Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 10:10
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same [matter.]
10. in the house ] St Mark records several confidential household words of our Lord to His disciples, e.g. concerning ( a) the power of casting out demons (Mar 9:28-29); ( b) the great in the kingdom of heaven (Mar 9:33-37); and ( c) here, the Christian law of marriage.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mat 5:32; 19:9, interprets this passage of Mark, by adding those words, except it be for fornication. None but Mark alone hath what is in Mar 10:12, which concerneth the woman; which hath made some doubt whether the woman, in case of the husbands adultery, may sue a divorce from him, but the most judicious interpreters say there is an equal right on both sides. I am sure the reason is equal on both sides. The adultery of the husband dissolves the tie and covenant of marriage, as well as the adultery of the wife. It is yet a more groundless and unreasonable opinion of some from the words of this and the parallel texts, that persons divorced may not marry again; as if Gods end in the law of divorce in case of adultery were merely to separate the wife from the husbands bed. Whether the person that hath given the cause for the divorce may marry again, may be more disputed, not only because such persons are dead persons in the law of God, but because such a liberty granted would open a flood gate to iniquity of that kind, while persons weary of their correlates should by this means gratify their lusts, and also obtain their desires. But I shall not determine it. Certain it is our Saviour here speaketh only of divorces for trivial causes, which the law of God doth not warrant; and in such cases the person marrying again must necessarily commit adultery, because the band of the former union holds. As to the question, whether divorces be lawful in no cases but that of adultery;
See Poole on “Mat 5:31-32“. See Poole on “Mat 19:3“, and following verses to Mat 19:11.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And in the house,…. To which Christ retired, after he had put the Pharisees to silence, and dismissed the multitude:
his disciples asked him again of the same matter; concerning the affair of divorces, be bad been discoursing with the Pharisees about; some things being said, they had not been used to, and which they did not thoroughly understand; and therefore chose privately to converse with him on this subject, for their further information.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “And in the house His disciples asked Him again,” (kai eis ten oikian palin hoi mathetai eperoton auton) ”And when they were in the house again (in privacy) the disciples inquired of Him,” asked Him further. In what house in Perea or Judea is not known.
2) “Of the same matter,”(peri touton) “Concerning this matter,” this recurring problem, softly considered by pious Jewish elders as so often done today in Christiandom ‘ Of the man’s divorcing his wife, Matthew adds, “except for fornication,” Mt 19 9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(10) And in the house.St. Marks narrative is, on the whole, much shorter than St. Matthews; but this detail of the question coming from the disciples after they had entered the house is given by him only.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter, and he says to them, “Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, commits adultery against her, and if she herself shall put away her husband and marry another, she commits adultery.” ’
This was all so startling that it is not surprising that the disciples wanted clarification on the matter (Matthew tell us that they said, ‘in that case it is not a good idea to marry’, a logical but not very practicable idea). Under Jewish law a man could divorce his wife but a wife could not divorce her husband (although in extreme cases she could go to court for the court to do it for her). Nor according to the Rabbis could a man commit adultery against his wife, for he could take a second wife, but he could commit adultery against another man by taking that man’s wife, and a wife could commit adultery against her husband. However under Roman law a wife could also divorce her husband. The prime example of it as far as Jesus and the disciples were concerned was Herod and Herodias. That was the most infamous example of divorce and remarriage in the area and had been carried out under Roman law. And it was John the Baptiser’s opposition to this that had contributed largely to his death. It is not therefore surprising that Jesus, rather daringly, made a reference to that situation.
‘Commits adultery against her.’ The Jewish teaching did not go this far. A man could not in their eyes commit adultery against his wife. But Jesus went further than they did. He claimed that divorce was as wrong for a man as for a woman and equally for him a breaking of the commandment on adultery, for by it he forces the committing of adultery on the woman.
‘And if she herself shall put away her husband and marry another, she commits adultery.’ This is probably to be seen as a direct condemnation of Herodias’ second marriage (it could hardly not have been in mind when the subject was discussed, especially in view of what had happened to John the Baptiser), and was spoken only in the presence of the disciples. Had He said it in front of the Pharisees it would have been the equivalent of a rope about His neck. But He wants His disciples to know that He agrees with John the Baptiser. But no doubt He also saw it as applying more generally. Divorce under Roman law was undoubtedly reasonably well known in Palestine, especially in court circles, and no doubt its popularity had increased following the example of Herod. Thus it was necessary for it to be condemned
These words are peculiar to Mark and differing authorities have slightly different renderings. But the main import is the same. A woman who divorces her husband and marries another, as Herodias had done, commits adultery.
This whole statement on divorce which we have looked at above, and which Jesus gave on His own authority based on the Scriptures, was a powerful claim that He could settle Pharisaic disputes because of Who He was, and set aside their rulings by a solemn declaration. It was an example of, ‘But I say to you.’ (compare Mat 5:21-48). And in the circumstance of the time, and in view of what had happened to John the Baptiser, it was an indication of His fearlessness, and that He saw it as His right as a prophet even to speak against kings.
So this declaration on the significance and purpose of marriage, which swept aside all other rulings on the subject on the basis of the word of God, demonstrated His claim to unique authority and established that the Kingly Rule of God had come. This was His first indication to Judaea and Jerusalem that a new age had come in which men would be turned back to how things were in the beginning before man had sinned.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
An additional explanation to the disciples:
v. 10. And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter.
v. 11. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
v. 12. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. The disciples were still deeply imbued with the teaching of the scribes, of the rabbis, which they had heard from their youth. The statements of Christ differed so plainly from the customs with which they were familiar that they took up the matter with the Master once more in their lodging-place. They wanted to be sure that they had heard aright and that Jesus had nothing to add in further explanation to them alone. But He only summarizes once more what He said on the way: If any man divorce his wife, loose her from the marriage-bond, and marry another, he commits adultery to the prejudice of, against, the first. The loose morals in the intercourse between the sexes may have been the rule among the Jews, and constant association with these abuses may have made the disciples as callous as all the rest. But that does not affect one whit the ordinance of God. The same rule holds true in the case of a woman: If she divorces her husband, looses the marriage-bond that held him to her, as she could do according to Palestinian law in those days, she commits adultery. See Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-9.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mar 10:10-12 . See on Mat 19:9 . The two evangelists differ from one another here in respect of the place, of the persons to whom Jesus is speaking, and partially of the contents of what He says. Certainly Matthew has furnished the original shape of the matter, since what Mark makes Jesus say only in the house and merely to His disciples (Mar 10:11 with the not original amplification of Mar 10:12 ) is withal an essential element of the reply to the Pharisees, and does not bear the character of a special private instruction, whereas the private communication to the disciples, Mat 19:10-12 , which as such is just as appropriate as it is original, is indeed “the crown of the whole” (Ewald).
] having come into the house (in which at that time they were lodging). The same brevity of expression occurs at Mar 13:9 .
] again the disciples , as previously the Pharisees.
] (see the critical remarks): upon this subject .
Mar 10:11 . ] in reference to her , the woman that is put away. [132]
Mark has not the (Matt.), which makes no essential difference, as this ground of divorce is obvious of itself as such. See on Mat 5:32 . Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 410.
Mar 10:12 . . . .] Matthew has quite a different saying. The narrative of Mark is certainly not original (in opposition to Schenkel), but puts into the mouth of Jesus what was the custom among the Greeks and Romans , namely, that the wife also might be the divorcing party, and very often actually was so (see on 1Co 7:13 , and Wetstein in loc. ; also Danz in Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. p. 680 ff.), which was not competent to the Jewish wife (Deu 24:1 ; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10), for the instances of Michal (1Sa 25:41 ), of Herodias (Mat 14:4 f.), and of Salome (Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10) are abnormal in respect of their rank; and the cases in which, according to the Rabbins, the wife might require that the husband should give her a writing of divorcement (see Saalschtz, Mos. R. p. 806 f.) do not belong to the question here, where the wife herself is the party who puts away. The proposition in the passage before us is derived from an Hellenic amplification of the tradition, [133] which, however, in Matthew is again excluded. Comp. Harless, p. 25f. According to Kuinoel (comp. Lange), Jesus purposed to give to the apostles, as future teachers of the Gentiles , the instruction requisite for judging in such a case. But He must have said as much, as the question had reference to the Jewish relation of divorce.
] the subject is the woman (comp. Mar 5:11 ), not the . Moreover, Grotius appropriately says: “Mulier ergo, cum domina sui non sit omnino adulterium committit, non interpretatione aliqua aut per consequentiam, sed directe. Ideo non debuit hic addi .”
[132] Observe that Jesus here of necessity presupposes the acknowledgment of the principle of monogamy . Theophylact and many others, including Lange, Ewald, and Bleek, have erroneously referred to the second wife. Erasmus appropriately says: “in injuriam illius.” Comp. Calvin and Bengel: “in illam.” It is only thus that its emphatic bearing is brought out; the marrying of the second wife makes him an adulterer towards the first .
[133] According to Baur, from a reflection of Mark on the equal rights of the two sexes.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter .
Ver. 10. And in the house ] This is one of those passages related by St Mark only.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10 12. ] In Matt. this saying forms part of the discourse with the Jews . Here again Mark furnishes us with the exact circumstantial account of the matter. On the addition, Mat 19:10-12 , see notes there.
We may notice, that Mark omits Matt.’s in Mar 10:2 , and his in Mar 10:11 ; as also does Luke ( Luk 16:18 ). The one omission seems to involve the other. The report here gives the enquiry without this particular exception. As a general rule, Mark, so accurate in circumstantial details, is less exact than Matt. in preserving the order and connexion of the discourses.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 10:10-12 report as spoken to the Twelve in the house (as opposed to the way in which the Pharisees are supposed to have encountered Jesus) what in Mt.’s version appears as the last word to the interrogants (Mar 10:9 ). Two variations are noticeable: (1) the absence of the qualifying clause , and (2) the addition of a clause (Mar 10:12 ) stating the law in its bearing on the woman = if she put away her husband and marry another, she is an adulteress. In the former case Mk. probably reports correctly what Christ said, in the latter he has added a gloss so as to make Christ’s teaching a guide for his Gentile readers. Jewish women could not divorce their husbands. The at the end of Mar 10:11 may mean either against, to the prejudice of, her (the first wife), or with her (the second). The former view is taken by the leading modern exegetes, the latter by Victor Ant., Euthy., Theophy., and, among moderns, Ewald and Bleek.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 10:10-12
10In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. 11And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”
Mar 10:10 “the disciples began questioning Him about this” Mat 19:10 records the disciples’ astonishment. They were curious about what they had always been taught concerning divorce and remarriage. This phrase shows the pattern of Jesus’ public teaching and private interpretation. This pattern shows how easily Jesus’ words could be misunderstood. These private sessions were the opportunity to train the Twelve in the proper understanding and new radical perspective of the Kingdom of God. Jesus focused ultimate authority in Himself, not the OT (cf. Mat 5:17-19), though He honored and usually affirmed the OT.
Mar 10:11-12 “commits adultery. . .committing adultery” These are both present indicative verbs. The form (morphology) of the word “adultery” in Koine Greek could be either middle or passive voice. Mat 5:32, which deals with the same subject, has an aorist passive infinitive. This implies that all the forms are passive. If this is true, then it is not the divorce and remarriage that was adultery, but the legal act of putting the woman away, which culturally stigmatized her as an adulteress. Literally “she is caused to commit adultery.” This is not a total scriptural ban on remarriage. It relates to a theological aspect of Jewish interpretation (i.e., Hillel vs. Shammai).
However, the dissolution of the marriage covenant between believers (i.e., who swear in Christ’s name to remain married) was, and is, never God’s ideal. Believers are held to a higher “kingdom standard.” Divorce is often the lesser of two evils; it is not the unpardonable sin! See full note at Mar 10:4.
Mar 10:12 “if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery” This translation follows the Alexandrian Greek texts. The Western texts read “that she leaves husband, but is not divorced and marries someone else, therefore, commits adultery.” The parallel passage in Mat 19:1-12 leaves this verse out, probably because Matthew, writing to Jews, had no need to include this. In Judaism women did not have the right to divorce their husbands. Mark, writing to Gentiles, records this to show the universal aspect of Jesus’s teaching. This focuses on the legal equality of husband and wife, reflected in Roman law. This is another evidence that Mark was written to Romans. Jesus is pro family (cf. Mar 10:13-16)!
“if” This is a third class conditional sentence which means potential action.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
in. Greek. en. App-104. (All the texts read eis, = into. App-104) Same word as in verses: Mar 10:21, Mar 10:30, Mar 10:32, Mar 10:37, Mar 10:52. Not the same as in Mar 10:24.
of = concerning. Greek. peri, App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
10-12.] In Matt. this saying forms part of the discourse with the Jews. Here again Mark furnishes us with the exact circumstantial account of the matter. On the addition, Mat 19:10-12, see notes there.
We may notice, that Mark omits Matt.s in Mar 10:2,-and his in Mar 10:11; as also does Luke (Luk 16:18). The one omission seems to involve the other. The report here gives the enquiry without this particular exception. As a general rule, Mark, so accurate in circumstantial details, is less exact than Matt. in preserving the order and connexion of the discourses.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
[10. , again) The Saviour had given the reply which follows to the Pharisees, Mat 19:9; but the disciples, by repeating the question, called forth a repetition of the same reply.-V. g.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mar 4:10, Mar 9:28, Mar 9:33
Reciprocal: Isa 8:16 – among
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
0
The disciples wished to have further information.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 10:10. And in the house. An accurate detail peculiar to Mark. The fuller private teaching was needed, for these disciples were to teach the world new lessons on the subject of marriage and divorce, and thus elevate women. Sadly enough, women who have been elevated by these teachings are seeking to overthrow their authority, thus unwittingly laboring for the renewed degradation of their sex.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mar 10:10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Is this not clear that the one leaving a spouse and remarrying is living in adultery with another? How much clearer could it be made? And do not make the mistake of believing this is a one-time adultery relating to the divorce, it is an ongoing life of adultery until one original spouse is dead. This fact is presented by the Lord in the present, on going action tense, not a one time act.
Some Greek students tell us that this is not really a present tense but some “present” that actually indicates a one-time act. I have spoken to many Greek scholars and asked about this particular verse and whether there is anything in the Greek that indicates such a “one time present tense” ever existed and they all have told me no there is not.
If you want to find understanding in the Word that divorce is O.K. then so be it, commit a one time sin and seek forgiveness, though this does not seem to be the proper way to handle sin and forgiveness, but do remember remarriage means you will be living in ongoing sin for the remainder of that marriage or until your original spouse dies.
Let me see, Lord, I am going to sin, I am going to get divorced so after it is done I will see you about forgiveness. And oh by the way, I will be marrying my girl friend and we will be living in ongoing open sin so I will be seeking your forgiveness from time to time on that.
Does that really seem like a basis for a proper relationship with God? How do you think God will react to such a situation? I would not speak for Him, but terrible sorrow comes to mind, lack of forgiveness comes to mind.
What have preachers/teachers of our day brought upon the Lord’s church?
“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.” is God’s way. What part of “one flesh” do we not understand when it comes to marriage? Are we really that slow to understand God’s standard?
Now, even IF there were an exception, even if there were and even a dozen and a half exceptions, Christ makes it quite clear that it was not that way in God’s mind in the beginning. It was one MAN and one WOMAN for life – one flesh – not two separable fleshes but becoming one.
Even one “MAN and one WOMAN” has been totally polluted today. If we don’t stop we are going to be accepting of one “MAN and one HORSE.” Marriage was defined in the beginning; marriage has remained the same for centuries until convenience makes a total mockery of that which God set into motion.
From the beginning of creation, not in the middle, not toward the end, not even a surprise afterthought – from the beginning of creation God had it in mind. It was not a consensus of those present, it was not a vote of the angels, it was God’s choice and plan.
The word cleave cannot be divorced from this context, it is an integrated part of the discussion. Cleave means to be glued together, thus those liking the possibility of divorce can just suggest that when married you are super glued together but that sometimes we just fall in a vat of finger nail polish remover and we become unglued. Cleave, glue, and become attached is in the idea of becoming one flesh.
The mood of cleave is passive indicating that this gluing is an automatic operation, something that happens from without the man and the woman. In my mind I would suggest that the act of marriage should be an automatic bonding of the couple. Almost as if the act supplies the bond, which in truth is just right. When a couple marries they become one.
Gill points out something that has always been totally obvious but seldom noticed. Christ, when he stated “in the beginning” was speaking of Adam and Eve. The ideas of divorce and/or polygamy were impossibilities for Adam. Eve was it she was his choice, his option and only resort. There were two to become one, not three not two women, not two men and no other combination was present. It was Adam and Eve or nothing.
One might also conclude that within the concept of marriage, the choice of mate did not depend on looks, character or personality; it was that which was at hand. Since in the New Testament the older women are to teach the younger women how to love their husbands, we might conclude that all the flirting, the chasing, the evaluation of our day is not all that necessary, though quite enjoyable, in the selection of a mate.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
The disciples wanted clarification of Jesus’ view, so they asked Him for it in private. Mark recorded His straightforward reply. Neither husband nor wife should divorce their partner and remarry someone else. To do so constitutes committing adultery against the spouse.
Mar 10:12 is unique in Mark. Under Roman law a wife could divorce her husband, but under Jewish law she could not. [Note: Nineham, p. 266, footnote.] There were exceptions, however, as in the case of Herodias who had divorced Philip to marry Antipas (Mar 6:17-18). Herod the Great’s sister also divorced her husband. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 15:7:10.] Jesus viewed all divorce followed by remarriage as constituting adultery no matter who initiated it. Divorce is wrong, but divorce followed by remarriage is worse.
"The new element in this teaching, which was totally unrecognized in the rabbinic courts, was the concept of a husband committing adultery against his former wife. According to rabbinic law a man could commit adultery against another married man by seducing his wife (Deu 22:13-29) and a wife could commit adultery against her husband by infidelity, but a husband could not be said to commit adultery against his wife. . . . This sharp intensifying of the concept of adultery had the effect of elevating the status of the wife to the same dignity as her husband and placed the husband under an obligation of fidelity." [Note: Lane, p. 357.]
Mark’s omission of the exception clause that Matthew included was also due to his audience (cf. Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9). He did not want to draw attention to the exceptional case because to do so would weaken the main point, namely, that people should not divorce. Divorce was very common in the Greco-Roman world. Apparently Matthew included Jesus’ permission to divorce for fornication because the subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews, his primary audience.