It was now only a few months before Jesus’ crucifixion, and he was going to Jerusalem for the fifth time during his three-and-a-half-year public ministry. The Gospel narratives tell us that no one had ever seen God, so they couldn’t really know him. However, Jesus unfolded or declared who God was, and what he was like (John 1:18). In other words, he acted out a part in which he fulfilled the desires of the Father and not his own as man (John 5:19, 30). Thus, he showed himself to be the express image of God (Hebrews 1:3). The problem was that mankind, by nature, has been in rebellion against God (Genesis 3), and even the good we think to do on our own is an act marred by our being in the state of rebellion. It is only when we imitate Jesus (John 15:5) that we return to being the image of God, which we were created to be (Genesis 1:27; cp. 2Corinthians 3:18). Therefore, whenever the Jewish authorities contended with Jesus, they were expressing their rebellion against God. It was a clash of authorities—the authority of God (invested in Jesus) and the authority of the rebels (inherited from Adam).
It was winter, and Jesus traveled with his disciples from Galilee to Judea (Mark 10:1). There, he intended to celebrate Hanukkah or the Feast of Lights / Dedication (cp. John 10:22). The people who came to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast assembled before him, and as was his habit, he taught them.
Not long afterward, the Pharisees approached Jesus in order to tempt (G3985) him (Mark 10:2). The Greek word can mean either to tempt or to test. They asked Jesus if it were lawful for a man to divorce his wife, and Matthew adds for every cause (Matthew 19:3). This places their question squarely in their own tradition, which set at naught the word of God (cp. Mark 7:1-13). In other words, their question was an assault upon the authority of God, as represented in Jesus, by the authority of men, as represented in the tradition of the elders. For every cause (Matthew 19:3), according to Peoples New Testament:
Hillel, the greatest of the Jewish Rabbins, whom Jews have sought to compare with Christ, taught that almost any ground of displeasure on the part of a husband would justify divorce. He even specifies scorching the bread as sufficient cause. Josephus, the historian, says he “divorced his wife because he was not pleased with her manners.”
The question “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?” (Mark 10:2), therefore, was asked with ulterior motives, in that both Gospel narrators tell us it was asked as a test or a temptation to get Jesus to respond in a particular manner. What were they hoping to do, and how was this question a trap? Whatever that answer might be, at the heart of the Pharisees’ goal was to uphold their own traditions (authority) at the expense of embarrassing and / or getting rid of Jesus and the authority represented in him.
About a year and nine months earlier, John the Baptist was slain by Herod. It seems the Pharisees were behind John’s imprisonment (John 3:25; cp. 4:1). He was imprisoned sometime between the events mentioned in John 3:25 and 4:1, because the text says Jesus fled Judea. He fled, because the Pharisees heard he baptized more people than John (cp. John 4:1-3), and both Matthew and Mark record that he came into Galilee after hearing of John’s imprisonment (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14). Moreover, it is a fact that the Pharisees often used other political or religious groups in an effort to destroy a common enemy (cp. Mark 3:6; 12:13). John was imprisoned, because he made it clear that Herod and Herodias were living in adultery (cp. Mark 6:17-18). Therefore, the question the Pharisees put to Jesus (Mark 10:2) could have been meant to get him in trouble with Herod, as well. So, the question was a test or a trap. If Jesus answered directly, as they desired him to do, they could have had him arrested by Herod, once he returned to Galilee. Nevertheless, Jesus didn’t respond as they had hoped. Instead, he asked them a question of his own (Mark 10:3). So, rather than responding directly, he had them reply to their own question, by asking what Moses said in the Law.
The Pharisees replied by saying Moses commanded a man to give his wife a bill of divorcement (Deuteronomy 24:1-2), before he put her away (Mark 10:4). In seeking to justify themselves, they left out what Moses originally wrote in Genesis, the first book of the Law, namely, that a man and a woman were joined together in a union of one flesh (Genesis 2:23-24). When Jesus pointed this out (Matthew 19:4-6), the Pharisees asked why Moses gave them the Law of divorcement (Matthew 19:7). Jesus’ answer was: because of their own hard hearts (Mark 10:5-9). In other words, it was because of their own obstinacy and unwillingness to obey the truth. For this reason, Moses gave the Law of divorcement. It was a law that sought to control rebellion. It was never intended to be a law of permission, let alone for any reason, for Jesus added that it was the Lord who joined men and women together in marriage, and men had no authority to separate what the Lord had made one.
Afterward, in the House, that is, in the Temple, Jesus’ disciples asked him about his discussion with the Pharisees (Mark 10:10), because Matthew records, they were surprised with Jesus’ reply (Matthew 19:10). However, Jesus simply reiterated what he told the Pharisees, if a man or woman divorces his or her mate and marries another, they commit adultery against their mate (Matthew 10:10-12). If one divorces, he or she must remain alone (1Corinthians 7:10-11).
Smoodock's Blog 