for this view is based on no apparent defining context in Matthew’s account to limit the exception clause. And the challenges this view faces are twofold: first, Jesus would seem to weaken his own argument by providing the same exception clause from Moses that he has just argued was granted on the basis of their hardened hearts; second, Mark and Luke (and Paul) were aware that spouses cheat, so their failure to include the exception clause is surprising.

‌In contrast to this view, others suggest that each gospel writer gives a complete answer according to their specific context, requiring that we simply identify their context so that we know how to apply their answers.

This view suggests that Mark’s and Luke’s teachings are complete in their gentile context, and present an absolute prohibition on divorce as the baseline of Jesus’ teaching. Accordingly, Matthew’s Jewish context provides an “exception-clause” that refers to the Jewish understanding that treated the engagement period like marriage (except for sexual rights). In this case, the engagement period was governed by another Law from Moses, which permitted a man to divorce his wife during this period if it was discovered on their wedding night that she was not a virgin (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Supporting this view is the observation that only Matthew’s gospel retells the episode of Joseph’s intent to divorce Mary quietly when he discovered she was pregnant (Matthew 1:19). And the challenges this view faces are threefold: first, Matthew’s unqualified exception clause; second, the apparent disconnect with Old Testament permissions; third, numerous difficulties when applying this teaching to the “real world”.

‌Both views have merits and challenges that require the Christian’s careful interpretation.

‌One takeaway regardless of the interpretive decisions makes on the questions above is that Christians are called to make peace, resolve their tensions with one another, and cultivate love. We are to guard against the hardened heart of unforgiveness that can destroy our marriages.

So I believe this is a message that we need to hear today: we can overcome marital problems; there is hope; where love has faded, it can be rekindled. I believe the good news of Jesus means that the things that destroy love can be overcome, and those wounds can be healed. So don’t give up!​

I will offer my interpretations on the issues raised in this study in another post.