For a considerable time already the disciples were being prepared for a departure to Jerusalem in order to suffer there (8:31). Their voyage through Galilee had the character of a voyage “en route” (9:30). In 10:1 Mark now tells us how Jesus “left there” (their place in Capernaum, 9:33, 35) and “went to the region of Judea.” This going to Judea is to be seen in the light of the preceding prophecies of suffering. Mark, therefore, does not speak of the voyage through Perea (and an additional short visit to Jerusalem during the festivities of the renewal of the temple). Luke says much more about the days in Perea, and John also has some information about Jesus’ stay in Bethany across the Jordan. Mark briefly summarizes all this by a short reference in 10:1: “He went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them.” The wording suggests that during this time of travel more things happened than we are told. For Mark, in view of the preparations in Galilee, the definitive arrival in Judea is now of the greatest importance. And so we come to the days before and shortly after the raising of Lazarus, in the neighbourhood of Bethany on the Mount of Olives, not long before the celebration of the Passover.

Some manuscripts indicate that Jesus went through the region of Judea “through Perea” (10:1). Other manuscripts do not state ”through Perea” but “and Perea.” Jesus’ voyage to “the region of Judea and Perea” can be interpreted as a voyage to Judea via Perea, if we agree with Taylor that the most distant goal of the voyage is mentioned first (cf. 11:1).

The crowds travel to Jesus (in groups and with a definite goal in mind): the intention is not to say that they “travelled with Jesus” (Wohlenberg)¹) , although that is not impossible. The teaching of the crowd takes place regularly (edidasken, imperfect): Jesus travels to Jerusalem as the Teacher in Israel on behalf of God. He no longer withdraws (as at the end in Galilee), but acts “again” (mentioned twice!) as Teacher.

It is especially on his teaching that Jesus is attacked in Judea by Pharisees (10:2). A number of them join those who have come to Jesus: the wording indicates that, unlike the crowds of 10:1, they have not come because they have a real interest in Jesus but because they are critical of these educational get-togethers. They want to end the people’s interest in Jesus’ teaching by unmasking him. They ask him if it is allowed (by God) for a man to divorce his wife. That question is not intended to test Jesus and to find out what his position is in the debated issue of grounds for divorce. Lohmeyer²points to the discussions between the school of Hillel and that of Shammai, but the disagreement between them was not about the question whether divorce as such is allowed. Both assumed that it was. They differed only about the question whether the “indecency” (Deut. 24:1) in the woman must consist of issues that publicly (in the view of a third party) are considered indecent and unacceptable or if they also consist of matters that are an issue only internally (indoors) and that (more subjectively) are indecent and unbearable for the man in question. The second point, we may add, gives more possibilities for divorce (Shammai) but thereby in fact intends to limit the number of them because the woman will try the harder, also indoors, to prevent being sent away, by showing love and care for her husband, also privately. But the question that the Pharisees ask Jesus does not at all deal with this discussion. Mark says also clearly that they wanted to “test” him. They refer here to Jesus’ own teaching: they know that more than once he has objected to the certificate of divorce (Matt. 5:31-32). These Pharisees now try to elicit from Jesus in a sensitive case a statement that was against the law.³

According to all Jews, divorce (however restricted) is allowed by the law of Moses. If Jesus declares himself now to be against divorce he goes against the law. And not only that, he will also lose a lot of popularity among the many men who are standing around him, not because they want to divorce quickly, but because the abolition of the certificate of divorce and of divorce as such would, in the people’s view, give permission to women to disregard their marriage duties and tasks: we should not forget that many marriages were arranged by the parents and that such arranged marriages could grow into successful ones because the wife, in view of the risk of being sent away, exerted herself to help and please the husband, so that it became easier for him to learn to love his wife as well. Jesus’ own disciples also could not consider the possibility of getting married without the freedom of sending their wife away (Matt. 19:10). And so if, because of the feelings of the predominantly male crowds around him, Jesus should declare divorce acceptable after all, then he would deny his own earlier teachings. The question has been chosen with care: the subject is sufficiently touchy to drive a wedge between Jesus and his followers and to unmask him as an unstable or a heretical teacher. In this way the Pharisees hope to get rid of Jesus’ teaching.

In his reaction (10:3-8) Jesus does respond to the superficial aspect of the question but his response is especially formulated to deal with the deeper critical attitude of the Pharisees. Just as with one question they want to get entirely rid of Jesus, so Jesus shows that this one question betrays their entire spiritual position. In 10:5 he speaks of their “hardness of heart”: this expression is not specific for issues around marriage and divorce. It is to indicate a general opposition to God’s commandments. We more than once find the expression in the Old Testament as typical of the uncircumcised heart (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4). When the people refuse to listen to the Lord the forehead is hard and the heart stubborn (Ezek. 3:7). This attitude of unbelief was present already at the time in the desert and meant that the people could not enter the rest of God (Ps. 95:8-11). In Psalm 95 the hardness of heart is shown precisely herein, that people put the Lord to the test and put him to the proof, although they had seen his work. This is also the situation of the “testing” Pharisees with respect to Jesus. He connects the command of the certificate of divorce to the general characteristic of the people, which he recognizes also in those who pose the question (your hardness of heart). The hardness of heart, as a closing of one’s heart to the Lord, his word and his work, means under the old covenant that the people go into exile and are sent away.⁴ The word sounds, also in the response to the Pharisees, very threatening. They worry whether a man may send his wife away, but a people with a hardened heart is sent away by the Lord. (Hemelsoet erroneously sees in this pericope an affirmation of the unbreakable bond between Jesus and Jerusalem.⁵)

The general closedness to the work and the word of God (as it comes in Jesus to the Pharisees) Jesus now illustrates with reference to their own questioning. They wanted to tempt him to make pronouncements that would clash with the law. Jesus does not fall into their snare. He makes evident their hidden weapon by making them say themselves what Moses has commanded. The wording in 10:3 is striking: Jesus speaks about Moses’ commandments as if they stand beside his own words (“What did Moses command you?”). Here there is already a preparation for what will follow in 10:5: Moses’ command is typically the type of command that you (unfortunately) need. The Pharisees cannot say without further ado that Moses commanded divorce. He commanded that in the case of divorce a certificate of divorce should be given. In this command the permission to divorce is implied. This, however, is only an implicit concession, not a positive command. And so in 10:4 they correctly answer, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” The two things are not the same, but by choosing the verb “to allow” it can be so formulated. For at issue is not the practice of the certificate of divorce but the question whether sending away is allowed. Yet, imperceptibly, the blood here is thicker than water. Giving an order (of the certificate of divorce) in cases where the woman is sent away does not imply that this sending away is now positively allowed rather than being tolerated from sheer necessity. The first conclusion is drawn by the Pharisees. Jesus teaches the second one, and that with reference to Scripture itself. This commandment (of the certificate of divorce) Moses gave because of the hardness of your heart. This hardness of heart (10:5) does not point to marital unfaithfulness and similar matters but to deafness to God’s Word and work. For already at the beginning Scripture says very clearly how God himself made human beings, man and woman, into one flesh. Since the people close their hearts to God’s work in the beginning and to God’s Word about man and woman who become one flesh, they show themselves to be hard of hearing and unwilling. In that situation they separate what belongs together. And then comes the order to give at such a separation at least a certificate of divorce and later not to marry again the one sent away if in the meantime she has belonged to another man. Now the Pharisees cling to Moses in order to continue in fact the closing of their hearts to God: they want to separate what he joined together, and therein show that they remain closed to his Word and work. That same hardness of heart makes it equally easy for them to disrespect and test Jesus, the Son of God.

In 10:6 Jesus cites words from Genesis 1:27 (“Male and female he created them”). Then in 10:7-8a follow the words of Adam in Genesis 2:24, when he takes the woman to himself: Jesus repeats these words. And so he himself now speaks of the duty of the man and the woman. There is, therefore, a flowing transition from the words that are taken from Genesis 2:24 to Jesus’ own continued formulation (8b: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh”). This “being one flesh” refers not only to the physical oneness within marriage, but also to the total oneness of two persons in the covenant of marriage that makes them “one person.”

In 10:9 we hear the ultimate answer to the question of the Pharisees. After the conditions for this answer have been formulated, it is now short and sweet: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” With the expression “joined together” we could think of a span of draft animals before a wagon. The verb refers to a harmonious joining together (suzeugnuein): it is found only here (and in Matt. 19:6) in the New Testament. God joins together two human beings for a task: whoever dissolves such a span causes also their task to remain undone. The idea that God had a task and goal in mind for marriage is evident from the fact that God made human beings man and woman, and from the instruction to them to leave father and mother when they get married: God forms a new and separate lifespan. Whoever dissolves a marriage brings God’s wagons to a standstill. He considers the opinion of humans and forgets God. But where the hardness of heart is replaced by reverence and obedience, people will be fearful of undoing God’s creation and his order. This answer is more revealing about Jesus’ opponents than it accuses him. The law with which they tried to catch him has in his hand become a sword that turns against those who are dull of hearing. The Teacher of Israel enters Judea in the name of the Creator!

In 10:10 Mark writes that the disciples, when at home (in Bethany?), ask him again a question on the same subject. The question appears in Matthew (19:10: Is it then not better not to marry?). It is incorrect, in view of the word “again” (palin), to suggest that the first question also came from the disciples so that the mentioning of the Pharisees in 10:2 must be considered secondary.⁶ It is not the questioners who come for the second time, but the subject is “again” tabled — now from the side of the disciples. Jesus repeats to them the instruction he has given before (10:11). It is possible to give a certificate of divorce and marry someone else, but for God and for Jesus the first marriage remains normative, so that the second marriage is nevertheless adultery. Juridical measures can indeed channel this, but they cannot serve to undo the duties God imposed on the husband with respect to his first wife. It is clear that Jesus is leading the people of Israel here to a higher road than the laws of Moses (because of the hardness of heart) could do (see also Matt. 5:27-32). The command of faithfulness and love applies not only to the men, but also the women (10:12): many exegetes state here that Jesus himself cannot have said this because the Jewish wife was not allowed to give a certificate of divorce (Lührmann⁷). The situation is different, however: the Jewish wife was allowed to give a certificate of divorce but this became valid only when her husband also signed it. Should he refuse to cooperate, the law court could in certain cases force him to sign.⁸ The further instruction to the disciples reveals also to them the way of love and self-denial, which Jesus will follow in Jerusalem and which he impresses on us, beginning with marriage. At issue here is the narrow road to the heavenly kingdom.

Regarding the question why the addition “except in the case of adultery” is lacking in Mark, see the commentary on Matthew 5:31-32.