Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
The order of the discourse as recorded by Mark something differeth from that in Matthew, but the evangelists were not so accurate in that, but took care only to set down the substance of the discourse, as appears from the relation of several other parts of the history. In the notes on Mat 19:3-6 the reader will find whatsoever stands in need of explication opened.
See Poole on “Mat 19:3“, and following verses to Mat 19:6.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And he answered and said unto them,…. Very prudently and wisely,
what did Moses command you? according to Matthew, he put another question to them; see Mt 19:4; no doubt but both were put, and this after they had urged the authority and law of Moses: and therefore be very pertinently asks them, what Moses had said about divorces, what law he had left; and puts them upon producing and repeating it, that the sense of it might be examined, and it be considered, upon what account it was given.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
What did Moses command you? ( ;). Jesus at once brought up the issue concerning the teaching of Moses (De 24:1). But Jesus goes back beyond this concession here allowed by Moses to the ideal state commanded in Ge 1:27.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And He answered and said unto them,” (ho de apokeitheis eipen autois) “Then He replied to them,” to the self-righteous, hell-bound Pharisees, as described by Jesus, Mat 5:20.
2) “What did Moses command you?” (ti humin eneteilato Mouses) “What did Moses order to you?” from the beginning of marriage, Gen 2:24. What orders did he give you, regarding this matter? Not what did he allow, as expressed Deu 24:1; Mat 5:17-20; Luk 10:26. He would let Moses answer their question, since they claimed to follow Moses.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘And he answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” ’
Jesus tested them out in return. He turned their minds to the Law of Moses. and asked what they commanded. (‘Moses’ was short for ‘the Law of Moses’, the first five books of the Bible, which they accepted as written by Moses). He was preparing the way in readiness for establishing His own position, not only on divorce, but on marriage in general.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
Ver. 3. See Trapp on “ Mat 19:7 “ The Athenians and Romans had their divorces also. Their bill was only this, Res tuas tibi habeto, Take what is thine own, and be packing.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mar 10:3 . .: here Jesus has in view not what Moses allowed in Deu 24:1 , but what he in Genesis enjoined as the ideal state of things (Moses from the Jewish point of view author of the Pentateuch and all its legislation). They naturally supposed He had in view the former (Mar 10:4 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
answered and said. See note on Deu 1:41.
Moses. See note on Mar 1:44.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
What: Isa 8:20, Luk 10:25, Joh 5:39, Gal 4:21
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
Instead of answering di rect, Jesus asked them to repeat the law of Moses on the subject of the question they professed to have in mind.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 10:3. What did Moses command you? Peculiar to Mark. This question at once takes the matter out of the sphere of tradition and Rabbinical hair-splitting, into that of Divine law.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mar 10:3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mat 19:1 ff is the parallel passage for this text. The two are similar except for the exception clause in the case of fornication. This has already been covered – they would be dead under the law so there is no exception.
It is evident to me that Mark’s not recording this “exception” clause is due to the fact that he understood it to mean there is no divorce except in the case of adultery and in that case death of the guilty would free the spouse from their bond of marriage. This was his understanding so he did not mention it – no exception. Since Mark was writing to instruct others in their Christian life, it would seem to me that if divorce were an option under any condition he would have been very remiss to leave out an exception if there indeed was one.
Many see an exception here since we are not under the law. The text is clear on the exception, there is none in the historical context and it is error to make it one for this age. Christ was crystal clear on the fact that anyone that divorces and remarries commits adultery against their first spouse – continuing outward sin – that is grounds for church discipline though few practice such archaic things today.
The disciples understood that marriage was for life – they suggested it would be better not to marry in the Matthew text. Mat 19:10 “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry.”
I think we see in this case that the disciples understand the teaching and knew that to be married is to be totally committed to the spouse for all of this life.
One other point relating to historical context is that Mark does not mention the exception clause. Now he is writing to a different audience than Matthew yet he leaves this fact out. Might it be because he understood the matter as I have set it forth and clearly set forth the Lord’s feelings on the subject? It would seem so to this writer. If this is not true one might wander if he were not remiss to tell the reader the rest of the story.
Matthew, writing to a Jewish audience, would have wanted to make things clear to those that knew of the Old Testament comment on divorce and to give them understanding that divorce was not an option unless you wanted to be dead.
“And he answered and said unto them,” indicates a forthright response to their known trickery. “What did Moses command you?” He knew they knew the answer to their question and turned it back to them.
“And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.” Now you might want to look at the text that is under discussion (Deu 24:1 ff) to see just how truthful the leaders were being. The context of the divorcement is quite clear and precise, not a general blanket policy on divorce as the leaders practiced it. They found grounds for divorce in just about anything – rather like it is in our country today. Try it and if you don’t like it try it with someone else.
Now there is much discussion as to what the Deuteronomy passage means, but it seems that most see it as a man and woman agree to marry and in the period of the engagement the man finds uncleanness and puts her away. This is before they are actually married, thus she is free to marry another.
At any rate the Lord calls them up short when he says, “For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” In short, if you want to practice and understand divorce as you do then your heart is hardened. Hardness of heart is not a solid basis for your faith and practice.
The Lord continues to state God’s original plan for marriage. “6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
This is God’s plan and nothing in the Bible contradicts this plan. Add to this the thought that God hates divorce and you need to understand all passages relating to marriage in this context. Exceptions, reasons, philosophizing and pet theories are not basis for breaking a couple that God has brought together.
To build a doctrine for this dispensation based on the hard-hearted acts of those under the law is poor hermeneutics. If you understand the Old Testament saint’s position before God and then understand ours in the church age you would not want to pattern your life on their principles. They were not complete in Christ, their sins were only covered until the cross. The New Testament saint is held to the higher standard. We have the Holy Spirit within to guide and direct us and to bring us into a godly lifestyle. The Old Testament folks had no such advantage and this is why for hardness of heart Moses allowed divorce in a specific case. This is why there are many sinful areas in people’s lives that were part of God’s people, but now with the Spirit we ought to live godly lives.
Just because some in the Old Testament had multiple wives does not give us basis for a similar lifestyle. They also lived in tents but we do not need to follow in their footsteps.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Jesus responded in rabbinic fashion with another question. He asked the Pharisees what Moses, the authority whom they all professed to recognize, taught. Jesus sent them to God’s Word rather than debating traditional interpretations that the Pharisees treated as authoritative.