Mark 10:1-12

Mark 10:1 The Question of Divorce. Mk. represents Jesus as travelling up to Jerusalem through Peræ a (p. 33) and not through Samaria. Leaving Capernaum, He crosses the Jordan and resumes His public ministry. Under these circumstances some Pharisees come to Him with their question as to the lawfulness of divorce. They tempt Him by their question, seeking either to bring Him into conflict with the Law or to embroil Him with Herod, whose conduct He must condemn as John did. The former reason is more probable. When Jesus asks His questioners for the verdict of Moses, they naturally appeal to Deuteronomy 24:1 f. This law Jesus sets aside, by laying down a far-reaching principle of interpretation which suggests that the Mosaic Law was in certain cases a kind of second best, and by citing from Gen. (Mark 1:27) a passage emphasizing the Divine purpose of marriage. Wellhausen would interpret Mark 10:6 thus: But in Genesis Moses wrote - Male and female created He them.-' Jesus does not overthrow Moses with the higher authority of God, but Deuteronomy with Genesis (HNT). He corrects Moses by Moses. Nowhere does Jesus go nearer to denying the absolute divinity, permanence, and perfection of the Law. Yet one can see that he was not himself conscious of doing so (Montefiore, i. 238). Paul seems to be thinking of Mark 10:9 in 1 Corinthians 7:10. In this discussion Jesus condemned the dominant Jewish law of divorce. The case of the breaking of marriage by adultery is not directly considered. The exception introduced in Matthew 19:9 probably interprets the teaching of Jesus aright. This passage does not establish the absolute indissolubility of marriage. There is no reason to suppose that Jesus differed from Shammai in regarding adultery as justifying divorce. The additional answer given to the disciples places man and woman on an equality of right and responsibility. Loisy supposes Mark 10:12 to be due to Mk., who is thinking of Roman society. But the saying may be uttered with the case of Herodias in view. (See Allen's defence of the passage, summarised in Montefiore, i. 241f.)