Exploring Jesus Teachings on Divorce and Remarriage in Mark 10

Mark 10:1-12

Mark 10:

1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

We see in our text the Pharisees coming to Jesus to “tempt” him.  This informs us that they were not seeking to learn from Jesus, but rather to entrap him.  I wish I could say that the divorce and remarriage question was a new argument, but it is not.  This question has been debated far longer than we can imagine.  Sadly, this has always been a divisive issue and it remains so today.  Regretfully, this question is still being employed after the same manner the Pharisees used it.  Often this question is meant to draw party lines, to exclude people, and to pit group against group.  The Pharisees were attempting to do just that with Jesus.

Here is the scenario Mark details.  They asked this question: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?”  This was asked for one of two reasons and neither was good.

It is important for us to understand the religious and political climate of the day.  The topic of divorce and remarriage was debated because of different interpretations of the Mosaic Law.  The division occurred because of a difference in determining what Moses said.  To see this division, we look at Deut. 24 where Moses gives a law on divorce:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

History of the Jewish religion makes note of two Rabbis, Hillel and Shammai.  These teachers presented two different schools of thought.  The Jews were divided along these two teachings.  These Pharisees who approached Jesus knew the arguments.  People were divided on this teaching.  Deut. 24 Vs. 1 he hath found some uncleanness in her is the point of contention. The division existed in the interpretation of “uncleanness”.  All historians and Bible scholars I have read agree this was the cause of division on this question.  Hillel was the liberal and Shammai was the conservative.  Much like today, the division occurred due to extremism.  There have always been liberals and conservatives.

Hillel taught that the uncleanness was anything that might bring shame upon her husband.  One Rabbi writes, “If a man had a favorite dish and the woman drops and breaks it, this is grounds for divorce”.

Hillel taught that a man could divorce his wife for any reason.  This was the liberal teaching of the day.

Shammai taught that the uncleanness was an act of sexual nature.  He maintained a conservative view.

The majority of the Jews had accepted Hillel’s liberal position.  In the divorce debate, the great majority deemed Hillel to have won the day.  Having understood the theological climate, consider the reason for the question:

First, political…

 Vs. one tells us the region Jesus was in.  This is the same region that Herod ruled.  We learn in Mark 6:

17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.

18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.

If Jesus had said, “there is but one reason for divorce”, they would have gone to Herod and informed him so Herod might carry out the same thing against Jesus that he did John.  Using politics of the day they sought to destroy Jesus.

Secondly, the question was asked for theological debate and division….

If Jesus had sided with Shammai, they would have pitted Him against the majority and they would hope He would lose popular favor.  If Jesus had sided with the liberal position of Hillel, they would have immediately joined the side of Shammai and new enemies would have been made.  If Jesus answered this question either way, there was no way He could win.  I have found it to be so today in discussing the marriage question.  But I have also found that Jesus was in no way concerned with being popular.  His role was not to win the majority based on smooth talk or personal popularity.  So let’s look at His reply to the Pharisees.

 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.

He noted an agreement…

Both schools of thought regarding divorce agreed that a “bill of divorcement” was to be given.  The only purpose of the bill of divorcement was to show the person was indeed divorced and free from their previous marriage so they might marry again.  Remarriage in the divorce question has always been understood as a part of divorce.  Put her away means “dissolution of marriage”.  It cannot mean anything else in honest interpretation.  Putting away means divorce, not separating.

There was no disagreement among the Rabbis as the necessity of a bill of divorcement.

Mark 10:

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.

Jesus, in answering the Pharisees, takes them back to the Garden.  What was God’s plan for marriage in the garden?  You and I know this.  When you stood before the preacher, in the presence of God and those witnessing the event, you stated, “until death do us part”.  Surely, no one is considering how to end a marriage on his or her wedding day.

Jesus reinforces God’s intent.

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.

Some brethren, when discussing the marriage question, are quick to point out that divorce was not discussed in the garden.  It is also honest to acknowledge that death was not discussed in the marriage law in the Garden.

 In vs. 5 he sates that God allowed the precept of divorce because of the hardness of heart.

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

 Because of sin and the effects upon the heart of man and woman, God allows the precept of divorce, according to Jesus.

Try as we may, we cannot erase the fact that we live in a sinful world.  I maintain the only way we can fulfill God’s original intent is to be in a sinless world.  Today, sin still destroys marriages.  Sin still creates hard hearts against God and the mate that God has given them.  Jesus, in this statement, is not expressing an indictment against God’s provision for the hard heart.  If that were the case, then Moses would have been a lawgiver who violated God’s law.  Jesus is simply stating the fact of God’s original intent for marriage when sin had not entered the world.

Now, if the passage of Mark 10 ended here, we would conclude there is no reason ever a man and woman can divorce.  The churches would be in one accord on this question, those who are divorced would be excommunicated, and the matter would be settled.  But, unfortunately, it is not that simple.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

The reason for the question now changes.  His disciples ask him in a private gathering the same question.  They were seeking to learn and not to trap.  So, Jesus answers them.

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.

Again, if this passage were all that was said about the matter, we would conclude that there is never a reason for divorce and remarriage.  However, this is not the case.  As in nearly all of Matthew’s parallel accounts, we gain a more detailed and comprehensive view of what Jesus was taught.  It would be foolish for us not to pay attention to the entire scope of teaching on any issue Jesus or the Holy Spirit discusses.  An example commonly employed to attempt to prove baptism is not essential is a passage found in Romans 10: 13

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

We understand there is much more spoken regarding salvation in Christ than simply this passage.  If this were all that was said, we could safely conclude,  “to pray to God for salvation would be sufficient.”  In order to come to that conclusion we would have to disregard Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38 ; Gal 3:27 and many more.

Isaiah 28: 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Jesus teaching on divorce is no different.  With that in mind, lets read Matthew’s account in chapter 19.

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The account is identical to Mark’s account with the exception of vs. 9.  Here, Jesus defines what the uncleanness is in Deut. 24.  Jesus tells us the uncleanness is a sexual sin.  For years the word fornication in this passage was used as a synonym for adultery.  Looking at the original language we find it is much more.  The word fornication in the Greek is porneia.  It is the word from which we get “pornography”.  Strong’s defines it from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.

Now, the penalty for adultery in the Mosaic Law was clear… death.  There would have been no reason for a writing of divorcement for adultery.  The innocent party could have simply had their unfaithful spouse stoned.  Jesus uses the word “fornication”.  This word includes all manner of sexual sins.  Homosexuality, incest, adultery, pornography, bestiality,  etc…

“Except it be for fornication”… Jesus offers an exception clause in Mt. 19 defining Deut. 24 “uncleanness” as a sexual trespass against the spouse.  This is Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage.  To remove the exception clause is to take away from the word of God.  Paul, by the Holy Spirit, gives further details regarding divorce in I Cor. 7, specifically the desertion of a Christian by an unbelieving spouse.  Paul also gives instruction regarding how we are to remain after obeying the Gospel.

I Cor. 7:

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.

The fact Jesus gave an exception for divorce and remarriage in no way diminishes the sanctity of marriage.  It does free the innocent of the bondage of sin that would be imposed upon the innocent party.  You and I should not attempt to remove a liberty that God has given.  Nor should we attempt to impose the liberty upon one who chooses not to accept it.

Mt. 19:

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Mark Parkhurst

Nov. 2025