Mark 10:2-12 is a controversy on the question of divorce introduced by a geographical note in verse 1, Jesus' nearness to Jerusalem. The location
given by Mark is "in the regions of Judea beyond the Jordan". While there, the crowds come to Jesus who then begins to teach; among those present were the Pharisees.
This section from Mark can be easily divided into two parts: (a) the controversy on divorce (vv. 2-9), and (b) the instruction to the disciples (vv. 10-12). It is to be noted that v. 10 begins a location, "inside the house once more", which is problematic: which house is this? Is this the same house in 9:33? If this is the case then the reader will have to imagine a lapse of time between the controversy with the Pharisees and the private instructions to the disciples. Is this a different house, this time located in the regions of Judea beyond the Jordan? Or is this a case where two independent stories were brought together in Mark? J. Gnilka tells us that Mark already found these stories placed side by side with one another, although they were once independent, as can be seen from Matthew 19:1-9 which is followed by an instruction to the disciples on an altogether different matter (see Matthew 19:10-12). In any case, we have here in Mark a disputed question which later on gives Jesus an opportunity for further instructing his disciples.
The Controversy
Jesus was already near Jerusalem and so the guardians of orthodoxy have an opportunity to test him. The "test" may simply be about which rabbinic school Jesus supports by his teaching. It is known that the Hillel and Shammai schools were divided on the issue of divorce; and the Pharisees may have only been trying to see where to put Jesus' doctrine on the matter. But the pointedness of the question can also be indicative of a darker motive; a malicious intent on the part of the Pharisees as they test Jesus is still possible.
The situation of married life in first century Palestine is described as follows:
The woman was to look after her husband. The husband had to provide food, clothing and lodging and fulfill the conjugal duties. Besides this, he had to buy back his wife if she were ever captured. He had to get medicine if she fell sick, and a tomb for her burial. Even the very poor was obliged to procure two flute players and one who wailed for the funeral.
The woman had to obey her husband, mill the grain, cook, wash, make the meals, nurse the infants, work the wool, and, in some cases, wash the face and feet of her husband. Polygamy was permitted. After 10 years of married life without child, the husband was permitted to take another woman. The right of divorce was exclusively on the side of the husband. The text from Deuteronomy (Dt. 24:1) was subject to different interpretations between the Hillelites and Shamaites. For Hillel, things that brought displeasure to the husband gave him the right to dismiss the woman. In case of a divorce, the husband had to return to the woman the dowry prescribed in the contract of marriage. 1
This citation describes: (a) obligations of wives and husbands; (b) the practise of polygamy; (c) the right of divorce; and (d) the positions of the schools of Shammai and Hillel on divorce.
We know that the Essenes condemned multiple marriages in one's life-time. For this group, monogamy was the rule. They did not have a rule on divorce, however, but the Pharisees did. The two schools mentioned above had differing interpretations on Deuteronomy 24:1
When a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and therefore he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house.
The crux of the matter is on the idea of "something indecent". The Shammai school restricted it to mean sexual immorality; Hillel's school made it to mean anything that displeased the husband. And so divorce was easily accessible following this latter interpretation. A sample of a divorce bill that has come down to us appears thus:
Behold, now you are allowed to everyone. This on my part shall be for you a proof of rejection, an act of separation and a letter of dismissal according to the law of Moses and of Israel." 2
The first part of the certificate is the declaration of the husband that the wife is now available for anyone who would want her for marriage, a requirement of the Mishna3. The second part is the statement of repudiation.
Given the situation of the accessibility of divorce in first century Palestine then, the question "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" is loaded.
Jesus' Response
The response of Jesus to the question comes in two steps: first, he asks about the teaching of Moses, and second, he gives his response. After the Pharisees refer Jesus to Deut. 24:1, Jesus tells them that Moses' precept was due to their hardness of heart. After the giving of the Law in Sinai, the Israelites worshipped the Golden Calf and because of this, the tablets were broken by Moses. Afterwards, the Israelites were given another set of laws that were accomodated to their disobedient spirit and manifests their hardened hearts. This trend of thought is discernible in Ezekiel 20:25
I even gave them laws that were not good
and observances by which they could never live.
Thus, Moses' precept of divorce was not only a concession for the Israelites' inability to obey but also puts their hardness of heart to the test.
After putting before the Pharisees the hardness of heart that has occassioned the precept of divorce, he then calls their attention to the original intention of God. Here, he cites passages from Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 to emphasize that God intended marriage to become the fulfillment of two human beings called to one another. "And the two shall become one flesh." Later, in a private dialogue with his disciples, Jesus alludes to Deut. 24:1-4, explaining to them that both the man and the woman caught in the situation described in the passage are -- in his eyes -- guilty of adultery. The strict understanding of Jesus of the phrase "that the two become ONE flesh" is echoed in two other parallel texts.
In Matthew 5:32, the saying about divorce is found in the Sermon On The Mount, and phrased as Jesus' declaration of the true meaning of the Law
It has been said, `Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Notice that here, Jesus contrasts what has become a customary practice with the attitude to divorce that he brings: an attitude which is also grounded in Deut. 24:1, but representing a more restricted interpretation of it.
The other parallel is in Luke 16:18, in a statement that has no apparent connections with the ones that precede or follow it:
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery,
and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
In this passage, there are no qualifications made. And following as it does Luke 16:17 -- a statement declaring the stability of God's Law -- we are made to understand that marriage, as understood by Jesus, is indissoluble. The difference in emphasis between the passage in Matthew and the passage in Luke reflects perhaps the historical situations of the communities to which the Gospels were addressed. This notwithstanding, we are presented with a teaching on marriage and divorce that departs from what has been -- during those times -- construed as customary and acceptable.
- 1. Fr. Frederick Manns, OFM "Everyday life in the time of Jesus."
- 2. From Billerbeck, quoted in Polleti (trans) J. Gnilka's Das evangelium nach Marcus, p. 528
- 3. Ibid. The Mishna is an authoritative collection of the teaching of the Pharisees of the period 536 BC - 70 AD redacted around the 2nd c. AD. It is second in authority only to the Tanak (the Jewish Bible). For more about this see this WikiPedia article.
