Jesus was all for marriage

JESUS WAS ALL FOR MARRIAGE
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Mark 10:6 However, from the beginning of creation,
'God made them male and female.'
Mark 10:7 For this reasona man will leave his father
and mother and be united to his wife,
Mark 10:8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they
are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together,
let man not separate."
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Christ's Statement Of The Divine Law Of Marriage
Mark 10:1-12
A.F. Muir
It is well to note his locality at this time. He was approaching the center of the
Judaeanparty, outlying members of which encounteredhim as he was
entering Judaea from beyond Jordan. Nevertheless he no longer observes
"counsels ofprudence." He freely addresses the crowds that throng to his

ministry, and confronts the attempts of his enemies to catchhim in his words.
This Divine abandonment is very noble and beautiful, and argues that he now
clearly foresaw allthat was to take place. There are two intentions in the reply
of Jesus which it is necessaryto distinguish, viz. that of defense, and that of
teaching. His words are to be studied, therefore, as -
I. A MEASURE OF DEFENCE.Thathis questioners meant him mischief
there can be no doubt. The word "tempting" is used for "trying," "proving,"
and that in an evil sense.
1. What, then, was the dangerthat lay in such a question? According to his
reply they hoped:
(1) To discredit him with the respectable classes, andto found a charge
againsthim of overturning the socialand religious institutions of the land. It is
the reproachand shame of nearly all "heresies"in religion that they sooneror
later attempt to abolish the safeguards ofsociety, and the time-honored
customs of the socialorder. Marriage is a touchstone that betrays the inherent
unrighteousness and impracticability of a large proportion of them. His
enemies hoped on this point to array him againstMoses.
(2) To discredit him with the common people. It was a vexed question at the
time in the rival schools ofHillel and Shammai, the latter being stricter, the
former laxer, in their view of the lawfulness of divorce. Probably convinced of
their own view of the case, theyrelied upon easilyconfuting his arguments,
and thereby "showing him up" as a pretender and imposter.
2. But in this twofold scheme they were defeated, Jesus making his
interroggators themselves the declarers of the Law which he acceptedand
simply interpreted. He appeared, therefore, as a defender and not an assailant
of the Law. And then he showedhow deep the basis of obligation really was,

and how much less strict the "precept" of Moses was thanit might have been,
and the cause of this.
II. A PERMANENTDOCTRINE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.The historical
circumstances ofthe time when the precept was formulated were probably
consideredat greaterlength than could be representedin Mark's account,
and the position justified that it was a compromise or provisionalmeasure
necessitatedby "the hardness of heart" of the Jews the drawing up of a
formal document being a check upon hasty and passionate ruptures of the
marriage tie. He thus proved that moral obligationis deeper and more
permanent than convention or external law. He next consideredmarriage as a
law of nature anterior to the socialsanction, which does not therefore create
the institution, but ought only to recognize and enforce it. To this end he
traces it to the original purpose of God in creation, quoting Genesis 1:27;and
strengthening the inference from this by the positive command of Genesis
2:24, long anterior to the time of Moses. It is not for man to interfere with or
modify an arrangementso manifestly Divine. The only ground upon which
marriage can be set aside is therefore that of one or other party to the
marriage bond having already broken it by sinful action, and thus destroyed it
as an actualthing. The Law then simply steps in to defend the rights of the
party who has been injured, setting that party free from further possibility of
like injury. This transgressionof the marriage bond which amounts to its
annulment is not stated, but is clearly implied, viz. adultery. The Savior
thereby proves his teaching in harmony with the teaching of nature and
previous revelation. But the gospelwhich is proclaimed in his Name does
more than this. It seeksto fit man for the highest socialand religious duties,
by purifying and strengthening his moral being. - M.
The Law of Marriage
E. Johnson

Mark 10:1-12
And he arose from there, and comes into the coasts ofJudaea by the farther
side of Jordan: and the people resortto him again; and…
I. THE DIRECTIONSOF SCRIPTUREFOLLOW THE OLDER LAW OF
NATURE.
II. THE SANCTITYOF MARRIAGE IS FOUNDED ON NATURE.
III. IN ITS IDEAL, MARRIAGE IS FOR LIFE, AND INDISSOLUBLE.
IV. YET THE ACTUAL CONDITION OF HUMAN NATURE COMPELS
SOME RELAXATION.
V. BUT WHAT IS PERMITTEDIS NOT, THEREFORE, TO BE
APPROVED OR FOLLOWED PRACTICALLY. Christianity is throughout
ideal. It makes appealto our higher nature. At the same time, it admits the
difficulty of carrying our ideals unexceptionably into practice. - J.
God's Law Greaterthan Man's
Dr. Wayland.
Mark 10:2-12
And the Pharisees came to him, and askedhim, Is it lawful for a man to put
awayhis wife? tempting him.…

We are here taught that marriage, being an institution of God, is subjectto
His laws alone, and not to the laws of man. Hence the civil law is binding upon
the conscience onlyin so far as it corresponds to the law of God.
(Dr. Wayland.)
Influence of a Christian Wife
Dr. Talmage.
Mark 10:2-12
There was a company of rough men togetherat one o'clock one night, and a
man says:"My wife is a Christian, and if I should go home at this hour, and
order her to get us an entertainment, she would getit with goodcheer, and
without one word of censure." Theylaughed at him, and said she would not.
They laid a wager, and startedfor his home, and they knockedatone or two
o'clock in the morning. The Christian wife came to the door, and her husband
said: "Getus something to eat! get it right away!" She said: "What shall I
get?" And he ordered the bill of fare, and it was provided without one word of
censure. After his roystering companions had gone out of the house, he knelt
down and said: "Oh! forgive me! I am wicked!I am most wicked!Getdown
and pray for me!" and before the morning dawned on the earth, the pardon of
Christ had dawned on that man. Why? His wife was a thorough Christian. He
could not resistthe powerof her Christian influence.

(Dr. Talmage.)
Marriage
Thomas Watson.
Mark 10:2-12
The specialduties belonging to marriage are love and affection. Love is the
marriage of the affections. There is, as it were, but one heart in two bodies.
Love lines the yoke and makes it easy;it perfumes the marriage relation. Like
two poisons in one stomach, one is ever sick of the other. In marriage there is
mutual promise of living togetherfaithfully according to God's holy
ordinance. Among the Romans, on the day of marriage, the woman presented
to her husband fire and water:signifying, that as fire refines, and water
cleanses, she would live with her husband in chastity and sincerity.
(Thomas Watson.)
The Family Relation
C. S. Robinson, D. D.
Mark 10:2-12

One of the most pathetic incidents found in the narrative of one of the arctic
explorations, is that of the attempt made to induce a native of that terribly
inhospitable region to journey awaywith the returning navigators to a more
sunny clime. Won by the enthusiastic descriptions of a land of orchards and
meadows, ofpurling brooks and singing birds, he did indeed surrender
himself to go. But hardly were they on the way out from among those
mountain bergs of ice and dismal fields of snow, directing their course
towards the latitudes where the blue tops of distant hills told of freshening
verdure, before they missed their simple-hearted comrade. He had gone back
clandestinelyto the cheerless scenesofhis former life. Cold and uninviting to
a stranger, those northern solitudes were welcome to him because theyhad
been his home ever since he was born. We smile at his simplicity, but how
quickly, after all, do we give him our sympathy in the feeling! We love our
homes unaffectedly and almostillogically at times; not because they in every
case are better than others, but because theyare ours.
I. The family is a DIVINE INSTITUTION. We are not left to look upon it as a
chance arrangementof individuals of the human species;it is a definitely fixed
form of association.
1. It was ordained by the Creatorhimself when the race began (see Mark
10:6; Genesis 2:18-25). This order therefore cannot be changedirreverently,
nor disturbed without peril.
2. It has been recognizedall along the ages by the providence of God. When
David (Psalm 68:6) says:"God setteththe solitary in families," a more literal
and more pertinent translation would give us this: "Godmaketh the lonely to
dwell in a home." The all-wise Creatorhas provided in the wide adaptations
of nature for an abode of its own sortfor every creature of His hand. He has

setthe coneyin the rock, the ant in the sand, the fish in the river, and the
whale in the sea;but to no one of them all has He given a home but to man.
3. It has been sanctionedby God in His Word (see Mark 10:7-9).
4. It has been symbolized and spiritualized in the Church (see Ephesians
3:15). And the relation betweenChrist and His people is like that betweena
husband and wife (see Ephesians 5:22-32). Johnsaw the Church, "the bride,
the Lamb's wife," descending out of heaven, "having the glory of God"
(Revelation21:9, 10).
II. The family is A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. Thatis to say, it has a
distinct and valuable purpose to serve in aiding men to glorify Godand enjoy
Him forever as their chief end.
1. It is designedto perfect Christian character. The relations of a believer to
his Saviourare essentiallyfilial. The saints are the children of God. The
Almighty Father, taking upon Himself the three obligations of a parent —
government, education, and support — calls upon eachChristian for the three
duties of a son— subordination, studiousness, and grateful love. Hence, all
our celestialconnections with God are most perfectly and easilytaught
through our earthly connections with eachother in a well-orderedhome.
2. Again: the family relation is designed to concentrate Christianpower. For it
is the earliestoutflow into practicaluse of the principle that in union there is
strength.

3. In the third place, the family relation is designedto cultivate the Christian
spirit. There ought to be in all organizations which are worth anything what
the Frenchpeople call esprit de corps; a peculiar, pervading tone of public
sentiment and opinion, full of a generous confidence andpride, running
through all its members. Eachsoldierfeels his connectionwith the company to
which he owes allegiance,thence with the regiment, and so with the entire
corps. He is jealous ofits honour, he is zealous for its name.
4. Once more: the family relation is designedto increase the Christian census.
Children belong to the kingdom of God (see Mark 10:14).
(C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
The Law of Marriage
Dr. Wayland.
Mark 10:2-12
I. THE NATURE OF THIS CONTRACT. It is for life, and dissoluble only for
one sin. It is subject to Divine laws. It is mutual. It must be basedupon
affection. It implies the surrender of various rights, but not of all, i.e.
conscience. In case ofdifference of opinion, and within proper limits, the
authority is with the husband.

II. THE DUTIES IMPOSED BY THIS RELATION UPON BOTHIS
IMPOSED CHASTITY. Likewise mutual affection. Also the duty of mutual
assistance. The husband made by Scripture and by law the head of the
domestic society;hence the duty of submission. Virtue and dignity of
submission.
(Dr. Wayland.)
The Marriage Tie and the Married Life
A. Bibby, M. A.
Mark 10:2-12
The sacredinstitution of marriage has been fiercely assailed. The attempt is to
shake off the authority of the greatGod who made and rules all things. Thus
with regard to marriage, men tell us it is simply an agreementbetweentwo
persons, which the State takes notice ofonly for the sake of public
convenience, like it does of the lease of a house. This leaves out of view the
most powerful part of matrimony — the religious. True, it is a legal
engagement;but it is also a solemn engagementbefore God. "Whom God
hath joined together," etc. See, the goldenlinks of matrimony are of heavenly
temper. What hand can be so impious as to try to burst them asunder? The
law of God has been transgressedoflate years by the doctrine of polygamy as
boldly proclaimed by the Mormon blasphemy. Everywhere Christ and His
apostles speak ofone wife; as the greatGod only createdone man and one
woman. It is a solemnmoment when two immortal beings venture out on life's
stormy sea in the bark of matrimony, with no aid but their ownto help them.

A mistake in matrimony is a mistake for life. Do not Christians find it
important to avoid the friendship of the irreligious; what then is likely to be
the effectof marriage with the ungodly? Married life is a detectorof the real
character. After marriage, faults are discovered, perhaps, to be greaterthan
was expected, and excellencesless. Disappointmentsprings up; contempt
follows. Do you find much you did not expect? Rememberyou also are
showing much that was not expected, and as you do not like in consequence of
your faults to ceaseto be loved, so also do not let the faults you see kill your
own love. Do not gloomily meditate on eachother's failings, for that will make
them seemgreaterthan they are. If you would see your life partner's faults
amended, you should set the example by amending your own. Gentleness,
firmness, forbearance, cheerfulness, openness, must be the chains with which
husband and wife try to keepmarriage love from escaping.
1. The want of experience is often a greathindrance to the happiness of
married life; hence it frequently happens that the first years of married life
are not the happiest.
2. The married life is often disturbed by the extravagance andfolly of the
husband or wife; for difficulties arise therefrom, and much bitterness is likely
to spring up. Love is the universal law of marriage. Love will not easily find
fault or rashly give offence. Povertycannotquench it. The Christian rule for
all applies doubly to man and wife — "weepwith them that weep, and rejoice
with them that rejoice." Differentdispositions and tastes may sometimes
make mutual sympathy difficult. The sympathy of love and the sympathy of
taste are distinct things. A source ofunhappiness in married life is the habit of
dwelling on individual right instead of remembering that love should not
measure the service it bestows, nor that it receives.If difference of opinion
does arise, the Christian duty is for the wife to yield. The marriage life was
intended to promote human happiness; but it brings with it peculiar duties,
and the happiness marriage was intended to impart will be wanting, if the
duties of the married life are neglected.

(A. Bibby, M. A.)
A Cure for Divorces
Biblical Illustrator
Mark 10:2-12
A gentlemen who did not live very happily with his wife decided to procure a
divorce, and took advice on the subjectfrom an intimate friend — a man of
high socialstanding. "Go home and court your wife for a year," saidthis wise
adviser, "and then tell me the result." They bowedin prayer, and separated.
When a year passedaway, the once-complaining husband called againto see
his friend, and said: "I have calledto thank you for the goodadvice you gave
me, and to tell you that my wife and I are as happy as when first we were
married. I cannotbe grateful enough for your goodcounsel." "Iam glad to
hear it, dear sir," said the other, "and I hope you will continue to court your
wife as long as you live."
Doctrine of Divorce
J.J. Given
Mark 10:2-12

I. EVENTS IN THE INTERVAL. There is a gap in the narrative of St. Mark
betweenthe events of the preceding and present chapter. We need not do
more than intimate them, and that for the continuity of the history. They are
the following: -
1. His journey to Jerusalemon the occasionofthe FeastofTabernacles.
2. Occurrencesby the way:
(1) Inhospitality of certain Samaritanvillages;
(2) rebuke of the "Sons of Thunder" by the Savior;
(3) journey continued through Samaria rather than Peraea;
(4) cleansing of the ten lepers as he passedthrough Samaria.
3. The sending out of the seventy, and its similarity to the previous mission of
the twelve.
4. Presenceand preaching at the FeastofTabernacles.

5. Various discourses during that feast, as recordedin the eighth chapter of
St. John's Gospel, and escapefrom a murderous assault.
6. Ministrations in Judaea, recordedin part by St. Luke (10-13.)and partly by
St. John (9-11.), including the following: -
(1) Instruction of a lawyer, explanation of "neighborhood," and parable of the
goodSamaritan;
(2) hospitality of the family of Bethany, disciples taught to pray, and return of
the seventy;
(3) cure of a man bern blind, our Lord's comparisonof himself to the Good
Shepherd, celebrationof the FeastofDedicationat Jerusalem, retirement to
Bethabara beyond Jordan, and subsequent raising of Lazarus at Bethany;
also his retirement to Ephraim.
7. His tour through Peroea, referredto in Matthew 19:1, 2, and Mark 10:1;
his teaching during that tour, recordedby St. Luke (Luke 13:22-18:10),
including, among other things,
(1) the multitudes from all quarters in the kingdom of God, the greatfeastand
generous invitation, also true discipleship;
(2) parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and prodigal son;

(3) parables of the unjust steward, Dives and Lazarus, importunate widow,
the Pharisee andpublican.
II. A NEW DEPARTURE. The Phariseesnow Change their tactics, and adopt
a new mode of opposition. They, in fact, make new departure. The old
hostility remains bitter as ever, or perhaps is increasing in intensity, but the
manner of its manifestation is new. Up till this period their method of attack
consistedin fault-finding - objecting to the conduct of our Lord and his
apostles, ortaxing them with violations of the Law; henceforth it consists in
questioning - captious questioning - for the purpose of eliciting his opinion on
doubtful or debatable matters in order to entangle him. The subjects on which
his views were soughtwere those keenlydiscussedby the Jews of that day, and
an answercould scarcelyfail to give offense to some party or expose him to
peril on some side. The present question was eminently one of this class. Itwas
likely to entrap him into the charge of lax morality on the one hand, or of
want of respectfor the authority of Moseson the other; perhaps to embroil
him with the tetrarch Herod Antipas, in whose dominions he now was.
III. THE ORIGINAL MARRIAGE LAW. In the days of our Lord one of the
burning questions was the law of divorce. The schoolof Shammai limited the
law of divorce, and allowedit only in the case ofadultery; that of Hillel
affirmed its legitimacyin case ofdislike, or disobedience, orincompatibility in
general, thus granting an arbitrary or discretionarypower in the matter. The
ground of the controversyis found in a difficult or obscure expressionin
Deuteronomy 24:1, 2, where we read, "When a man hath takena wife, and
married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor 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. And when
she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." The
difficulty or obscurity of this passagearisesfrom the original words ervath
davar, rendered "some uncleanness" in the text of our version, and in the

margin, "matter of nakedness," ormore exactlystill, "nakednessofword or
matter." The important point to be determined, and that which produced
such diversity of opinion in its determination, was whether the expression
referred to meant lewdness ormerely something disagreeable.
IV. NATURE OF THE BILL OF DIVORCEMENT. The bill of divorcement
was called"a writing of cutting off" (sepher kerithuth). This bill or writing of
divorcement implied, not only a mere separationfrom bed and board, as some
restrict it, but a complete severance ofthe marriage tie. It was a certificate of
repudiation, and either statedor omitted the cause ofsuch repudiation. If the
cause was adultery or a suspicion of adultery, the husband might prove
himself (δίκαιος)just (vide Matthew 1:19), that is, a strict observer of the Law
in dismissing the guilty wife with a bill of divorcement; and yet, not wishing to
expose her, he might send her awayprivately. If, however, the guilty personor
the suspectedpersonwere brought openly to justice, and the crime proved,
certain death was the penalty, as is distinctly statedin Leviticus 20:10, "The
man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that
committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress
shall surely be put to death." Mostcommonly, therefore, when a bill of
divorcement was resortedto in accordance withthe Mosaic permission, it was
for some less cause orminor offense than conjugalinfidelity; and in such cases
it served the wife as a certificate of character.
V. REASON OF THIS WRITING. Our Lord, in his reply, proceeds to the
original marriage law; first, however, accounting for the Mosaic regulation
referred to. That regulation is regardedby many as a relaxation of the Law;
but it canscarcelybe viewedin that light, because it would thus appear to be a
lowering of the standard in favor of wrong-doing. It was rather a remedy for
harsh treatment of wives, resulting from violations of the Law; it was rather a
relief bill for wives who suffered from the unkindness of cruel husbands
acting in defiance of the Law. It was a remedial measure to check the bad
effects of their hardness of heart; it was to (πρὸς) this the lawgiverhad

respect. It was, in fact, to minimize the evil results that proceededfrom their
transgressionof the Law rather than any relaxation of the Law itself. Of two
evils it was the less, and even the less owedits existence to their hardness of
heart. Besides, itwas not an express command, as the Pharisees appearto
make it from the word ἐνετείλατο in Matthew, but a permissory injunction
(ἐπέτρεψε), as subsequently acknowledgedby the Pharisees themselves.
VI. ORIGINAL MARRIAGE LAW. The Saviorargues the indissoluble
nature of the marriage law from the original unity of male and female, from
the extreme closenessofthe marriage bond taking precedence ofevery other
union even parental and filial; above all, from its Divine origin. Marriage was
thus an ordinance of God; it was instituted in Paradise in those bright and
sunny bowers before sin had marred the freshness and the loveliness of the
new-createdworld. Even then God saw that it was not goodfor man to be
alone, and accordinglyhe gave him a help meet for him - one that was bone of
his bone and flesh of his flesh. "Therefore shalla man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto [literally, be glued unto] his wife: and they shall
be one flesh." It was an ordinance of God himself, an ordinance nearly coeval
with the creation, an ordinance made for man even in his unfallen state of
innocence, an ordinance which our blessedRedeemerhimself, when in sinless
humanity he trod our earth and tabernacledamong our race, honoredwith
his presence, andat the celebrationof which he was graciouslypleasedto
work his first miracle. In Cana of Galilee, atthe marriage at which Jesus and
his disciples and his mother were present, Jesus made the beginning of his
miracles by turning water into wine, manifesting forth his glory, "and his
disciples believed on him."
"Living, he own'd no nuptial vow,
No bower to Fancy dear:
Love's very self - for him no need
To nurse, on earth, the heavenly seed:

Yet comfort in his eye we read
For bridal joy and fear." The conclusionat which he arrives is in keeping with
all this - that an institution createdby God at first, coevalwith our race, and
confirmed by so many sanctions, canneither be nullified nor modified by any
human enactment, nor setaside by any authority other than his who created
it. "Whattherefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
VII. ONE EXCEPTION TAKEN FOR GRANTED. Conjugalinfidelity, as it
is a violation of the marriage vow, is a virtual dissolutionof the marriage
relation. This is implied or takenfor granted in the passage before us, though
it is expressly stated, in the parallel passageofSt. Matthew, where it is
written, "Whosoevershallput away his wife, exceptfor fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery." With respectto marriage with the
divorced wife, there is a greatand important diversity of sentiment. This
diversity is in a certainway and to some extent connectedwith the right
rendering of the word ἀπολελυμένην in Matthew 19:9.
1. Some translate it as if it were precededby τὴν, and so equivalent to "her
which is put away," or "the divorced woman." Thus it stands in the common
English Version, and reference to the woman lawfully divorced, that is, for
fornication, is presumed.
2. Others, more accurately, render it "her when she is put away," as it is
translated in the RevisedVersion, the reference being thus to her who is
unlawfully divorced, that is, divorced not on the ground of adultery. This view
is maintained by Stier and Meyer, the latter confirming it by the fact that
"under the Law the punishment of death was attachedto adultery,... and
consequently, under the Law, the marrying of a woman divorced for adultery
could never happen."

3. There is, however, another rendering, namely, "a divorced woman," that is,
any divorced woman. This is the rendering advocatedby Wordsworth, who
says, "In no case does ourLord permit a personto marry a woman who has
been divorced." This is the view of the matter taken by the Latin Church,
which declares marriage with a divorced woman under any circumstances
unlawful. The Oriental and most ReformedChurches, on the contrary, hold
that, in the exceptedcase, both husband and wife may contracta fresh
marriage. These are the two extreme views; but what of the ease ofunlawful
divorce, that is to say, where the wife has been divorced for some other and
less offense than that of adultery, or πορνεία, which is of widestextent,
comprehending ante-nuptial as wellas post-nuptial unchastity (μοιχεία)? This
is the case to which the guilt of subsequent marriage attaches, forit is that in
which the marriage bond has not been really ruptured. The delay connected
with getting a divorce or after its being granted might give time for better
counsels to prevail; secondthoughts might be found preferable; angry passion
might in the mean time cooldown, and reconciliationand reunion be effected.
- J.J.G.
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCE HURT MD
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE
AND FEMALE.
NET Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creationhe made them male and
female.

NLT Mark 10:6 But 'God made them male and female' from the beginning of
creation.
ESV Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male
and female.'
NIV Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creationGod 'made them male and
female.'
GNT Mark 10:6 ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς·
KJV Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creationGod made them male
and female.
YLT Mark 10:6 but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female
God did make them;
ASV Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female
made he them.
CSB Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creationGod made them male and
female.
NKJ Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation, God`made them
male and female.'

NRS Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male
and female.'
NAB Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male
and female.
NJB Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creationhe made them male and
female.
the beginning: Ge 1:1 2Pe 3:4
God: Ge 1:27 2:20-23 Ge 5:2 Mal 2:14-16
Mark 10 Resources -Multiple Sermons and Commentaries
RelatedPassages:
Matthew 19:4+ And He answeredand said, “Have you not read that He who
createdthem from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Genesis 1:27 Godcreatedman in His own image, in the image of God He
createdhim; male and female He createdthem.
Genesis 5:2 He createdthem male and female, and He blessedthem and
named them Man in the day when they were created.
JESUS GOES BACK

TO THE BEGINNING
But - Term of contrast. What is Jesus contrasting in context? Man's view of
marriage and God's view of marriage are now contrasted.
Swete comments that "Fromthe temporary permissionof divorce under the
Deuteronomic law the Lord appeals to the principle enunciated in the original
constitution of man (QUOTING FROM GENESIS)."
Jesus follows this condemnationof the Pharisees by showing that God
intended for a man and woman to marry, leave their parents, become one,
and discipline themselves to live togetherfor life.
Hiebert - the divine intention in marriage, dating back to the beginning of the
human race, was not being carried out because ofthe presence ofsin....The
distinction of the sexes, establishedatcreation, underlies the institution of
marriage and is the foundation of the human family....Their distinctive
physical constitution made eachthe complement of the other, fitted for each
other. Our Lord’s quotation assumes the historical truth of the first two
chapters of Genesis.
From the beginning of creation, GodMADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE -
From the beginning speaks ofthe creationof the universe followedby the
creationof mankind. Notice from the beginning implies there has been no
alterationin this truth up to the time of Jesus and by application/extensionup
to our day. This is one of those passageswhichis "politically incorrect" in
America in 2020!The clearimplication of the Word of God, the Word of
Truth is that God made a man to be a male and woman to be a female. There
is no ambiguity in God's Word. When a societyloses its moral moorings as

has sadly occurredin America, then the Word of Truth is no longer takenas
the standard of truth. Man's "truth" becomes the standard, and the natural
consequencesofrejectionof the Word of God are unavoidable. "Anything
goes!" (cf the time of Judges - Jdg 21:25+)
Beginning (746)(arche)refers to the commencementof something as an action,
process, orstate of being. Here arché refers to first in relation to time
(priority in time, the beginning of anything, the origin and by far the most
common use in the NT)Uses in Mark - k. 1:1; Mk. 10:6; Mk. 13:8; Mk. 13:19;
Creation(2937)(ktisis refers to bringing something into existence whichhas
not existedbefore. The act of causing to exist that which did not exist before,
especiallyGod's actof bringing the universe into existence (cp He 11:3+). It is
notable that ktisis always occurs in the New Testamentin connectionwith
God’s creative activities (see note below regarding use in 1Pe 2:13). Uses in
Mark - Mk. 10:6; Mk. 13:19;Mk. 16:15
Mark 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER
AND MOTHER, (Many late mss add "and shall cling to his wife")
NET Mark 10:7 For this reasona man will leave his father and mother,
NLT Mark 10:7 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is
joined to his wife,
ESV Mark 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold
fast to his wife,

NIV Mark 10:7 'For this reasona man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife,
GNT Mark 10:7 ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸνπατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ
τὴν μητέρα [καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ],
KJV Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
cleave to his wife;
YLT Mark 10:7 on this accountshall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife,
ASV Mark 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife;
CSB Mark 10:7 For this reasona man will leave his father and mother [and
be joined to his wife],
NKJ Mark 10:7 `For this reasona man shall leave his father and mother and
be joined to his wife,
NRS Mark 10:7 'For this reasona man shall leave his father and mother and
be joined to his wife,
NAB Mark 10:7 For this reasona man shall leave his father and mother (and
be joined to his wife),

NJB Mark 10:7 This is why a man leaves his father and mother,
Ge 2:24 Mt 19:5,6 Eph 5:31
RelatedPassages:
Matthew 19:5+ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE
HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE
TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
Genesis 2:24 For this reasona man shall leave his father and his mother, and
be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
LEAVE AND
CLEAVE
FOR THIS REASON - Term of conclusion. This phrase (or the related word
"therefore")should always prompt the question "Forwhat reason?" In this
case Jesusis explaining the marriage of a man to a woman.
Utley - This is another quote from Genesis (cf. 2:24). It shows the high status
of marriage, even over parental authority. There was a necessarymental
separationfrom parents even if not a physical separation(i.e. several
generations lived together).

A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER - Note leave his
parents BUT NOT leave his wife! Leave is a strong verb meaning leave behind
or depart from. Clearlythis does not mean he never sees his parents again,
but just that he functions independent of them. As Hiebert says "Manya
marriage has floundered because the young husband or wife was not willing
to acceptthe responsibility of independence from the parental home."
Leave (2641)(kataleipo from kata = intensifies or strengthens the meaning of
leipo + leipo = to leave behind, forsake, to be wanting or deficient) literally
means to leave behind or leave remaining (of a person or place - Mt 4:13, 16:4,
21:17, Heb 11:27). Kataleipo is often used to indicate abandoning a heritage,
giving up riches, and leaving one's native land. Figuratively kataleipo was
used to mean "neglect" (Acts 6:2+). Kataleipo conveys a strong sense ofto
abandon or forsake (as forsaking true Christianity 2Pe 2:15). To cause
something to be left over and so to remain in existence (Ro 11:4+, Heb 4:1+ =
a promise remains). To leave without help (Lk 10:40). In the passive to remain
behind (1Th 3:1+, John 8:9). To leave alone in the sense ofdisregard as
describing those who sailpast a place without stopping (Acts 21:3) Kataleipo
can mean to cease anactivity (eg, give up a vice) but there are no uses with
this sense in Scripture. Uses in Mark - Mk. 10:7; Mk. 12:19; Mk. 12:21; Mk.
14:52
Cleave to his wife - Not present in all Greek Manuscripts. The idea is he is to
stick like glue to his wife! The word “cleave”is proskollaō “to glue to, to join
one’s self to, to cleave closely, to stick to.” The idea in the verb therefore
includes the initial actof joining one’s selfto another and then remaining thus
joined.
Cleave (4347)(proskollao fromprós = to, toward, in compounds prós implies
motion, direction + kollao = to glue) literally means to glue one thing to

another so that it cleaves oradheres. To unite. To cleave. To be united with.
To join oneselfto closely. To stick to. It is used metaphorically in this verse to
describe the marriage bond. To adhere to closely, be faithfully devoted to.
Proskollaowas a medicalterm used to describe the uniting of wounds. Here
this compound verb denotes the most intimate union. This verb emphasizes
not only permanence but also unity of the two who have been "glued"
together.
THOUGHT - Take a picture of a husband and another of his wife and glue
them together. Allow time for the glue to set. What happens when you try to
take the two individual pictures apart? Do you see whatGod is saying about
the dissolutionof the marriage covenant betweena husband and a wife?
Mark 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH;so they are no
longertwo, but one flesh.
NET Mark 10:8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two,
but one flesh.
NLT Mark 10:8 and the two are united into one.'Since they are no longer
two but one,
ESV Mark 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer
two but one flesh.
NIV Mark 10:8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two,
but one.

GNT Mark 10:8 καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν· ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶν δύο
ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ.
KJV Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more
twain, but one flesh.
YLT Mark 10:8 and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh; so that they are
no more two, but one flesh;
ASV Mark 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more
two, but one flesh.
CSB Mark 10:8 [and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer
two, but one flesh.
NKJ Mark 10:8 `and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no
longertwo, but one flesh.
NRS Mark 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.'So they are no longer
two, but one flesh.
NAB Mark 10:8 and the two shall become one flesh.'So they are no longer
two but one flesh.
NJB Mark 10:8 and the two become one flesh. They are no longer two,
therefore, but one flesh.

one flesh: 1Co 6:16 Eph 5:28
RelatedPassages:
Matthew 19:5+ and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE
HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE
TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but
one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Genesis 2:24 For this reasona man shall leave his father and his mother, and
be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Ephesians 5:28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own
bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH(sarx) - Two clearly refers
to the man and the woman, not father and mother.
Brooks remarks, “Justas Godis inseparably one being, so he intended for a
male and a female in marriage to become one being who would not be
divided.” (NAC-Mark)
So they are no longer two, but one flesh - So (hoste)is more literally so that,
expressing purpose, the purpose of the union of the man and the woman being
they are now one, not two.

Kent Hughes - Jesus quoted from Genesis to emphasize two things. First, the
intimacy of the marriage relationship: “the two will become one flesh.”
Marriage affords the deepestintimacy possible in earthly relationships,
deeper than with the children that issue from our bodies. An amazing bonding
took place the moment I saw my newborn children and held them in my arms.
In the ensuing months and years the bonding has increased. I am close to my
children, interwoven with them. Yet, I am not one flesh with them! I am one
flesh only with my wife. Next, Jesus’emphasis was on permanence. You will
note in verse 6 that Jesus added his own comment to the Genesis statement:
“So they are no longertwo, but one. Therefore whatGod has joined together,
let man not separate.”There was no thought of divorce—ever!God’s ideal
was, and is, a monogamous, intimate, enduring marriage. Anything less is a
departure from the divine model...Divorce is always a tragedy, always a
departure from the divine ideal. All the modern talk about “creative divorce”
and “positive, growth-oriented” steps is a lot of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-
liberated bunk. Christians who go aheadwith an un-Biblical divorce “sin with
a high hand,” as the Old Testamentputs it. They place themselves in harm’s
way. The outcome will not be shalom. (Preaching the Word - Mark)
Mark 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
NET Mark 10:9 Therefore what Godhas joined together, let no one
separate."
NLT Mark 10:9 let no one split apart what God has joined together."
ESV Mark 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man
separate."

NIV Mark 10:9 Therefore whatGod has joined together, let man not
separate."
GNT Mark 10:9 ὃ οὖν ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.
KJV Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.
YLT Mark 10:9 what therefore God did join together, let not man put
asunder.'
ASV Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.
CSB Mark 10:9 Therefore whatGod has joined together, man must not
separate."
NKJ Mark 10:9 "Therefore whatGod has joined together, let not man
separate."
NRS Mark 10:9 Therefore what Godhas joined together, let no one
separate."

NAB Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being
must separate."
NJB Mark 10:9 So then, what God has united, human beings must not
divide.'
GWN Mark 10:9 Therefore, don't let anyone separate whatGod has joined
together."
Ro 7:1-3 1 Cor7:10-13
RelatedPassages:
Matthew 19:5+ 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore
God has joined together, let no man separate.”
1 Corinthians 7:10-13 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the
Lord, that the wife should not leave (chorizo) her husband 11 (but if she does
leave (chorizo), she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciledto her
husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest
I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and
she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who
has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not
send her husband away.

Hiebert points out that "therefore points to the logicalconclusionconcerning
the permanency of marriage that must be drawn from the divine, creative
arrangement."
What therefore Godhas joined together, let no man separate - As discussedin
more detail below the verb joined togetherspeaks ofa lifelong bond that is not
to be broken. The husband and wife are like two domestic farm animals who
are intimately joined togetherto work for a common goal, to pull in the same
direction. Let no man separate is present imperative with a negative means to
ceasean actionin process. (If you are you considering divorce, then you might
want to seriously considerthe words of Jesus.)While men and women will
chose to separate and break their covenantbond, praise God that He remains
faithful to the New Covenantand that absolutelynothing "will be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Ro
8:39, Ro 8:35)
Hiebert on what God has joined together - an abiding prohibition against
man’s disruption of the union which God has established. The statement
marks the contrastbetweenGod’s actionand man’s. Jesus assertedthe
indissoluble nature of marriage as the divine intention. Under certain
circumstances, human sinfulness may make relief through divorce necessary
as a lesserevil, but it is still an evil, because it is contrary to the divine
intention. The phrase “saving for the cause of fornication” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9)
shows that Jesus recognizedone ground for divorce. But even then Jesus did
not command divorce. Forgivenessandrestorationare open and desirable for
those who have thus failed in the marriage relationship. Yet Jesus recognized
that the fornication of the wife had in reality already broken the marriage tie;
the husband in sending awayhis wife only acceptedthe disruption that she
had caused. Jesus wasconcernedwith the sin that causedthe disruption of the
marriage relationship, whateverits nature.

THOUGHT - God has joined together - The implication is that God Himself is
behind marriage of a man to a woman. I cantestify to this for in 1969 as an
unbeliever I had a blind date with a young woman at the University of Texas
(1969)and we instantly fell in love and we decided to getmarried later that
summer. PreviouslyI had had absolutelyno intention of marrying as I was
going to medical schoolthe next year and knew it would be very difficult on a
marriage. Howeverin the providence and sovereigntyof God, He brought us
togetherand we are still joined togetherafter 51 years, all praise be to the
God of all grace Who has sustained us through goodtimes and hard times. Is
your marriage "pulling in the same direction?" or is your marriage "pulling
apart?" God is for your marriage and will empower you to pull togetherif
(this is a big "if") you yield to His will and Word, for the end result is that He
is glorified and honored. One other crucialpoint - Paul speaksofour need to
be continually filled with the Spirit in Eph 5:18+ and it is when the husband
and wife are submitted to the Spirit's control that they canthen
supernaturally carry out the rest of the "marriage plan" Paul lays out in Eph
5:21-33+. In short, a "successful" marriage is ultimate a supernatural word of
God, a veritable miracle. After 51 years (and many times of failing to submit
to the Spirit, especiallyin the first 17 years when I did not know Christ) God
has shownHimself strong in sustaining us in His covenantof marriage. See
Covenant: As It Relates to Marriage.
Joined together(4801)(suzeugnumifrom sun = together, intimately together+
zeugnumi = to yoke, join from zugos = yoke)literally to yoke together, to pair
together, to fastento one yoke, which is the picture of two draft animals
joined together to facilitate their working as a team or in unison (Think of this
conceptin a marriage!). It speaks ofone who pulls well in double-harness.
Figuratively it means join together, conjoin, unite as in marriage (thus
speaking ofthe "marriage tie") and thereby to make a pair. See the related
verbs kollao and proskollao.Theterm appears in secularGreek literature and
the writings of Josephus with reference to marriage. In the NT only found in
Mk 10:9 and Mt 19:6. Twice in the Septuagint - Ezek 1:11+, Ezek 1:23+. In
the Septuagintrendering of Ezekiel1:11 the verb is used to describe the

“joining together” of the wings of the creatures the prophet saw in a vision. It
translates the Hebrew verb chāvar, “to bind, entwine, touch.”
Separate (to part) (5563)(chorizo from choris = separately, apart from, from)
in the active sense means to cause to separate ordivide, to put apart putting a
space between. The emphasis of chorizo (especiallyin its literal uses)is on
distance. In the passive sense, chorizo means to separate oneself(put some
space between), to be separated, Chorizo is used in 1 Corinthians (see above)
as the equivalent of divorce. Although in modern terms we speak of
separationas distinct from divorce but in the NT the use of chorizo in the
context of marriage always carried the idea of divorce. Chorizo means to be at
some distance from something.
DANIEL AKIN
Jesus, The Bible, Divorce and Remarriage
Mark 10:1-12
Introduction: 1) Few issues have causedme more grief, soul searching and
study than what the
Bible says about divorce and remarriage. In addition to the dozens of books
and audios I have
on the subject, I have 4 large files that date back just to the year 2000 thatare
4 inches thick.
2) With divorce being so common in our own day many ministers ignore or
avoid the subject to
keepfrom hurting feelings and causing conflict. Some believe the Bible is no
longerrelevant to

the issue in a world of no-fault divorce, the pill, “living together” and same sex
relationships.
3) One cannot deny that the Church as a whole has a dismal and
embarrassing track recordin this
area. Many believers are as casualabout divorce and remarriage as are their
lost friends and
neighbors. In a culture that bears proudly the motto, “I have the right to be
happy,” “serial
polygamy” is considereda right and quite normal. Never mind that bodies are
strewn
everywhere, especiallythe children, and that happiness is even more elusive
for those in
subsequent marriages. Saywhat you want, facts remain a hard thing to deny.
Just listen, as one
of thousands of examples, to a poem penned by a little girl that won a poetry
contestin the 9-13
age categoryin a town in New Jerseyin 1999,
The Monster
The monster‟s here
The monster‟s there
The monster is just everywhere.
In my milk,
In my tea,
Doesn‟tit ever think of me?
Mom‟s here, Dad‟s there,

And I‟m just not anywhere!
How can I saythis,
Without any force;
The monster is called
Divorce!
2
4) Divorce, we now know, is even more traumatic than losing a spouse or
parent by death. John
Piper is right, “Deathis usually cleanpain. Divorce is usually dirty pain.”
(“What God Had
Joined Together, LetNot Man Separate”,Part1, 6-24-07).
5) Dirty and destructive! “The American Family In Crises Researchby the
Southern Baptist
Council on Family Life uncoveredsome disturbing facts. The divorce rate
among evangelicalsis
almost the same as that of nonchurched people. One million U.S. children see
their parents
divorce yearly. The majority of children in America have fewerthan 10
minutes of significant
and meaningful conversationwith their parents eachweek. If you remove the
mother, you can
measure this statistic in seconds.”(Pastor‟s WeeklyBriefing, in Religious
MarketUpdate, The
FosterLetter, page 1, 08-10-2002).
6) Kelly Clarkson, 1stAmerican Idol winner, saw her parents divorce at age
6. Its effect? Her

own words in an interview: “I know people probably think I‟ve been
heartbroken, because ofthe
stuff I‟ve sung and written,” she says. “I love my friends and my family. But I
have never said
the words „I love you‟ to anyone in a romantic relationship. I shouldn‟t be a
mother at all,
because I‟d be horrible. I‟m not willing to be that selfless. I‟mnot keenon
marriage. Men come
and go.” Recalling herown parents‟ divorce when she was just 6, Clarkson
acknowledgesthat
she fears betrayal. “When it comes to certain parts of my life, I won‟tallow
myself to be
vulnerable at all. I have a lot of trust issues. I don‟t let many people in.”
Making a relationship
work, she says, requires too much effort. “Love is something you work at. It
doesn‟tcome easily.
There are going to be bad days. You are going to have to work at loving
someone whenthey are
being an idiot. People think they‟re just going to meet the right guy.” She
laughs. “Don‟tbe
ridiculous.” (The Week, 6-29-07).
Its effect? Listen to the words of her blockbusterhit “Because ofYou,” a
reflectionon the pain
and fallout of divorce. The video has had over 18 million viewings.
3
BecauseofYou
By Kelly Clarkson

Album: Breakaway(2004)
I will not make the same mistakes that you did
I will not let myself cause my heart so much misery
I will not break the way you did
You fell so hard
I‟ve learned the hard way, to never let it getthat far
Becauseofyou
I never stray too far from the sidewalk
Becauseofyou
I learned to play on the safe side
So I don‟t gethurt
Becauseofyou
I find it hard to trust
Not only me, but everyone around me
Becauseofyou
I am afraid
I lose my way
And it‟s not too long before you point it out
I cannot cry
BecauseI know that‟s weaknessin your eyes
I‟m forcedto fake a smile, a laugh
Every day of my life
My heart can‟tpossibly break

When it wasn‟teven whole to start with
Becauseofyou
Becauseofyou
Becauseofyou
I find it hard to trust
Not only me, but everyone around me
Becauseofyou
I am afraid
I watchedyou die
I heard you cry
Every night in your sleep
I was so young
You should have knownbetter than to lean on me
You never thought of anyone else
4
You just saw your pain
And now I cry
In the middle of the night
For the same damn thing
Becauseofyou

Becauseofyou
Becauseofyou
I tried my hardestjust to forget everything
Becauseofyou
I don‟t know how to let anyone else in
Becauseofyou
I‟m ashamedof my life because it‟s empty
Becauseofyou
I am afraid
Becauseofyou
Becauseofyou
Now, what I would like to do is survey the Bible and see exactlywhat it says
about
divorce and remarriage. ThenI want us to note the different perspectives held
on divorce
and remarriage by those who acceptthe full authority of the Bible. Then, we
will
conclude with some final observations from Mark 10:1-12 as well as some
practical
points of application. This study demands our most carefuland humble
efforts. It is

treacherous territory.
The historicalcontext of this issue is instructive as two competing rabbinic
schools of
thought were present in Jesus‟ day.
1) The more conservative schoolfollowedRabbiShammai and saidthe only
ground for
divorce was the indecency of adultery (sexual immorality).
2) The more liberal schoolfollowedRabbi Hillel and said divorce could be
granted for
“any indecency” which included many more causes beyondadultery.
5
The Pharisees inthat day, for the most part, followedRabbi Hillel, made
divorce easy
and wanted it to stay that way. So they come to Jesus “to testhim” (v. 2). Four
times this
word “test” is used in Mark. Three times it is applied to the Pharisees (8:11;
10:2;
12:15). The other is to Satan (1:13)! As Satantwisted Scripture, so did these
religious
leaders. Here, they are doing it again.
Jesus was, therefore, thrust into a debate like many of us are today. So, let‟s
try and get a
handle on all this. As we shall see atthe end of our study, the Pharisees
wanted to talk
about divorce, but Jesus wantedto talk about marriage and God‟s divine
blueprint. Jesus

knew His Moses,the Phariseesdidn‟t!
I. Divorce and Remarriage:A Look At The Key Biblical Text With
Theological
Observations.
1) Gen 2:18-25:“Thenthe Lord God said, “It is not goodthat the man should
be alone; I will
make him a helper fit for him. Now out of the ground the Lord God had
formed every beast
of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see
what he would
call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its
name. The man
gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast
of the field.
But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God
causeda deep sleep
to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closedup its
place with
flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had takenfrom the man he made into a
woman and
brought her to the man. Then the man said, this at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my
flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was takenout of Man.
Therefore a man shall
leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall
become one flesh.
And the man and his wife were both nakedand were not ashamed.

Marriage is a good gift from a greatGod to be enjoyed. Sex is also a part of
this good
gift.
6
God‟s designis one man for one woman for a lifetime (unless separatedby
death; Rom
7:1-3).
Marriage is the joining of two bodies, the conjoining of two wills, the bonding
of two
minds, and the union of two sets of God-givenemotions.
Marriage is sacredbecause it reflects the spiritual union of Christ and His
Church, the
believer and His Savior (Eph. 5:21-33). As Jesus wouldnever divorce His
bride, a spouse
should never divorce their mate. “The ultimate meaning of marriage is the
representation
of the covenantkeeping love betweenChrist and His church” (Piper).
2) Deuteronomy 24:1-4:“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then
she finds no favor
in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a
certificate of
divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs
out of his
house, and if she goes and becomes anotherman‟s wife, and the latter man
hates her and
writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of
his house, or if

the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband,
who sent her away,
may not take her againto be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an
abomination
before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your
God is giving
you for an inheritance.”
Though the Bible never condones divorce, it does recognize the reality of
divorce (cf.
also Is. 50:1; Jer. 3:1, 8-9).
The allowance ofa bill of divorce provides regulation and is a concessionfor
the
protection and welfare of an innocent victim (in the historical context, a
woman‟s “put
away” status left her in a precarious situation, perhaps leading to either
starvation or
prostitution).
Remarriage to one‟s former spouse after marrying another is strictly
forbidden.
7
3) Ezra 10:2-4, 10-12:“And Shecaniahthe son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam,
addressedEzra:
We have brokenfaith with our God and have married foreignwomen from
the peoples of
the land, but even now there is hope for Israelin spite of this. Therefore let us
make a

covenantwith our God to put awayall these wives and their children,
according to the
counselof my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God,
and let it be
done according to the Law. Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be
strong and do
it.” “And Ezra the priest stoodup and said to them, You have broken faith
and married
foreign women, and so increasedthe guilt of Israel. Now then make confession
to the Lord,
the Godof your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples
of the land
and from the foreign wives. Then all the assemblyansweredwith a loud voice,
It is so; we
must do as you have said.”
This appears to be a unique situation (though nowhere does God give a direct
command
to divorce. The text may be recording their activity but not affirming it.)
Some believe polygamy was an issue, though the text does not explicitly say
this.
In the best light, this is an exceptionalacteliminating the greaterof two evils:
defilement
through mixed marriages which led to idolatry.
4) Malachi2:13-16:“This is another thing you do: you coverthe altar of the
Lord with tears,
with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or
accepts it

with favor from your hand. Yet you say, for what reason? Because the Lord
has been a
witness betweenyou and the wife of your youth, againstwhom you have dealt
treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But
not one has
done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he
was seeking a
godly offspring? Take heedthen to your spirit, and let no one deal
treacherouslyagainstthe
wife of your youth. For I hate divorce, Says the Lord, the God of Israel, and
him who
8
covers his garment with wrong, says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to your
spirit, that you
do not deal treacherously.”
Malachiwrote during the time of Ezra.
God hates divorce. It is never His perfectwill. (Is this perhaps a counter to the
activity
recordedin Ezra?)
5) Matthew 19:1-12:“Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went
awayfrom Galilee
and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds
followedhim, and he
healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking,
“Is it lawful to
divorce one‟s wife for “any” cause?”He answered, “Have you not read that
he who created

them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, „Therefore a
man shall
leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall
become one
flesh‟? So they are no longertwo but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let
not man separate.”Theysaid to him, “Why then did Moses commandone to
give a
certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, Because ofyour
hardness of
heart Moses allowedyou to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was
not so. And I
say to you: whoeverdivorces his wife, exceptfor sexualimmorality, and
marries another,
commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case ofa man
with his wife, it
is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Noteveryone can receive this
saying, but only
those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth,
and there are
eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who
have made
themselves eunuchs for the sake ofthe kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is
able to
receive this receive it.”
Jesus affirms God‟s originaldesign for marriage.
Jesus states thatdivorce is the result of sin and the hardness of men‟s hearts.

9
Jesus says divorce is permitted in a case ofsexualimmorality (viewed only in
a Jewish
“betrothal” context by some).
Jesus seems to imply permission to remarry though this is not clearly stated
(19:9-12).
6) Mark 10:1-12
This passageparallels Matthew 19:1-12 but it is more abbreviated.
There is an important omission of the words “exceptfor sexual immorality” in
vv. 11-12.
The omissionis because 1)the betrothal view of Matt. 19:1-12 is correctand
this gospel,
being written to Romans and not Jews wouldnot need to address the
exceptionclause or
2) Mark‟s accountis simply a summation of the more lengthy accountof
Matthew and
assumes the “exceptfor sexualimmorality” understanding.
7) Luke 16:18: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries anothercommits
adultery, and he
who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
This is an even more concise accountofthe Matt. 19 and Mark 10 passages.
The lastpoint under Mark 10:1-12 also applies here.
8) Romans 7:1-3: “Ordo you not know, brothers – for I am speaking to those
who know the
law – that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a
married woman is

bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is
releasedfrom the
law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with
another man
while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law,
and if she
marries another man she is not an adulteress.”
Paul reaffirms (like Jesus)God‟s originaldesign for marriage.
The death of a spouse is clearly the only legitimate instance in which God
advocates
remarriage.
10
9) 1 Corinthians 7:7-9; 10-16;39-40:“I wish that all were as I myself am. But
eachhas his
own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and
the widows I
say that it is goodfor them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot
exercise selfcontrol, theyshould marry. For it is better to marry than to burn
with passion.” To the
married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate
from her
husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled
to her husband),
and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the restI say (I, not the Lord)
that if any
brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he
should not

divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he
consents to live with
her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy
because ofhis
wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because ofher husband.
Otherwise your
children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving
partner
separates,letit be so. In such cases the brother or sisteris not enslaved. God
has calledyou
to peace. Forhow do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or
how do you
know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” “A wife is bound to her
husband as long
as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she
wished, only in
the Lord. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I
think that I too
have the Spirit of God.”
Paul affirms the positive nature of the single life.
Paul says it is better to marry than to burn with lust (and possibly fall into
sexual
immorality).
God‟s desire for troubled marriages is always reconciliation.
God‟s desire for those separatedin marriage is to be reconciledor remain
separated.
11

Desertionby an unbelieving spouse permits divorce and, it seems, grants
permission for
remarriage (again, the text is silent, though some believe the summation of vv.
39-40
rules out remarriage).
II. Some Basic Observations About Divorce and Remarriage FromA Survey
of Scripture.
1) In dealing with this difficult issue, our goalmust be to be biblical and not
emotional in our
position. We should also emphasize prevention and not be reactionary. The
latter is
difficult, especiallyfor those who have experiencedthe pain of divorce in some
way.
2) God‟s intent is one man joined to one woman for a lifetime. This is His
perfect will for
every marriage. Gen. 2:18-25
3) God hates divorce. Mal. 2:13-16
4) God‟s desire is that troubled marriages would always be reconciled.
Divorce is never
commanded or desired by God. Separationis sometimes deemed wise (1 Cor.
7:10-11).
5) I believe divorce may be biblically permissible in the casesof:
a) sexualimmorality
b) desertionby an unbeliever
c) For some, if the divorce was pre-conversion(2 Cor. 5:17). I hold this view.
Again,

reconciliationis God‟s first desire. Where reconciliationis not possible,
permission to
remarry in the Lord may be allowed(though it is not expresslystated).
6) Divorce and remarriage are not sanctionedfor reasons otherthan sexual
immorality or
desertionby an unbeliever. However, some would say that it seems that it
would be better
for one still to marry than to a) commit sexualimmorality (1 Cor. 7:9) or b) be
unduly
burdened and oppressedin a single state (Deut. 24:1-4). However, it is clear
that God
would encourage a single status and indeed He commends it as better (1 Cor.
7). The
single looks to God in faith to 1) provide self-controland 2) meet one‟s needs.
12
III. Four Major Views on Divorce And Remarriage.
1. Patristic (Church Fathers)View (“patristic” refers to the early church
fathers):
The exceptionclause “exceptfor fornication: (sexual immorality, porneia) in
Matt. 5:31-
32 and 19:9-10 qualifies only the verb “put away” and not the remarriage
clause. Hence,
divorce was allowedfor adultery only, and if it did occurfor this reason,
remarriage was
not allowed. This view basicallyteaches:Divorce is allowedfor adultery only.
No

remarriage is allowed. Those holding this view note: 1) there is no expressed
statement
for remarriage and 2) the nearness ofthe early church Fathers to the apostles.
2. Protestant-EvangelicalView:
The exceptionclause “exceptfor fornication” (sexual immorality) qualifies
both “put
away” and “marry another.” Thus, divorce is allowedfor sexual immorality
and
remarriage is granted to the innocent party. This view basicallyteaches:
Divorce is
allowedfor adultery and desertion by an unbelieving spouse with no
possibility of
reconciliation. Remarriage to a believeris permissible for the innocent party.
Problems:
The reactionof the disciples, “if such is the case, it is better not to marry,”
does not seem
to be explained as well by this view. This is also an argument from silence.
3) Betrothal View:
The exceptionclause means “premarital sexual intercourse” in the case ofa
man and
woman who were betrothed. Jewishbetrothal was a legalcontractwhich
could only be
broken by divorce or death. It was more than an engagementbut not a
sexually
consummated marriage. This view is said to better explain the disciples‟
reactionupon
hearing Jesus‟ words. This view basically teaches:Divorce is allowedonly for

unfaithfulness during the betrothal period. If adultery was committed after
the marriage,
then divorce was not allowedfor any reason.
13
Problems:
1) The technicalmeaning given to the phrase “sexualimmorality” as
“premarital sexual
intercourse” during the betrothal period is unknown elsewherein the Bible
or in
Greek literature.
2) The context of Deut. 24, which is the Old Testamentpassage forming the
foundation
of Jesus‟ statements inMatt. 5 and 19, shows that the wife was not a
betrothed wife.
3) This view makes the word “wife” in Matt. 19:7 and 8 refer to a wife after
the marriage
has been consummated, while the word “wife” in verse 9 is said to refer to a
betrothed
wife. The context seems to point to a wife who is alreadymarried.
4) Unlawful Marriage View:
This view takes “sexualimmorality” in the exceptionclause to refer to
incestuous
marriages (Lev. 18:6-18). This view basicallyteaches:Divorce is allowedfor
those
marriages within the prohibited degrees ofkinship proscribed in Lev. 18:6-18.

Remarriage is usually not allowed, though there seems to be some differences
of opinion
on this.
Problems: The technical meaning of “incest” givento “sexualimmorality”
does not seem
to fit the total context of the passage.
IV. The Teaching Of Paul On Divorce – 1 Corinthians 7.
Paul does not address the subject of divorce for adultery because Jesus had
already
spokento that. He takes up the questions by the Corinthians on the subjectof
divorce for
reasons otherthan adultery, specificallydesertion.
In 1 Cor. 7:10-11, Paulsays that a husband and a wife who are both
Christians are not to
divorce, but if they do, they are not to remarry.
14
In 1 Cor. 7:12-16, Pauladdresses the problem of a savedspouse who is
married to an
unsaved spouse. If the unsaved party departs, the saved party is “not under
bondage” in such
cases. “Notunder bondage” canmean: 1) free to divorce, 2) free to divorce
and remarry, or
3) is not bound to try and stay with the unbelieving spouse, but if the
unbeliever departs, he
or she is not allowedto divorce and remarry.

As a result of the above survey, severalpositions on the subject of divorce are
possible today:
1) Divorce is never permitted in the Scripture for any reason.
2) Divorce is permitted for adultery only, but remarriage is not allowed.
3) Divorce is permitted for adultery and desertionof an unbelieving partner,
but remarriage is
not permitted.
4) Divorce is permitted for adultery or desertionof an unbelieving partner,
and remarriage to
a believer is granted to the innocent party. (Those who believe the Bible allows
for
remarriage do so on the grounds of the exception clause in Matthew and the
suggestion
that if God grants divorce to the innocent party, by his grace he would also
grant
permission to remarriage.)
5) Divorce is permitted in the case ofan incestuous marriage.
6) Divorce is permitted in the case ofthe divorce taking place prior to one‟s
conversionand
there is no possibility of reconciliation(2 Cor. 5:17 is the basis of this
position).
V. A Summation of EvangelicalPositions onDivorce and Remarriage (after
sexually
consummated marriage).
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7
Divorce Initiate By

Non-Believers NO YES YES YES YES YES YES
PhysicalAdultery
is Grounds NO NO NO YES YES YES YES
PhysicalAbuse or
Abandonment is
Grounds
NO NO NO NO NO YES YES
15
Unfaithful Desires
(Lust) and
Behavior(Flirting)
are Grounds
NO NO NO NO NO NO YES
Remarriage after
Permissible
Divorce
NO NO YES NO YES YES YES
Liederbach,
Patterson
Piper,
David
Jones
Heimbach Wenham

& Early
Church
Akin,
MacArthur,
Feinbergs,
Kostenberger
& Most
Evangelicals
Schaeffer,
Westminster
Confession
Luck
VI.ConclusionThoughts: Dogmaticismand certainty is not appropriate in an
area where
goodand godly students who affirm, without apology, the infallibility and
inerrancy of
the Bible, differ. Still, I do believe there are some things we canclearly affirm
based
upon Jesus‟ words in this passageofScripture.
1) Marriage is a gift and work of Godthat receives its meaning and
significance from God.
2) God‟s designfor marriage is exclusively heterosexualand unique among all
human
relationships (10:6-7).

3) God‟s plan from the beginning is that marriage would be permanent and
indissolvable (10:9).
Indeed Malachi2:16 reminds us, “ForI hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God
of Israel, and
him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take
heed to your spirit,
that you do not dealtreacherously.”
4) Jesus acknowledgesthat because we live in a fallen world and have hard
hearts, divorce will
occur(10:3-4). However, no divorce is ever necessarythough it may be
occasionally
permissible to those whose divorce is on biblical grounds.
5) To divorce one‟s mate (without a biblical cause?)andremarry another is to
commit the sin of
adultery (10:11-12).
16
Now, to these clearstatements in Mark 10:1-12, what else canwe sayabout
divorce and
remarriage that is both prophetic and pastoral, instructive and redemptive?
6) Where the sin of adultery and/or divorce has taken place forgiveness is
possible and available
to those who repent and confess theirsin (1 John 1:9).
7) If we are in an unbiblical marriage, we should not attempt to get out of it.
Seek forgivenessfor
the sin of adultery, and then work hard to glorify God and be a blessing to the
mate you are

married to.
8) In the church we should emphasize the value and dignity of marriage while
eliminating the
shame and stigma of the divorced. We “mingle the callto obedience with the
tears of
compassion” (SamStorm).
9) We should acknowledgethat divorce is a sin that is far more hurtful and
destructive than
many other sins.
10) Concerning marriage, the diction “an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure” is a good
one. No minister should perform a wedding without requiring a) extensive
pre-marital
counseling and b) the signing of a pre-marital wedding covenant. A sample
one is noted
below.
VII. Pre-MaritalWedding Covenant
The decisionto marry is the secondmost important decisionone will ever
make in a lifetime.
The first is the decisionwhether or not you will personallycommit your life to
Jesus Christ as
Savior and Lord. Keeping this in mind, we commit to God, our minister, and
eachother to:
1. Seek God‟s willfor our lives personally and togetherby following biblical
principles for Christian living and marriage.
2. Notengage in pre-marital sex.

3. Be sure to do everything possible to build a Christian marriage and home.
This means that both of us have a personalrelationship with Jesus Christ,
and
that we desire growth for that relationship overthe entire course of our lives
by being obedient to his Word.
17
4. Readand listen to all pre-marital material provided by our minister.
5. Be active in a Bible-believing church beginning now and during our
marriage.
6. Buy and read His Needs, Her Needs by Willard Harley, The Act of
Marriage by Tim
LaHaye, God on Sex by Danny Akin, and A Promise Kept by Robertson
McQuilkin.
7. Totalopenness and honesty with our minister and with eachother both now
and after
our wedding.
8. Postpone orcancelthe marriage if, at any time betweennow and the
wedding, either
one of us comes to believe this marriage is not right.
9. Never allow the word “divorce” to enter the realm of our relationship. We
are in this
togetherfor the duration of our lives. Divorce is not an option for us!
10. Seek competentChristian counselshould we encounter any difficulty in
our
marriage.

With the above commitments made, we believe God will be honored, and the
prospects for a
meaningful and happy marriage enhanced. With God‟s help, we will seek to
honor God with our
lives and marriage all the days of our lives.
WILLIAM BARCLAY
FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE (Mark 10:1-12)
10:1-12 Leaving there, Jesus came into the hill-country of Judaea and to the
district across the Jordan, and once againcrowds came togetherto him. As his
custom was, he againcontinued to teachthem. Some Phariseescame to him
and askedhim if it was lawful for a man to put awayhis wife. They askedthis
question to test him. He askedthem, "What commandment did Moses lay
down for you?" They answered, "Moses alloweda man to write a bill of
divorcement and then to put her away." Jesus saidto them, "It was to meet
the hardness of your heart that he wrote this commandment for you. From
the beginning of creationmale and female he createdthem. Forthis cause a
man will leave his father and his mother and will cleave to his wife. And the
two will become one flesh, so that they are no longertwo but one flesh. So then
what God has joined togetherlet not man separate." In the house his disciples
againaskedhim about this. He saidto them, "Whoeverputs awayhis wife
and marries another womancommits adultery againsther. And if a woman
divorces her husband and marries anotherman, she commits adultery."

Jesus was pursuing his way south. He had left Galilee and had come into
Judaea. He had not yet entered Jerusalem, but stepby step and stage by stage
he was approaching the final scene.
Certain Pharisees came witha question about divorce, by which they hoped to
test him. There may have been more than one motive behind their question.
Divorce was a burning question, a crux of rabbinic discussion, and it may well
be that they honestly wished for Jesus'opinion on it. They may have wished to
test his orthodoxy. It may wellbe that Jesus had alreadyhad something to say
on this matter. Matthew 5:31-32, shows us Jesus speaking aboutmarriage and
re-marriage, and it may be that these Pharisees hadthe hope that he might
contradict himself and entangle himself in his own words. It may be that they
knew what he would answerand wishedto involve him in enmity with Herod
who had in fact divorced his wife and married another. It may wellbe that
they wished to hear Jesus contradictthe law of Moses, as indeedhe did, and
thereby to formulate a charge ofheresy againsthim. One thing is certain--the
question they askedJesus was no academic one of interest only to the rabbinic
schools. It was a question which dealt with one of the acutestissues of the
time.
In theory nothing could be higher than the Jewishideal of marriage. Chastity
was held to be the greatestofall the virtues. "We find that God is long-
suffering to every sin except the sin of unchastity." "Unchastity causes the
glory of God to depart." "Every Jew must surrender his life rather than
commit idolatry, murder or adultery." "The very altar sheds tears when a
man divorces the wife of his youth." The ideal was there but practice fell very
far short.
The basic fact that vitiated the whole situation was that in Jewishlaw a
woman was regardedas a thing. She had no legalrights whatever but was at
the complete disposalof the male head of the family. The result was that a

man could divorce his wife on almostany grounds, while there were very few
on which a woman could seek divorce. At bestshe could only ask her husband
to divorce her. "A woman may be divorced with or without her will, but a
man only with his will." The only grounds on which a womancould claim a
divorce were if her husband became a leper, if he engagedin a disgusting
trade such as that of a tanner, if he ravished a virgin, or if he falsely accused
her of prenuptial sin.
The law of Jewishdivorce goes back to Deuteronomy 24:1. That passage was
the foundation of the whole matter. It runs thus: "When a man takes a wife
and marries her, if then she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found
some indecency in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her
hand and sends her out of his house."
At first the bill of divorcement was very simple. It read like this: "Let this be
from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that
thou mayest marry whatsoeverman thou wilt." In later days the bill became
more elaborate:"On the ........ day, of the ........ week, ofthe ........ month, year
........ ofthe world, according to the calculationin use in the town of .........
situated by the river ........ I, A.B., son of C.D., and by whatsoevername I am
calledhere, present this day ......... native of the town of ........ I acting of my
free-will, and without any coercion, do repudiate, send back, and put away
thee E.F., daughter of G.H., and by whatsoevername thou art called, and
until this present time my wife. I send thee away now E.F., daughter of G.H.,
so that thou art free and thou canstat thy pleasure marry whom thou wilt and
no one will hinder thee. This is thy letter of divorce, act of repudiation,
certificate of separation, according to the law of Moses and of Israel." In New
Testamenttimes this document took a skilled Rabbi to draw it up. It was
afterwards proved by a court of three rabbis, and then lodged with the
Sanhedrin. But the process ofdivorce remained on the whole exceedingly
easy, and at the entire discretion of the man.

But the real crux of the problem was the interpretation of the law as it is in
Deuteronomy 24:1. There it is laid down that a man candivorce his wife if he
finds in her some indecency. How was that phrase to be interpreted? There
were in this matter two schools ofthought.
There was the schoolofShammai. They interpreted the matter with utter
strictness. A matter of indecencywas adultery and adultery alone. Let a
woman be as bad as Jezebel, unless she was guilty of adultery there could be
no divorce.
The other schoolwas the schoolofHillel. They interpreted that crucial phrase
as widely as possible. They said that it could mean if the wife spoileda dish of
food, if she spun in the streets, if she talked to a strange man, if she spoke
disrespectfully of her husband's relations in his hearing, if she was a brawling
woman, (who was defined as a woman whose voice could be heard in the next
house). Rabbi Akiba even went the length of saying that it meant if a man
found a woman who was fairer in his eyes than his wife was.
Human nature being as it is, it was the laxer view which prevailed. The result
was that divorce for the most trivial reasons, orfor no reasonatall, was
tragicallycommon. To such a pass had things come that, in the time of Jesus,
women hesitatedto marry at all because marriage was so insecure. When
Jesus spoke as he did he was speaking on a subjectwhich was a burning issue,
and he was striking a blow for women by seeking to restore marriage to the
position it ought to have.
Certain things are to be noted. Jesus quoted the Mosaic regulation, and then
he said that Moses laidthat down only "to meet the hardness of your hearts."
That may mean one of two things. It may mean that Moses laidit down
because it was the best that could be expectedfrom people such as those for

whom he was legislating. Or, it may mean that Moses laidit down in order to
try to controla situation which even then was degenerating, that in fact it was
not so much a permission to divorce as it was in the beginning an attempt to
control divorce, to reduce it to some kind of law, and to make it more difficult.
In any event Jesus made it quite clearthat he regardedDeuteronomy 24:1, as
being laid down for a definite situation and being in no sense permanently
binding. The authorities which he quoted went much further back. Forhis
authorities he went right back to the Creationstory and quoted Genesis 1:27
and Genesis 2:24. It was his view that in the very nature of things marriage
was a permanency which indissolubly united two people in such a waythat the
bond could never be broken by any human laws and regulations. It was his
belief that in the very constitution of the universe marriage is meant to be an
absolute permanency and unity, and no Mosaic regulationdealing with a
temporary situation could alter that.
The difficulty is that in the parallel accountin Matthew there is a difference.
In Mark, Jesus'prohibition of divorce and remarriage is absolute. In
Matthew 19:3-9, he is shownas absolutelyforbidding remarriage, but as
permitting divorce on one ground--adultery. Almost certainly the Matthew
version is correct, and it is indeed implied in Mark. It was Jewishlaw that
adultery did in fact compulsorily dissolve any marriage. And the truth is that
infidelity does in fact dissolve the bond of marriage. Once adultery has been
committed the unity is in any case destroyedand divorce merely attests the
fact.
The real essence ofthe passageis that Jesus insistedthat the loose sexual
morality of his day must be mended. Those who sought marriage only for
pleasure must be reminded that marriage is also for responsibility. Those who
regardedmarriage simply as a means of gratifying their physical passions

must be reminded that it was also a spiritual unity. Jesus was building a
rampart round the home.
BRIAN BELL
Mark 10:1-12 7-14-13
What God Has Joined Together
I. Slide#1 Intro:
A. Slide#2 I want to take this portion of Scripture & deal with Marriage &
Divorce but also I have
been waiting to address a few hot button issues that go right along with it like:
1. Slide#3 How do we keepor fight for the sanctity of marriage in our day &
age?
2. How should CM should respond to same sex marriage issue.
B. Slide#4a Setting:His final departure from Galilee.
1. The other side of the Jordan or region of Perea – [across(otherside)i.e.
across the Jordan]
C. Slide#4bThe Question:was a ‘political, religious, emotional, experiential,
physical, moral &
ethical’ Hot Potato.
1. Divorce & Remarriage remains controversial& complex.
2. It is also an emotional one as it concerns many people’s lives & therefore
requires
greatsensitivity.

D. Slide#4c The Motive: was malicious. Testing him.
1. They really weren’t concernedwhere Jesus stoodon the issue.
E. Slide#4dThe Danger:Intense. This was Herod Antipas region (divorced his
wife to marry his brother’s wife)
1. John the Baptist lost his head over this topic in this region.
F. Slide#4e The Dilemma: rock & a hard place.
1. Condemn divorce – Risk John’s same fate.
2. Condone divorce – Lose the confidence of devout people.
3. A yes or no & He’d be in trouble (at leastthe Phariseesthought!!!)
G. Slide#5 2 Schools ofrabbinical thought in Jesus’day:
1. Slide#6 Rabbi Shammai (50bc-30ad)– Very Strict. Only if a man married a
woman &
then found out she wasn’ta virgin.
2. Rabbi Hillel (100bc-10ad)– Very Liberal. One of Hillel’s followers saida
man could
divorce his wife simply if he found anotherwoman more attractive.
a) Slide#7 The liberal view was the more popular. Divorce was tragicallyeven
more
common then than today. [slide: rock, paper, scissors]
b) The issue was the interpretation of one phrase some uncleanness in
Deut.24:1.
(1) When a man takes a wife & marries her, & it happens that she finds no
favor
in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes
her a certificate ofdivorce, puts it in her hand, & sends her out of his house.

H. Slide#8 Now, Let’s interview the top 4 Leaders in Marital Counseling:
1
1. Moses;God(the Father); Jesus & Paul.
II. Slide#9 MOSES (3-5)
A. Jesus ignoredthe current debates & focusedattention on the Word of God
so took them to
Moses.
1. The Pharisees consideredMosestheir highest authority.
2. And note He answers not from the negative, regarding divorce, but from
the
positive regarding marriage.
3. Slide#10 Theywere more concernedfor the grounds for divorce;
Jesus was more concernedabout the principles of marriage.
B. They quote Deut.24:1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it
happens that she finds
no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he
writes her a
certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house...
1. Jesus then explained the reasonfor this concession.
2. Divorce was alreadytaking place among the Israelites.
3. Slide#11 Moses put limitations on it requiring “a certificate of divorce” to
be made
out, indicating the reasons for it.
a) This required hiring a scribe & going through a legalprocedure.

b) This thus protected the wife by restraining the husband from impulsively
divorcing her.
Becauseshe would become a socialoutcast, no man could marry her, & she
would be left
defenseless& destitute. [even our liberal state of California knew to have a 6
month
Cooling Off Period]
4. Moseswas not encouraging divorce but seeking to discourage it.
5. Howeverthis was not the divine plan.
a) “The marriage of one man to one woman for life is the foundation of stable
society.”
III. Slide#12 GOD (6-8)
A. From the beginning – Jesus wentback to Moses,Moses takesus back to the
beginning.
1. God made marriage & He has the right to make the rules.
2. Gen.2:24,25gives 4 instructions for marriage:Therefore a man shall leave
his
father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
And
they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
B. Severance,Permanence,Unity & Intimacy
1. Slide#13aSeverance - Leave behind. a man shall leave his father and
mother
a) The healthy goalof the parent is to prepare the child to leave, not stay.
b) A different relationship starts up on the wedding day.

2
c) Here is a change in authority. The new husband goes from a father’s son, to
the Headship of his own home.
2. Slide#13bPermanence -Joined/yoked. and be joined to his wife
a) As an oxen team had to function in close unity, so should a husband & wife
team.
3. Slide#13cUnity – 2 people wanting to share everything. and they shall
become one flesh
a) Their bodies, their possessions, insights, ideas, abilities, problems,
successes,sufferings,
& failures.
b) Praise God Jesus in His marriage to us, His Bride, holds back with NO
Prenuptial's.
4. Slide#13dIntimacy – Gen.2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his
wife,
and were not ashamed.
a) 1 Cor.7:3 Let the husband render to his wife the affectiondue her, and
likewise also the
wife to her husband.
C. I would like to note that twice, in the 2nd chapter of the bible, God specifies
man/wife,
husband/wife.
1. We used to not have to qualify this, but now we do.
2. Slide#14 Do to the recent Supreme Court rulings on DOMA(Defense of
Marriage Act)

and Prop 8, How do we protect/keepthe sanctity of marriage in our day &
age?
How do we battle for biblical marriage? Whatdo we do regarding
Homosexual
couples getting married now?
D. I have the answer. First let me say, sure vote carefully, bring about laws,
legislature, bills, etc.
Sign petitions. Rally, write your Senators, Lobby…all that.
1. But let me ask you, can you legislate a heart? What is the best testimony for
our
homosexualfriends & family members? What can we do?
2. I know its easyto say the right things from inside the bunker of church.
3. But some are acting like bible verses meant to be thrown like grenades at
others.
Weren’t they meant for us to use to point eachother towards love & grace;
repentance & forgiveness?
E. Slide#15,16 Heterosexualdivorce has done more to destroymarriage than
all the gay activists
in the world put together. [Sign: Their perspective of Heterosexualmarriages
:( ]
1. We're so quick to point the finger, we need to point it at ourselves first.
2. How about we apologize to the to the homosexual community for the
failings of the
Heterosexualchurch?
3. And also for hypocrisy making this out to be the worse ofall possible sins?

F. Slide#17,18 Here’s my answer:Have a marriage that glorifies God. Have a
marriage that rocks
all other earthly relationship. Have a marriage that others want. Have a
marriage where you
invest 100% of yourself, even if your spouse wont. Display a marriage where
your children
3
say, I want that for my life when I grow up. Exhibit a marriage where the
homosexual
community will understand how beautiful a heterosexual marriage canbe.
a) So, if I haven’t made myself clear, what I’m saying is instead of proving
why a
homosexualmarriage is bad, why not show how a heterosexualrelationship is
best? - Becausewe haven’t yet Christians!
IV. Slide#19 JESUS (vs.9-12 & Mt.19:9,10)
A. (9) Jesus adds His commentary to this.
1. Again, He gives God’s intention, that marriage should be a permanent
commitment.
2. He spoke in these terms to discourage all divorce in principle, but not to
prohibit divorce in every circumstance.
B. (11) This is exactlywhat Herod Antipas did.
C. (12) Mark seems to include this for his Roman readers.
1. Matthew omits it because Jewishwomendid not have the legalright to
divorce
their husbands. (Roman & Greek wives did)

2. This is very revolutionary. Both men & women have equal rights & equal
responsibilities in this matter.
D. Slide#20 Here we must add Matthew’s account, in 19:9,10 where 1 other
thing is discussed…
Marital unfaithfulness(9).
1. The exception clause. Which is a justifiable ground for divorce.
2. Jesus adds this because OT time adultery wasn’t grounds for divorce…it
was
grounds for getting STONED TO DEATH!
3. This doesn’tmake it necessaryorrequire it, but simply permits it.
4. Divorce is always a tragedy & we will always wantto look for forgiveness &
reconciliationeven when adultery has takenplace.
E. Slide#21 PaulTripp writes, “Your marriage isn’t what you expected
because you are a sinner
married to a sinner and you both live in a fallen world.” The goodnews is that
there is
sufficient grace to bring your marriage back to life.
V. Slide#22 PAUL (1 Cor.7:15)
A. Abandonment clause - if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother
or a sisteris not
under bondage in such cases.
B. Let me also add: The church needs to hold to the teaching of God’s Word
& show compassion
for those who have failed & to those whom we do not know all the details.

VI. 3 ways CM should respond to gay marriage:[excerpts from Joe Dallas,
2002]
A. Slide#23 First, the Church must repent of whateverimmorality exists w/in
her own ranks.
4
B. E.g. Imagine a severelyoverweightman dressedin spandex shorts, shirtless
in his pot-bellied
glory, selling workoutequipment on a televisedinfomercial. "This stuff
works!", he enthuses
while he jiggles about. "You gotta try it!" Of course nobody's buying it. The
equipment he
promotes may be great, but because ofhis own condition, you'd never know it.
1. Slide#24 Alfred Adler observed, "It is always easierto fight for our
principles than
it is to live up to them."
2. Slide#25 ColumnistCal Thomas posed the question: "Why should the
majority
acceptsomething they have not seenfully lived out by those who profess to
believe?"
3. Jesus warnedus to remove the log from our own eye before addressing
someone
else's speck.Notonly does it prevent hypocrisy; it enhances credibility.
a) To this end, the Church must admit her own moral shortcomings, take
remedial action
to correctthem, and then, with appropriate humility, address immorality in
the culture.

C. Slide#26 Second, the Church must repent of hostility towards homosexual
people. When
Christians are angry over the celebrationof sinful behavior, they do well.
Anger, properly
used, sees a problem and attempts to correctit. - But hostility, expressed
through contempt or
disrespect, correctsnothing and sullies everything. Too often, the Church's
angerover
homosexualsin has been accompaniedby a tone of hostility towards
homosexuals themselves.
And it is the hostility of the anti-homosexual messagethat is remembered long
after the
messageitselfhas been disregarded.
1. The prophet Jonah was commissionedto preachto a group of people he
loathed.
He took great pains to get out of his commission. God's intervention via a
whale is
the most wellknown aspectof the story, but Jonah's messageandapparent
attitude afterwards are noteworthy. After arriving on Ninevah's shores, he
preached
what went on recordas being the world's worstevangelistic sermon.
"Destruction‘s
coming", he proclaimed. And that was all he proclaimed. No invitation to
repentance
was offered; no concernfor his listeners was expressed. In fact, having
predicted

that judgment would soonfall, we find Jonah grabbing a front row seatto
watch
Ninevah's doom!
2. A similar attitude, which we can callThe Jonah Syndrome, seems to have
infected
too many believers. To hear some of us talk, you'd think it's more important
to
politically defeathomosexuals than it is to see them won into the Kingdom.
To be sure, goodstewardship requires involvement in the political system. But
there
are more important issues than defeating pro-gay legislation. There are the
souls of
gays and lesbians themselves. And when our desire to block their agenda is
greaterthan our desire to see them reconciledto God in Christ, then our
priorities are clearlyskewed, and the Jonah Syndrome has takenhold.
3. It is possible - necessary, actually - to condemn homosexuality without
needlessly
alienating homosexualpeople.
5
a) PastorEd Dobson, a former member of the Moral Majority in the 1980's,
realized this
when he beganministering to AIDS patients, many of whom were openly gay.
After
visiting severalof them at the localhospital, word got out that this
conservative Pastor

Jesus was all for marriage

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was all for marriage

Similar to Jesus was all for marriage (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was all for marriage