Exegetical Paper – Mark 10:1-12



FREE CHURCH COLLEGE

Bachelor of Theology

Academic Year 2008/2009

New Testament 101

Exegetical Essay: Mark 10:1-12

2655 words

Winston Tay

Student No.: 0705

GNT Mark 10:1-12 Kai. evkei/qen avnasta.j e;rcetai eivj ta. o[ria th/j VIoudai,aj Îkai.Ð pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou( kai. sumporeu,ontai pa,lin o;cloi pro.j auvto,n( kai. w`j eivw,qei pa,lin evdi,dasken auvtou,jÅ 2 kai. proselqo,ntej Farisai/oi evphrw,twn auvto.n eiv e;xestin avndri. gunai/ka avpolu/sai( peira,zontej auvto,nÅ 3 o` de. avpokriqei.j ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ti, u`mi/n evnetei,lato Mwu?sh/jÈ 4 oi` de. ei=pan( VEpe,treyen Mwu?sh/j bibli,on avpostasi,ou gra,yai kai. avpolu/saiÅ 5 o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j( Pro.j th.n sklhrokardi,an u`mw/n e;grayen u`mi/n th.n evntolh.n tau,thnÅ 6 avpo. de. avrch/j kti,sewj a;rsen kai. qh/lu evpoi,hsen auvtou,j\ 7 e[neken tou,tou katalei,yei a;nqrwpoj to.n pate,ra auvtou/ kai. th.n mhte,ra Îkai. proskollhqh,setai pro.j th.n gunai/ka auvtou/Ð( 8 kai. e;sontai oi` du,o eivj sa,rka mi,an\ w[ste ouvke,ti eivsi.n du,o avlla. mi,a sa,rxÅ 9 o] ou=n o` qeo.j sune,zeuxen a;nqrwpoj mh. cwrize,twÅ 10 Kai. eivj th.n oivki,an pa,lin oi` maqhtai. peri. tou,tou evphrw,twn auvto,nÅ 11 kai. le,gei auvtoi/j( }Oj a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou/ kai. gamh,sh| a;llhn moica/tai evpV auvth,n\ 12 kai. eva.n auvth. avpolu,sasa to.n a;ndra auvth/j gamh,sh| a;llon moica/taiÅ

ESV Mark 10:1-12 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them. 2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" 3 He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." 5 And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Textual Variants[1]

10:1: dia. tou/ pe,ran being the smoothest reading among the variants, is suspect of being an explanatory correction by copyists grappling with the geographical difficulties involved in the earlier readings. Between kai. pe,ran (Alexandrian text) and simply pe,ran (Western and Antiochian texts), the external support for the second reading is strong, but weakened by internal probabilities of being an assimilation to Matt 19:1. Both readings equally involve geographical difficulties but kai. pe,ran may be marginally preferable as a different reading from Matthew.

10:2: Three considerations weigh towards the original absence of proselqo,ntej Farisai/oi in the text. First, possibility of it being a scribal insertion to clarify evphrw,twn as referencing the Pharisees is high, especially given the halakhah context of the passage. Further, the reference may have crept in by assimilation to Matt19:3 as well. Finally, the impersonal plural as a feature of Markan style also has to be taken into consideration.

10:6: Given that the last expressed subject is Moses, o` qeo,j as subject of evpoi,hsen is best taken as a later insertion to clarify the subject missing from the sentence quoted from Gen 1:27.

10:7: The phrase kai. proskollhqh,setai pro.j th.n gunai/ka (or th|/ gunai/ki) auvtou though omitted by a and B etc., is integral to the argument and needed within the context for oi` du,o in v8 to make any proper sense. Its omission in variant readings may be accounted for by possible parablepsis due to the oft repeated kai., The reading pro.j th.n gunai/ka is better supported than the dative construction th|/ gunai/ki which assimilates to Matt 19:5 and is a more elegant stylistic correction.

Introduction

This passage concerns Jesus’ teaching on the subject of divorce and is the only passage in Mark’s gospel where the theme is handled by Jesus. However, Mark sets the incident within the larger context of Jesus’ training of his disciples as he journeyed towards Jerusalem and the prospect of the cross. 8:27 to 10:52 can be seen as a painting in three panels (8:27-9:29, 9:30-10:31 & 10:32-10:52), each beginning with a prediction of Jesus’ suffering and each containing teaching on discipleship.[2] Within these panels, Mark explores the disciples’ slow but growing understanding of Jesus’ person, mission and claims of discipleship against the backdrop of Jesus’ public ministry and private instruction to his disciples. Mark frequently paints unflattering portraits of the disciples whose insight is often no better than the crowd’s. Jesus through his private teachings however, patiently instructs and helps them to “see” as they “follow him in the way”[3].

Jesus’ teaching on divorce is hence tied up with the broader and larger themes of the kingdom of God[4] and Christian discipleship[5]. Following Evan’s suggestion with slight modifications[6], the passage may be read in six parts:

1. The Setting (v1)

2. The Pharisees’ question about divorce (v2)

3. Jesus’ counter question (v3)

4. The Pharisees’ response (v4)

5. Jesus’ rebuttal (v5-9)

6. Jesus’ further explanation to his disciples (v10-12)

Exegetical Comments

1. The Setting (v1)

This verse contains two sets of information for the setting of the passage. Firstly, evkei/qen, avnasta.j connects the passage with the preceding account of Jesus’ teaching ministry at Capernaum (9:33) and moves the setting to ta. o[ria th/j VIoudai,aj Îkai.Ð pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou. The occurrence of evkei/qen in this gospel is rare (6:1, 7:24, 9:30, 10:1) and given Mark’s general restraint in introducing connections, may indicate some loose chronological link between the successive events, not excluding the possibility of unmentioned intervening incidents.[7] Further, there are difficulties in the reading of ta. o[ria th/j VIoudai,aj Îkai.Ð pe,ran tou/ VIorda,nou as well. If taken as a topographical description of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, the Byzantine emendation dia. tou/ pe,ran provides the smoothes resolution, being the route most commonly taken by a Galilean pilgrim travelling to Jerusalem. The simple pe,ran reading would locate the incident in Peraea without evidencing much concern for the exact route which Jesus took. Though not politically part of Judea, Perea was Jewish in population and lumped together with it from the Galilean perspective. The kai. pe,ran reading on the other hand keeps the distinction between the two regions and sets the incident broadly within the phase of Jesus’ ministry in the south, without any particular concern for geographical precision.[8] Whichever reading is taken, it is clear that Mark locates the incident in the southern region, within the context of Jesus’ progress towards Jerusalem.

Secondly, the incident is given a public setting among the o;cloi who gathered to hear Jesus teach. The repeated pa,lin and the qualification w`j eivw,qei suggest that such didactic occasions had become commonplace by this time in Jesus’ ministry. [9]

2. The Pharisees’ question about divorce (v2)

While proselqo,ntej Farisai/oi is most probably a later emendation, the unspecified subject of evphrw,twn would undoubtedly be the Pharisees. This is suggested by Mark’s use of the purposive participle peira,zontej, identifying the nature of the inquiry as hostile. The usage of hostile “test questions” is frequently associated in Mark’s gospel with the actions of the Pharisees (see Matt 8:11 and 12:15). The identity of the plural subject is further made explicit by Matthew in his parallel account (Matt 19:3).

The question being put to Jesus in Mark’s record concerns the lawfulness of divorce. Two sets of considerations display the loaded nature of the inquiry. Firstly, the Pharisees’ question is surprising since it was well known that Jewish law permitted divorce. The controversy of the day as reflected in the Matthean parallel, concerned the grounds of divorce (kata. pa/san aivti,an in Mt 19:3) rather than whether the act of divorce itself was in fact, a deviation from the law (eiv e;xestin).[10] The universal acceptance of the lawfulness of divorce (by the schools of Shammai and Hillel, and arguably even the Essenes) would put Jesus in an extremely unpopular position and distance him from the crowds should he go against popular opinion. He may even be seen as undermining the authority of the Torah which permits divorce. Secondly, Jesus was now ministering in a region under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas who beheaded John the Baptist over the issue of his marriage to Herodias. The test question of the Pharisees therefore could potentially get Jesus into trouble with Antipas, thus putting him in mortal danger. As Cranfield succinctly puts it, their intention was “either to show him contradicting the Law or to compromise him in Herod’s eyes.”[11]

3) Jesus’ counter question (v3)

Jesus replies the Pharisees with a counter question of his own, inquiring for the legal basis of divorce in the Mosaic Law (Ti, u`mi/n evnetei,lato Mwu?sh/jÈ). R.T. France insightfully notes how the contrasting usage of verbs between Jesus’ counter question here and the Pharisees’ reply in the next verse reflects the equivocal nature of the legal basis of divorce in Dt 24:1-4. Jesus asks about commands (evntellomai), but they reply in terms of permission ( vepitrepw).[12]

4) The Pharisees’ response (v4)

The Pharisees responded by making reference to Dt 24:1-4, claiming that there, Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her (his wife) away. A few important points should be noted about this claim and the portion of Old Testament Scriptures it appeals to.

Firstly, the Pharisees appealed to the only portion in the Torah which deals directly with the matter of divorce. As observed above, Jesus’ deft counter question highlights the equivocal nature of that portion of Scripture, showing that it can at best be taken only as an indirect concession, not a command. The Pharisees in Mark’s account, contra those in the Matthean parallel, seem to have been alerted to this point for they claim only permission from Moses (Epe,treyen Mwu?sh/j) not “command”, as those in Matthew’s account did.[13]

Secondly, VEpe,treyen Mwu?sh/j bibli,on avpostasi,ou gra,yai kai. avpolu/saiÅ is the Pharisee’s essential summary of Dt 24:1-4. It is not a direct quotation and hence may be more reflective of the interpretative opinions of the Jewish traditions than the true sense and intentions of the Mosaic Law. Jesus, as will be argued below, accepts that a concession was made in the Mosaic Law, but does not accept it as a positive prescription on the subject of divorce, nor communicative of the intentions and imperatives of the Torah on marriage.

Thirdly, in its original context, the passage in Deuteronomy which the Pharisees appealed to belongs to a series of miscellaneous civil and domestic regulations not concerned with divorce laws per se, but with supplementary prohibition against a man remarrying his former wife if she was married to another man in the interval.[14] The passage does not set out to command divorce, or even to affirm any concession to it as prescriptive and lawful. Rather, simply having assumed that divorce had become a reality within the community, the passage sets out to provide instructions to limit the extent of the damage and prevent the situation from spiraling down to greater depths of abominations before the Lord.

5) Jesus’ rebuttal (v5-9)

V5

The adverbial accusative in Jesus’ opening rebuttal (Pro.j th.n sklhrokardi,an) relates Moses’ written command in Dt 24:1-4 (e;grayen u`mi/n th.n evntolh.n tau,thn) not to the subject of divorce (which the Torah nowhere fully explicates), but to the hardness of the people’s heart. As mentioned above, Jesus does not accept the passage raised by the Pharisees as the proper locus for determining the Torah’s imperative teachings on the subject of marriage and divorce. The shape of Jesus’ contention here seems to be that a command written to restrain hardened hearts from committing further abomination can hardly be taken as permission, much less a command for the transgression already entered upon. The command of Moses in Dt 24:1-4 relates to the restriction of further transgression, not permission for divorce. As France notes, Moses’ evvntolh in this passage refers to the concluding injunction at the end of the whole complex sentence that the divorced and remarried wife may not subsequently return to her original husband. The words bibli,on avpostasi,ou gra,yai kai. avpolu/sai are in fact not what Moses wrote and do not represent what the law actually commands.[15]

V6-8

Having rejected the passage raised by the Pharisees as a legitimate locus for drawing their ethical conclusions on the matter, Jesus points out the proper place in the Torah where its imperative teachings on marriage and divorce may be determined. A composite quotation of Gen 1:27 and Gen 2:24 is forwarded to provide the Torah’s command on the subject.

Three elements are significantly raised in the quotation from Gen 1:27. First, Jesus grounds the Torah’s teaching on the subject not within the realm of concessions made to post-fall realities, but within God’s original intentions as expressed in His creational design avpo. avrch/j kti,sewj. It is God’s creational intentions, not humanity’s fallen realities that form the proper context for determining the ethical imperatives for behavior. Secondly, the unity of a;rsen kai. qh/lu in the creational design is highlighted as expressive of the original intentions of God. Thirdly, the essential unity of the a;rsen kai. qh/lu is underlined as a reality which God personally undertook to bring to pass (evpoi,hsen auvtou,j\). These three elements form the basis for the ensuing marital injunction (constituting a divine imperative) taken from Gen 2:24.

katalei,yei in 10:7 has the force of an imperatival future grounded upon the divine design and intention raised by Gen 1:27. e;sontai in 10:8 on the other hand is a future, predictive of the state that will come into being as a result of a man leaving his father and mother and being joined to his wife. The passive of the future proskollhqh,setai in 10:7 may contain an additional hint of this nuance as well. From these, Jesus draws the concluding implication that the resultant reality of marriage is an indivisible state of union formed between two parties thus joined (w[ste ouvke,ti eivsi.n du,o avlla. mi,a sa,rxÅ). The gravity of the matter and irreversibility of the situation is further pressed in by spotlighting God as the One who personally brought about this state of union between the two (o] ou=n o` qeo.j sune,zeuxen).

Mark records the opening gambit of Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees as a question concerning what God through Moses commanded in the Torah concerning divorce. In his closing of the exchange, the Pharisees are checkmated with the summative imperative injunction “ a;nqrwpoj mh. cwrize,twÅ”, culled from God’s will in creation.

6) Jesus’ further explanation to his disciples (v10-12)

Mark’s record moves from Jesus’ public instruction of the crowds and encounter with the Pharisees to his private instruction of the disciples. Best notes that when this happens elsewhere in the Gospel, Jesus’ private teaching either explains the previous teaching or draws out its consequences more explicitly.[16] That Jesus’ disciples asked him again (pa,lin evphrw,twn auvto,n) about the matter in private eivj th.n oivki,an, evidences that the issue was not just a hypothetical test question, but was a real concern and a serious ethical challenge even for Jesus’ closest disciples. The account in the Matthean parallel makes it evident that Jesus’ disciples struggled with the ethical implications of his teaching on marriage and divorce. Jesus goes on to draw out the implications of his previous teaching even more explicitly for his disciples. What is surprising in Jesus’ further explication is not so much his application of the teaching to any man who divorces his wife (}Oj a'n avpolu,sh| th.n gunai/ka auvtou)), but to a woman who divorces her husband as well (eva.n auvth. avpolu,sasa to.n a;ndra auvth/j). The former was common among the Jews, but the latter, totally unheard of. This peculiar emphasis (absent in the Matthean parallel) is perhaps highlighted by Mark for the benefit of the Roman church, whose social environment contained such practices and presented such possibilities and temptations.[17] It also coheres with the general tenor of the ethical imperative raised by Jesus in his exchange with the Pharisees. Whoever (whether man or woman) takes action to bring about divorce, flouts a divine imperative for he or she attempts to separate what God himself has joined together. In any move towards divorce, sin therefore is not absent and adultery is committed.

Concluding Remarks

Within the broader context of Mark’s dominant and overarching themes concerning the Kingdom of God and Discipleship, Jesus’ teaching concerning marriage and divorce reiterates the radical demands of God’s kingdom ethics and the costs involved in following Jesus. The coming kingdom which Jesus ushers in and works to bring about concerns the original will and intentions of God in creation, uncompromised by post-fall realities even though gracious accommodations may have been made to these in the Mosaic Law. The disciples of Jesus are called upon not to build their ethical foundations upon post-fall realities and accommodations, but to follow his zeal for the will of God to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus further sets an example of upholding the imperatives and intentions of God even when they are dangerously contrary to those of prevailing societal norms and may invite hostility and danger. Jesus’ own resolute journey to Jerusalem and the prospect of the cross, despite the growing opposition and mortal danger which that entailed is here raised by Mark as the model the Master has set for his disciples.

Bibliography

Beal, G.K. and Carson, D.A. ed. Commentary On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007)

Best, E. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark JSNT Sup 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981)

Cranfield, C.E.B The Gospel According to St Mark (London: CUP, 1959)

Edwards, J.R. The Gospel According to Mark: Pillar Commentary (Leicester: Apollos, 2002)

Evans, C.A. Mark 8:27-16:20 WBC 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001)

France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark: NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002)

Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament 2nd ed (UBS, 1994)

Wenham, D. & Walton, S. Exploring the New Testament Vol. 1: A Guide to the Gospels and Acts (Illinois: IVP, 2001)

-----------------------

[1] Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament 2nd ed (UBS, 1994) and France, R.T. The Gospel of Mark NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 386, 387.

[2] Wenham, D. & Walton, S. Exploring the New Testament Vol. 1: A Guide to the Gospels and Acts (Illinois: IVP, 2001) 198.

[3] Ibid. The final panel closes with the healing of blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52) which vividly illustrates the journey the disciples must take as they are able to see who Jesus is and what he does more and more clearly.

[4] Though not immediately evident in this pericope within the panel, h basileia is in fact contextually dominant in the gospel, and in the panel (10:14, 15, 23, 24 and 25) as well.

[5] Best, E. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark JSNTSup 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981) 99. Notes that all three pericopae (v1-12, 13-16, 17-31) cohere because they deal with discipleship in relation to an external factor: the marriage partner, children of the marriage, possessions.

[6] Evans, C.A. Mark 8:27-16:20 WBC 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001) 79. Evan’s outline consists of five parts, without the mention of v1 as providing the setting.

[7] Cranfield, C.E.B The Gospel According to St Mark (London: CUP, 1959) 192.

[8] See France, R.T. Ibid, 389 for a fuller discussion of the different readings

[9] Mark’s peculiar usage here of the plural ocloi instead of his usual oclos may provide additional support for the kai peran reading of the setting, suggesting that while Mark had a specific incident in mind, the account may be representative of other similar incidents that took place in the region as well. This would cohere well with the nuance of the repeated palin and the w`j eivw,qei qualification.

[10] Edwards, J.R. The Gospel According to Mark: Pillar Commentary (Leicester: Apollos, 2002) 300. Edwards suggests that given the universal acceptance of divorce among first-century Jews, the Matthean “for any matter” should be read as implied in the Markan text, apart from which the question would make no sense to the people of the day. This is not immediately evident as the question of the lawfulness of divorce as will be argued above, would constitute a strong “test question” and leave Jesus open to ridicule or hostility precisely because it was so universally accepted as the norm.

[11] Cranfield, C.E.B. Ibid, 318

[12] France, R.T. Ibid, 390

[13] The differences between the two accounts may be resolved if we follow the reading suggested in a footnote above that Mark’s account is a representative selection of one among a few similar incidents which occurred during Jesus’ ministry in that region.

[14] Beal, G.K. and Carson, D.A. ed. Commentary On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 196.

[15] France, R.T. Ibid, 391

[16] Best, E. Ibid, 101.

[17] Ibid

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download