And Pharisees coming to [him] asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his] wife? (tempting him).
The Pharisees ask Jesus a plain legal question about divorce, and Mark tells us why they asked it. The question was a trap, and it opened a far bigger one: is marriage ours to adjust, or did God settle it at the start?
Either answer would have given them something to use against Him.
The Pharisees bring up marriage by coming to the Lord with the question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" It is clear they had no real desire to learn the truth, for we read that they asked it "in order to test Him." It seems they hoped His answer would let them accuse Him either of ignoring what Moses said, or of approving the loose customs common among the people. As usual, when men in their folly try to test the Lord, they are the ones fully exposed.
The timing matters. This happens near the end of the Lord's public life, when His enemies were hunting for a point of attack.
The opening of this chapter brings us near to the closing scenes of the Lord's life. He was on the far side of the Jordan, but near the borders of Judaea. There the Pharisees appeared, opposing Him by testing Him. They raised questions about marriage and divorce. They hoped to trap Him in some contradiction of what Moses had commanded, and so find a point of attack.
They were not confused men looking for light. They already knew who set marriage up, and they knew what the law allowed.
The questioners show their insincerity. They asked that question "in order to test Him." Now, who established marriage? They knew it was God. So what was God's mind on the matter? Not what any teacher, however famous, might say. So the Lord turned them to the Word of God. "What did Moses command you?" He asked. They replied correctly. They knew the law allowed the Jews to divorce. So why did they come to question the Lord about it? It was hypocrisy.
The Lord answered their question with a question, and their reply swapped one word for another. That swap gave them away.
The Lord meets the question, "Is it lawful?" by appealing to the law. "What did Moses command you?" In their reply they tried to dodge the Lord's question. They spoke not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. Without knowing it, they exposed the hardness of their hearts. They ignored the positive commands of Moses, and speak only of special rules set up to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the rules about divorce were to meet their hearts.
He was near the end of His life on earth. Yet He stopped for a marriage question from dishonest men, because of what marriage is and what it holds up.
First, He defends marriage in the pure light and tender goodness of God. It is the most serious step in human life, and the pillar that holds society up. How thankful we should be that the Lord of glory gave His verdict on it as He passed through this world! The need was great. This was true even in the Holy Land, and even among men who stood high for their holiness. They had the law of God in front of their eyes. Its rules, whether read rightly or wrongly, were always on their tongues. Yet how low and loose their teaching was! How shamefully selfish their practice was!
Christ takes the question back to creation. Mark records the rule with no exception attached.
In the question about marriage, Christ teaches us to give full respect to what the Creator set up at the beginning. By that, husband and wife are one flesh. It rests on the act of creation itself, which made them male and female — one man and one woman. God has joined them together: man must not separate them. Mark does not even mention the one allowance for divorce, where the marriage bond has in fact already been broken.
- Trap — They built the question to force Him either to contradict Moses or to back the loose divorce customs of the day.
- Testing — Mark's own word names the motive: they wanted a charge, not an answer.
- Hypocrisy — They asked about something they already knew. And they knew God Himself set marriage up.
- Allowed — He asked what Moses commanded. They answered what Moses permitted, and that swap exposed the hardness of their hearts.
- Beginning — The trap failed. Instead of a ruling on Moses, they got God's design from the start, with marriage set above human convenience.
But he answering said to them, What did Moses command you?
The Pharisees came to Jesus with a question about divorce. He gave them no ruling of His own. He sent them back to Moses, and everything turns on the word He picked: not what Moses allowed, but what Moses commanded.
The men asking had no interest in the answer. Hamilton Smith reads their move as a trap set from two sides at once:
The Pharisees raise the subject of marriage by coming to the Lord with the question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" Clearly they had no real desire to learn the truth, for we read that they were "tempting Him." They seem to have hoped that His answer would let them either accuse Him of ignoring what Moses said, or of approving the loose customs common among the people. As usual, when men in their folly try to tempt the Lord, they thoroughly expose themselves.
Marriage was not for rival teachers to settle. So the Lord sends them to what God had written. C. E. Stuart points out that they already knew the answer — and that is what exposes them:
Now, who instituted marriage? They knew it was God. What, then, was God's mind on the matter? — not what anyone, however famous as a teacher, might state. The Lord therefore turned them to the Word of God. "What did Moses command you?" He asked. They replied correctly. They knew that divorces were allowed to the Jews; why then did they come to the Lord to question Him about it? It was hypocrisy.
The whole force of the verse sits in one word. William Kelly weighs their word against His, and both against something older than the law:
He asks what Moses commanded; they answer with what Moses allowed. Our Lord then shows how clearly Moses wrote that rule because their hearts were hard. In truth, the law made nothing perfect. Not the Gospel only, but the beginning of creation bore witness to God's true thought: He made them male and female.
Their answer showed what they were living by. Hamilton Smith weighs the two kinds of writing against each other:
In their reply they sought to turn aside the Lord's question by speaking, not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. In doing so they unwittingly exposed the hardness of their hearts. They ignored the positive commands of Moses and spoke only of special rules set up to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the rules about divorce were to meet their hearts.
The Lord points them to Moses as the word that settles the case. One writer rests a case for who wrote Deuteronomy on that fact — a point where even the Pharisees and their rivals the Sadducees agreed:
Elsewhere the Lord again states in very precise terms that Moses wrote Deuteronomy. This time He was speaking to the Pharisees. They agreed with the Sadducees as little as possible, but on one point they had no difference of opinion: Moses' hand wrote the law. They came to Him with a testing question about divorce. Jesus said, "What did Moses command you?" They at once referred to Deuteronomy 24:1. Jesus answered and said to them, "For the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this precept" (Mark 10:3-5). Language can hardly be clearer or more definite than this.
The law itself had limits. The Morrish Bible Dictionary sets out what the law was for, and where it fell short of God's mind for marriage:
The law depicted what a righteous man should be for the earth. It was perfect for the purpose it was given for. But as the question of divorce shows (Mark 10:4), it allowed what God had not intended for man at the beginning. Christ bore witness to this.
- Motive — They asked to trap Him. His answer would set Him against Moses, or make Him approve loose practice. Instead the trap exposed their own hearts.
- Command — He asks what Moses commanded. They can only quote what Moses allowed. The swapped word gives them away.
- Heart — The commands met God's heart for man. Moses wrote the divorce rule to meet their hearts, hard as they were.
- Authority — The Lord sends them to Moses. He treats what Moses wrote as settled and binding, the word they must answer to.
- Beginning — What the law allowed is not what God intended. From the start He made them male and female, and Christ says so.
And they said, Moses allowed to write a bill of divorce, and to put away.
The Pharisees came to Jesus with a question about divorce, and He answered by asking what Moses commanded. Their reply named what Moses permitted instead, and that one word gave them away.
The Lord had asked them to state the law. Their reply swapped one word for another.
The Lord meets the question, "Is it lawful?" by appealing to the law. "What did Moses command you?" Their reply tried to turn the Lord's question aside. They spoke not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. Without meaning to, they exposed the hardness of their own hearts. They ignored the positive commands of Moses. They spoke only of special rules set up to meet their own hardness of heart. The commands met God's heart for man; the rules about divorce were made to meet their hearts.
They misstate even the permission. Moses did give a command here, but not the one they imply.
They knew Deuteronomy 24:1-2, and answered that Moses had allowed it. They did not say Moses commanded it. What he had commanded was this: if a man did send his wife away, he must give her a certificate of divorce.
This was not an honest question. They came to test Him, and either answer was meant to trap Him.
It is clear they had no real desire to learn the truth, for we read that they were "tempting Him." It seems they hoped His answer would let them accuse Him either of ignoring what Moses said, or of approving the loose customs common among the people. As usual, when men in their folly try to tempt the Lord, they are the ones who stand exposed.
Behind the question sat a live dispute between two rival schools of teachers.
Two great opinions divided the Pharisees about divorce. Some held to the views of Hillel and others to the views of Shammai. Hillel had taught that a wife may be sent away for almost any cause… The school of Hillel taught in the open, and practised, that if a wife spoils her husband's food by over-salting or over-roasting it, she is to be sent away. The school of Shammai, which the other Pharisees followed, allowed divorce only for adultery.
The written document they hid behind was never a licence.
The man had to give the woman a bill of divorce. Drawing it up and having it witnessed put some small check on his hasty temper.
The law they leaned on set both a ground and a safeguard.
The Pharisees thought they could prove the Lord wrong by pointing to Deuteronomy 24:1. There Moses, the lawgiver, said that if a man found something unclean in his wife, he could give her a bill of divorce and send her away. This bill of divorce guarded a wife against cruel treatment: being discarded, and still not left free to marry anyone else.
This concession tells us something about the law itself.
The Pharisees held tightly to the law of Moses. But He showed them that in this case the law did not enforce God's original thought. This is important to notice. It gives us one reason why the law is not made the rule of life for the Christian.
Another writer puts it more sharply.
Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the display of God's heart! In this case the law allowed more than the grace of God allows! For grace enables a person to rise above difficulties in a way the law could never do.
The Lord does not argue about the concession at all.
The Lord has exposed the hardness of man's heart. Now He presents the truth about marriage as God ordered it in creation, from the beginning. So the Lord puts His approval on the marriage bond. He enables the Christian to take up that relationship the way creation ordered it, not the way men's rules allow.
- Allowed, not commanded. Jesus asked what Moses commanded; they answered with what Moses tolerated. That one swap is the whole verse.
- The concession exposes the heart. A rule written for hard hearts proves hard hearts exist. Quoting it as a defence showed whose hearts they were.
- The certificate protected her. Writing the document and having it witnessed slowed a man's temper. It also left the woman free to remarry.
- The law aimed lower than God. Deuteronomy 24 did not carry God's original thought. That is one reason the law is not the Christian's rule of life.
- Christ restores the beginning. He does not debate the concession. He goes behind it to creation. Marriage stands as God made it, not as men have allowed it.
And Jesus answering said to them, In view of your hard-heartedness he wrote this commandment for you;
The Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, and He traced the rule they quoted back to their own hard hearts. So why did Moses write a rule that answered human stubbornness instead of God's heart for man?
The men asking had no interest in the answer. They wanted a statement they could use against Him.
The Pharisees bring up marriage by coming to the Lord with the question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" It is clear they had no real desire to learn the truth, for we read that they were "testing Him." It seems they hoped that the Lord's answer would let them accuse Him either of ignoring what Moses said, or of approving the loose customs common among the people. As usual, when men in their folly try to test the Lord, they themselves are thoroughly exposed.
Jesus had asked what Moses commanded. Their reply changed the word, and that change exposed them.
In their reply they sought to turn aside the Lord's question by speaking, not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. In doing so they unwittingly exposed the hardness of their hearts. They neglected the positive commands of Moses, and speak only of special precepts set up to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the precepts about divorce were to meet their hearts.
A rule can stand in Scripture without expressing what God wants.
There were many things before which God did not approve, but which He permitted — Jewish divorce, for instance. But at the death of Christ the full light of God's holiness shone out against the darkness of man's fully developed sin.
Explaining why the rule existed did more than settle their question.
Here the Lord takes a completely new position: He becomes a Judge of the Law itself. He does not condemn it, but explains why it held such provisions, and gives it a temporary place. There could not be a more important principle in His argument with them… Moses gave them this commandment because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. What an account this gives of the whole system they lived under! It rested on principles different from what God had set up in blessing.
The law spoke to a whole nation, believers and unbelievers alike. That shaped what it allowed.
Moses allowed certain things that were not part of God's original design. This should not surprise us, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not make anyone good… Some concessions in the law did not express God's mind at all. In them God was dealing with people in their natural state. The law does not treat a man as born of God; Christianity does… The law itself drew no line between those born of God and those not. It spoke to all Israel, not to believers only. So it allowed certain things because of the hardness of their hearts.
The permission had someone in view, and it was not the husband.
Here it is the woman whom the law protects against a hard-hearted man. Only real sin that breaks the marriage tie calls for divorce. Men abused the licence beyond measure, as if the permission were a command; and any annoyance was enough. But Jehovah hates divorce, as the last prophet told the Jews in their evil day.
The verse also says something about who wrote the rule down.
Notice that the Lord credits Moses not only with the substance of Deuteronomy but with writing it. The Pharisees clearly refer to the instruction in Deuteronomy 24. About that instruction the Lord declares that Moses, not "a later writer," "wrote you this precept."
(Kelly quotes an older translation, "precept"; the ESV reads "commandment.")
What kind of law contains a concession like this?
The second giving of the law included such concessions (Exodus 34). It was not absolute law, then, but law tempered with mercy. It recognized the hardness in man that it had no power to correct… God had joined them together, so man has no right to separate them. Governments may publicly do this as a concession to the hardness of men's hearts too, but they do not have God as their authority.
- Hardness first. Moses wrote the rule they quoted to meet a condition in them, not to express God's heart for man.
- Hardness allowed for. God permitted what He did not approve. The law made nothing perfect, because it spoke to a whole nation and drew no line between those born of God and those not.
- Hardness restrained. The concession sheltered the wife from a hard-hearted husband. Men twisted a permission into a command.
- Hardness exposed. The Pharisees came to trap Him. They softened "commanded" into "allowed," and so showed the very hardness the rule met.
- Hardness judged. By explaining where the rule came from, Christ became Judge of the law. He did not condemn it. He gave it a temporary place under God's original order.
but from [the] beginning of [the] creation God made them male and female.
The Pharisees came to Jesus with a legal question about divorce. He answered by going back past Moses to the first pages of Genesis. His appeal to creation raises two big questions: how far back the Bible's authority reaches, and how permanent marriage is.
The question put to Jesus was about what Moses permitted. His reply moved the whole discussion to an earlier and higher ground.
The Pharisees come near and ask Jesus whether a husband may put away his wife. The Lord uses the moment to press this truth: what God had established from the beginning of the creation was always valid in itself. Moses had allowed a man to put away his wife in the law, but this was only the patience of God with the hardness of man's heart. It was not according to God's own heart and will. In the creation at the beginning God made what was good — weak, but good. He allowed other things when He set up, for a time, the state of His people, of fallen man. But when He created them, He had made things different.
The distinction the Pharisees blurred was between a command and a concession, and their own answer exposed them.
They neglected the positive commands of Moses, and speak only of special precepts set up to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the precepts about divorce were to meet their hearts.
By saying God made them, Jesus treated the opening chapters of Genesis as history.
This record of man's creation is neither mythical nor parabolic, but literal. The Lord treats it as historic fact (Matt. 19:4-6), and so does the inspired apostle (1 Tim. 2:13-14). It is basic to revealed truth about man in his present condition (Rom. 5:12-19) and his future state (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Evolution, in its modern forms, all but denies this record, though the Son of God endorses it (Matt. 19:6). Scripture honours Him and owns Him as man's Creator (John 1:3).
Christ confirmed many Old Testament facts. One of them is where the human race came from.
The Lord confirmed the teaching that the whole human race came from one pair of parents from the beginning of the creation (Mark 10:6). He confirmed that the Flood took away everyone except those in the ark (Matt. 24:37-39). He did the same for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone, for the miraculous supply of the manna, and for the account of Jonah and the fish.
The words Jesus quotes speak of a pair. The number alone settles the divorce question.
He had made them male and female, each suited to the other, each completed by the other. About what the union meant, He said, "the two shall become one flesh." The text speaks of two, and only two, as with Adam and his wife at first. With them, neither polygamy nor divorce could be thought of. And "one flesh" would make either polygamy or divorce a horror.
The same truth gives both the man and the woman their place.
The word of God puts everything in its place. It reminds the man, and the woman too, of that special relationship. There was only the man and the woman — not one man and two women, but only one man and one woman. From the beginning it was so; to the end it should not have been otherwise. This is how God made them; and this the Son of God quoted to vindicate His Father, putting guilty selfish man to shame.
God set up marriage before anything went wrong, and that beginning still governs it.
It is true that, once joined in marriage, Adam and Eve together disobeyed the Lord's commandment and fell into sin and under it. Still, marriage kept the holy character that God gave and approved when there was no sin, and it kept that character after sin entered. God had made the single pair, and He made them for each other alone. As our Lord said, God had joined them together with bonds that man cannot dissolve.
Christ's answer does more than rebuke the Pharisees. It gives the Christian solid ground for marriage today.
The Lord has exposed the hardness of man's heart. Now He presents the truth about the marriage relationship as God set it out in the order of creation from the beginning. So the Lord puts His approval on the marriage tie. He enables the Christian to take up the relationship on the order of creation, and not on the rules of men.
- Beginning. Jesus answers a divorce question by reaching back past Moses. He points to what God set up at creation, which "was always valid in itself."
- Made. God made them. It was an act, not a process, and the Lord treats the record as literal history, like the Flood, Sodom and Jonah.
- Two. He made them male and female — one man and one woman. Where there are only two, "neither polygamy nor divorce could be thought of."
- Joined. God made the pair for each other. So He joined them with a bond that sin did not cancel and man cannot dissolve.
- Held. The Lord's approval lets the believer hold marriage today on creation's ground, not on the rules of men.
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united to his wife,
The Pharisees tested Jesus with a question about divorce, and He answered by going back past Moses to Genesis. His answer raises two questions: why does marriage outrank every other tie, and who may undo it?
The Lord asked what Moses commanded; the Pharisees answered with what Moses allowed. That switch gave them away.
The Lord meets the question, "Is it lawful?" by appealing to the law. "What did Moses command you?" In their reply they tried to dodge the Lord's question. They spoke, not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. Without realising it, they exposed the hardness of their hearts. They ignored the positive commands of Moses. They spoke only of special rules set up to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the precepts about divorce were to meet their hearts.
The reason for these words lies in how God made humanity at the beginning.
In the question about marriage, Christ teaches us to respect the Creator's ordinance at the beginning without any reserve. According to that ordinance, man and wife are one flesh. This rests on the creative work itself, which made them male and female, one man and one woman. God has joined them together: man must not separate them. Mark does not even mention the exception that allows divorce when someone has in fact broken the marriage tie.
The exception Mark leaves out appears elsewhere. Another writer points to two passages of Moses that both stood as God's word: the divorce rule and the original institution.
The first was a provision "for the hardness of their hearts." No doubt men often used it without the condition stated there: "because he has found some indecency in her" (Deut. 24:1). The second (Gen. 2:24) taught the sacredness and the real character of the tie. This was God's original institution. Except for sexual immorality (Matt. 19:9), the tie should never be broken.
"Leave his father and mother" is startling language. It means the strongest bond a person already has gives way to this new one.
The Lord here stands up as the vindicator, first of all, of the relationship of marriage. He teaches that in the law, important as it was, Moses did not assert the vital place of marriage for the world. On the contrary, Moses permitted certain breaches of it because of Israel's state. … "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother." That is, even the nearest other relationship disappears before this one. … It is the same Jesus who now clears the dust of ruin off God's institutions, even for the earth.
The shift is practical: it changes where a person's first duty lies.
Up to the time of a man's marriage the chief relationship he stands in is that of a son. His responsibility is towards his parents. But when he marries he leaves his father and mother and holds fast to his wife. From then on she becomes his chief care, for he and she are no longer two but one flesh.
The second half of the verse describes the bond itself, and the word carries warmth as well as faithfulness.
He is showing how close the unity of husband and wife is in God's sacred ordinance of marriage. Today the selfish independence of both men and women has badly violated this, but God's word is plain. … He makes it clear for all generations to come that a man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife. It is just as evident that the woman should leave her parents to become fully devoted to her husband. The word "cling" is beautiful here. It involves the reality of love, of devotedness and of faithfulness.
The verse also decides who a married person answers to.
This verse settles many questions. First, when marriage takes place, the man (or woman) is no longer in the place of subjection to parents. Second, he holds fast to his wife — only one wife, so bigamy and polygamy are completely against Scripture.
Paul later takes this same sentence and says it was always pointing beyond itself.
The Apostle quotes from Genesis, but he states plainly that this is a great mystery, which has in view Christ and the church. Christ, as Man, left all relations with Israel according to the flesh to secure His church.
- Beginning. Jesus answers a legal question by going behind Moses to creation. What God commanded shows His heart for man; what Moses allowed only met the hardness of theirs.
- Leaving. The nearest tie a person already has is to father and mother. From marriage onward, the spouse comes first.
- Holding fast. "Cling" is a word of love, devotedness and faithfulness. It means one wife only, which rules out bigamy and polygamy.
- Joining. God Himself joins the two into one flesh, so no man may separate them. Mark records no exception; Matthew names one.
- Mystery. The pattern reaches its height in Christ. As Man He left all His relations with Israel to gain the church.
and the two shall be one flesh so that they are no longer two but one flesh.
The Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce. Instead of arguing over what Moses allowed, He went back to the day God made the first pair. The verse does simple arithmetic: two become one, and no one can count them back to two.
Jesus points back to how God made the first pair, and to the words that named what their union meant.
He had made them male and female. Each was fitted for the other, and each completed by the other. As to what the union meant, He had said, "the two shall become one flesh." Two, and only two, are in view — as with Adam and his wife at the first, where no one could think of polygamy or divorce. And "one flesh" would make either polygamy or divorce a hateful thing. Man's own voice, before sin clouded his mind, said what the Lord here calls a word from God; for God and man were then at one.
Jesus sets this bond above every other family tie. He shows it by pointing to what a man leaves for it.
God had first established it; and, far from dissolving the tie as men please, He made a single pair, and therefore each was to be only for the other. All other relationships were light compared with this closest tie — a tie that is union itself. It is impossible to overstate the importance of marriage as a natural institution. Who would talk of a child leaving his father and mother for any cause? The Pharisees themselves would not think of such a thing.
From the wedding day on, a man's first duty changes.
Until a man marries, his chief relationship is that of a son, and his responsibility is towards his parents. When he marries, he leaves his father and mother and holds fast to his wife. From then on she becomes his chief care, for he and she are no longer two but one flesh.
The couple do not create this bond themselves.
The two are then recognised before God as being "one flesh." It is God Himself who has joined the two together. Therefore man has no authority to divorce them. Governments today of course ignore God's decree in this matter, but the word of God will not change to suit men's preferences. From the beginning, marriage was meant to be a binding agreement for as long as both people live.
The Pharisees answered Jesus by quoting Moses. But they chose carefully which part of Moses to quote.
They neglected the positive commands of Moses, and speak only of special rules brought in to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the rules about divorce were to meet their hearts.
Mark's account is bare. He leaves the creation order standing on its own.
In the question about marriage, Christ teaches us to give full respect to the Creator's ordinance at the beginning. Mark does not even mention the exceptional allowance of divorce, when the marriage tie has in fact been broken through.
This sentence is not unique to Mark.
I have noticed, and noticed with great joy, that this verse is quoted three times in the Scriptures. It would appear that all the Divine Persons have Their part in speaking of this wonderful institution of marriage. In Genesis God Himself brings this verse forward in the garden of Eden. Here in the tenth of Mark the Lord, in the days of His Manhood, repeated this blessed fact that marriage springs from God. And when Paul writes to the church at Ephesus in the power of the Spirit of God, he quotes this verse too... What a choice thought — that what a couple have put their hand to is not something set up by man. It does not spring from man's inventive mind. It comes fresh in all its beauty and glory from the eternal love of the heart of God.
- Origin. Marriage is not a human invention. The Lord traces it to God, who made them male and female. Its terms are His to set.
- Arithmetic. "One flesh" means two, and only two — wording that rules out both multiple partners and divorce.
- Priority. Leaving father and mother shows the weight of this tie. It outranks every other natural bond, and the wife becomes the husband's chief care.
- Author. Because God joins the two, no human authority — court, custom or law — has the right to separate them.
- Picture. God speaks these words in Eden, the Lord repeats them here, and Paul quotes them again — so every marriage carries the mark of its Maker.
What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
The Pharisees came to Jesus with a question about divorce. He answered by going back past Moses to the opening pages of Genesis. His answer makes marriage something God Himself does. That raises the question the Pharisees never asked: if God ties the knot, who may cut it?
The Pharisees wanted a ruling on what a husband may do. Jesus answered instead by pointing to what God had done long before any law was written.
The Lord uses the moment to press this truth: what God set up at the beginning of creation was always valid in itself. Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife in the law; but this was only the patience of God with the hardness of man's heart. It was not according to God's own heart and will... God had united husband and wife, and man had no right to separate them. No one may break that bond.
The Lord asked them what Moses commanded. Their reply quietly swapped that word for another, and in doing so gave themselves away.
In their reply they tried to dodge the Lord's question. They spoke not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. Without meaning to, they showed the hardness of their hearts. They ignored the clear commands of Moses and spoke only of special rules made to fit their own hardness. The commands matched God's heart for man; the rules about divorce matched theirs.
The verse names an actor: God joined. That single word changes who is entitled to decide anything about the marriage.
Verse 9 lifts marriage from the level of man and human convenience to the level of God and His action. It is a divine institution, not a human arrangement, so men must not tamper with it. If God joins, man must not separate.
This truth about marriage shows up at three points in the Bible. Seeing where else it appears shows how deep it goes.
Turn to Genesis and you will find God Himself bringing this verse forward in the garden of Eden. Here in Mark 10 the Lord, in the days when He lived as a man, repeats this blessed fact: marriage springs from God. And when Paul writes to the church at Ephesus in the power of the Spirit of God, he quotes this verse too... What a precious thought. What a husband and wife have taken up was not set up by man. It did not come from man's inventive mind. It comes fresh, in all its beauty and glory, from the eternal love of the heart of God. Why should man's circumstances, man's failure, hard times, or a sense of being ill-matched interfere with what has sprung from the heart of God?
The joining goes back to creation, not to faith. So this rule reaches far wider than the church.
According to God's will, marriage cannot be dissolved... This not only applies to marriages made "in the Lord," but to every marriage. Already in the Old Testament God had said to the Jews who were divorced from their wives, "For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel" (Mal. 2:16).
Commentators note a real difference between the Gospel accounts here. Matthew's record of the same conversation has a clause that Mark leaves out.
Mark does not even mention the one case where divorce is allowed, when the marriage tie has in fact been broken.
Other writers, reading Mark alongside Matthew, state the limit this way:
Except for sexual immorality (Matt. 19:9), the tie should never be broken... This takes us back to how God set marriage up at the start. It reminds us how God sees it — two made one flesh, joined by Him, and so not to be split apart by man.
The verse is not only a rule against breaking up. It also tells a husband how to see the woman he lives with.
Every right-minded man will look upon his wife as the only woman in the world for him, and he will desire no other. That is not because he has chosen her for his wife, but because God has joined them together. He will look on her as the very woman God made for him. He will treat her as God's gift to him. More than that, he will treat her as himself, for the two have become one flesh. And that is no rule made by man, but God's own act and decree.
- God joins. Marriage is not a contract two people invent. It is God's action, so no human choice can undo it.
- Joined at creation. Jesus goes behind Moses to the beginning. The law's permission met hard hearts; it never matched God's heart.
- Joined for all. The rule was never only for believers. It holds for every marriage, everywhere.
- Joined, so not severed. Commentators differ. Mark records no exception, while other writers hold the tie firm except for sexual immorality.
- Joined, therefore cherished. Seeing your spouse as God's own gift, not merely your own choice, is what turns the command into a way of living.
And again in the house the disciples asked him concerning this.
The Pharisees had just tried to trap Jesus with a question about divorce. He answered them in public by going back to how God made marriage at the beginning. Now the crowd is gone and the door is shut. His own followers raise the same subject again, and they want more than the public answer.
Mark keeps noting where the Lord went indoors. One writer lists the other times this same house appears in the Gospel.
Jesus and His disciples regularly stayed in this house when they came to Capernaum. Here on an earlier occasion the crowd had gathered, and Jesus healed the paralysed man who was let down through the roof (Mark 2:1-11). In the house He explained the parable of the sower to His disciples. In the house also the Lord questioned the apostles privately about what they had been arguing over on the way.
Another writer counts this verse among the places where Mark shows Him avoiding the crowd.
He did not seek popularity. Mark often notices how He kept out of the public eye: Mark 1:44-45; 3:12, 19; 5:43; 6:32; 7:17, 24, 33-36; 8:23-26; 9:25, 28, 30; 10:10. Popular favour, so alluring to men, did not divert Him from His mission.
The reply behind the door was strict. It named the one wronged: the wife herself.
Only Mark tells us that this was in the house. There the Lord gives the disciples a strict reply: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Here is the dark reverse of sin in this relationship. No permission from man can make holy the breaking of that tie while both live.
Matthew's account of the same conversation records an exception; Mark's does not. One writer explains why.
The Lord has spoken this to the Pharisees. But inside the house His disciples questioned Him further. To them He answers that a man who divorces his wife and marries another has committed adultery against his first wife. A wife doing the same would be guilty of adultery against her husband. Here the Lord does not mention the exception noted in Matthew 19:9, "except for sexual immorality." He leaves it out because in practice it is not even an exception.
The teaching in the house does not stop at the legal act. It reaches the desire that drives it.
In the house the Lord teaches His disciples more. He shows them how serious it is to cancel the marriage tie to indulge the desires of the flesh toward another woman. In God's sight this is to fall into the most degrading sin.
What He said in that house became a rule for Christians ever since.
Later the disciples asked more about it in the house, as Mark notes. The Lord said again that the tie holds, unless one party has in effect broken it already. Matthew alone mentions that case. So while the law had permitted divorces, the disciples of Christ were to remember the original institution of marriage. His words guard the wife's rights as well as the husband's, and hers come first. In the matter of marriage God takes us back to the order He set up at the beginning. Scripture was to guide the disciples, and us. The Pharisees' question gave the occasion for a word of authority to guide Christians in this important matter.
The disciples were staggered by how high the Lord set marriage. One writer points out what they had not yet grasped.
He came to set up a kingdom where the will of God would be done. So He sweeps away the provision Moses made because of the hardness of men's hearts. In doing so He astonished His disciples. The disciples say, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." They said that only because they saw how high a place the Lord gave this relationship in His kingdom. They did not yet know the grace that reigns in that kingdom. That grace enables all who are in it to fulfil every relationship according to God.
- Ask again. The public answer did not satisfy the disciples. Indoors they asked again, and got more.
- Private, not secret. Mark often shows the Lord leaving the crowd to teach His own. What He said indoors became Scripture for everyone.
- Higher, not looser. Away from the Pharisees He raised the standard. He named the wife as the one wronged and gave her the same protection.
- Deeper than the act. The teaching goes past the paperwork of divorce to the desire behind it, which God sees as degrading sin.
- Grace to keep it. The standard astonished the disciples. The grace that reigns in His kingdom enables those in it to fulfil every relationship according to God.
And he says to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, commits adultery against her.
Indoors, away from the crowd, the disciples ask Jesus about what He has just said to the Pharisees. His answer is blunter than the one He gave in public. Two questions lie under it. What does a man break when he ends one marriage and starts another? And who is wronged?
Just before this, the Lord had refused to argue from what Moses allowed. He went back instead to how God made man and woman. One writer shows how far that reaches.
The Lord here, then, stands up first of all as the defender of marriage. He teaches that in the law, important as it was, Moses did not assert the vital place of marriage for the world. On the contrary, Moses allowed certain breaches of it because of the state Israel was in... That is, even the closest other relationship, so to speak, gives way before this one... That is where it came to. But for this simple yet thorough unfolding of God's mind we are indebted to the Lord Jesus.
Mark is careful to tell us where the Lord said this. The setting matters. He is teaching His own followers, not scoring a point against opponents.
It seems the Pharisees left Him, unable to find any ground for an accusation. Later the disciples asked more about it in the house, as Mark carefully notes. The Lord repeated that the tie cannot be broken, unless one of the two had in effect broken it already. Only Matthew mentions that case... The question of the Pharisees gave the occasion for a statement of full authority, to guide Christians in this important matter.
The verse names a motive as well as an act. The divorce is not a neutral legal step; it clears the way for something already desired.
In the house the Lord teaches His disciples more. He shows how serious it is to cancel the marriage tie so as to indulge the desires of the flesh towards another woman. In God's sight this is to fall into the most degrading sin.
Human permission does not settle the matter.
To the disciples (in the house, as only Mark here tells us) the Lord gives the stringent reply... Here is the dark reverse side of sin in this relationship. No permission granted by man can make holy the breaking of that tie while both are still living.
The verse names the wife as the one wronged. The Lord then turns the case around, so no one can treat the rule as binding on one sex only.
First we must note that these words apply not only to the man, but also to the woman. In Mark 10:11-12 the Lord clearly mentions the woman in the same passage.
One writer notes what this teaching guards.
The rights of the wife are protected as well as those of the husband.
The Lord does not call the divorce itself adultery. He attaches the word to what follows it — marrying another. That order tells us how God still regards the first union.
Whatever the faults and weaknesses of the wife may be, the man who puts her away — that is, divorces her — puts her in danger. She may be bound to another husband afterwards. The Lord here calls such a relationship adultery. This implies that the first marriage is still valid before God. The marriage was entered into before God and men. A divorce before men alone (that is, in a court) does not break it. What breaks it is the sexual union with another partner afterwards — even when this happens inside a new marriage!
Matthew's account of the same conversation includes a clause Mark leaves out. One writer explains why the two accounts stand together without conflict.
Mark 10 does not cancel Matthew 19. It looks at a man putting away his wife as his own act, his own will. If he puts her away, he has broken by his own will a tie God formed. Marrying another is then adultery. An act of sin had broken the tie already, and judicial divorce was allowed.
- Beginning. The Lord settles the question from creation, not from what Moses allowed. Marriage outranks even the tie to father and mother.
- Bond. God joined the two. A court paper does not dissolve what God formed.
- Breach. The sin the Lord names is not the separation but the remarriage. It is entered to indulge desire toward another, and in God's sight that is the most degrading sin.
- Both. Mark records the case of the husband and the wife alike, so the standard is one and the same for each.
- Betrayed. The words "against her" put a wronged person at the centre. A discarded spouse is not a formality, but the one sinned against.
And if a woman put away her husband and shall marry another, she commits adultery.
The Pharisees had come to test Jesus about divorce. He answered them from creation. Then, indoors and away from the crowd, He told His disciples what a broken marriage really is. Verse 12 turns the rule toward the wife. That raises two questions: why does Mark alone record this half of the saying, and does a legal divorce end a marriage in God's sight?
Before saying anything about adultery, Jesus went back past Moses to the way God set things up. One writer shows what the Lord set against man's hard heart, and what it means for a Christian today:
The Lord has exposed the hardness of man's heart. Now He presents the truth about the marriage relationship, in line with the creation order that God established from the beginning. So the Lord puts His approval on the marriage tie. He enables the Christian to take up the relationship by the order of creation, and not by the rules of men.
Mark alone tells us where Jesus said this. The public debate ended at verse 9. Verses 11 and 12 are private teaching for those who follow Him, and the tone hardens.
In the house, as only Mark tells us here, the Lord gives the disciples the strict reply. Here is the dark reverse of sin in this relationship. No permission granted by man can make holy the breaking of that tie while in the flesh.
The same writer weighs why this subject matters so much:
It is the most momentous step of human life, and the pillar of the social fabric. How thankful we should be to have the Lord of glory pronouncing on it in His passage through this world!
A wife dismissing her husband did not fit normal Jewish practice. So why does Mark record it? One writer lists the suggestions — a legal setting familiar to Mark's first readers, or notorious cases his readers would have recognised:
Some would read "put away by," since the usual reading would go against Jewish practice. It does fit Greek and Roman law, and Mark's first readers are thought to have known that law. But Burkitt is surely right in seeing a reference to the shameless conduct of Salome and Herodias.
Whatever the background, the effect is clear. The standard is not one-sided: what binds the husband binds the wife.
Jesus calls the new marriage adultery. That word only makes sense if something still binds. One writer follows the logic through, and applies it to husband and wife alike:
The Lord here calls such a relationship adultery. This implies that the first marriage is still valid before God. A marriage is made before God and man. A divorce carried out before men, in a court, does not by itself break it. What breaks it is the sexual union with another partner afterwards — even when this happens inside a new marriage! Clearly this applies to the spouse who "puts away" the other as well.
An exception exists for sexual unfaithfulness. Mark passes over it. One writer explains why: Mark keeps to the ground of creation.
In the question about marriage Christ teaches us to respect the Creator's ordinance at the beginning without reserve... Mark does not even notice the exceptional allowance of divorce, when the marriage tie has in fact been broken.
Writers differ over how much weight the exception carries. One takes it further: he speaks to the conscience of the innocent partner, and points to a second ground on which the bond can break:
Fornication would in itself be a breaking of the marriage bond, which a divorce in this case only confirms. So the partner who was not guilty would not be committing adultery by marrying another after divorce. Still, in most cases there may have been fault on both sides. Before any new marriage, a person should come broken before God, seeking only His will. 1 Corinthians 7:15 also shows that desertion counts as a breaking of the marriage bond, so the one who was deserted is no longer under that bond.
- Beginning. Jesus settles marriage from creation. The rule rests on God's order, not on what men allow.
- Binding. The first marriage is still valid before God. A court's decree does not end it, so the new marriage is where the adultery lies.
- Both. Verse 12 holds the wife to the same standard. Mark alone records this half, and it leaves no double standard.
- Behind closed doors. The Lord gives the strict form to His disciples in the house. It is teaching for those who follow Him, not a debating point for the crowd.
- Broken already. Where the exception applies, sin has already broken the tie. Mark leaves it out to keep the creation standard clear, and self-judgment before God still comes first.