Mark 10:10

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

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(10) And in the house.—St. Mark’s narrative is, on the whole, much shorter than St. Matthew’s; but this detail of the question coming from the disciples after they had entered the house is given by him only.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

10:1-12 Wherever Jesus was, the people flocked after him in crowds, and he taught them. Preaching was Christ's constant practice. He here shows that the reason why Moses' law allowed divorce, was such that they ought not to use the permission; it was only for the hardness of their hearts. God himself joined man and wife together; he has fitted them to be comforts and helps for each other. The bond which God has tied, is not to be lightly untied. Let those who are for putting away their wives consider what would become of themselves, if God should deal with them in like manner.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

See this question about divorce explained in the notes at Matthew 19:1-12.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

CHAPTER 10

Mr 10:1-12. Final Departure from Galilee—Divorce. ( = Mt 19:1-12; Lu 9:51).

See on [1471]Mt 19:1-12.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Ver. 10-12. Matthew 5:32 19:9, interprets this passage of Mark, by adding those words, except it be for fornication. None but Mark alone hath what is in Mark 10:12, which concerneth the woman; which hath made some doubt whether the woman, in case of the husband’s adultery, may sue a divorce from him, but the most judicious interpreters say there is an equal right on both sides. I am sure the reason is equal on both sides. The adultery of the husband dissolves the tie and covenant of marriage, as well as the adultery of the wife. It is yet a more groundless and unreasonable opinion of some from the words of this and the parallel texts, that persons divorced may not marry again; as if God’s end in the law of divorce in case of adultery were merely to separate the wife from the husband’s bed. Whether the person that hath given the cause for the divorce may marry again, may be more disputed, not only because such persons are dead persons in the law of God, but because such a liberty granted would open a flood gate to iniquity of that kind, while persons weary of their correlates should by this means gratify their lusts, and also obtain their desires. But I shall not determine it. Certain it is our Saviour here speaketh only of divorces for trivial causes, which the law of God doth not warrant; and in such cases the person marrying again must necessarily commit adultery, because the band of the former union holds. As to the question, whether divorces be lawful in no cases but that of adultery;

See Poole on "Matthew 5:31", See Poole on "Matthew 5:32". See Poole on "Matthew 19:3", and following verses to Matthew 19:11.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And in the house,.... To which Christ retired, after he had put the Pharisees to silence, and dismissed the multitude:

his disciples asked him again of the same matter; concerning the affair of divorces, be bad been discoursing with the Pharisees about; some things being said, they had not been used to, and which they did not thoroughly understand; and therefore chose privately to converse with him on this subject, for their further information.

Geneva Study Bible

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

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Mark 10:10-12. See on Matthew 19:9. The two evangelists differ from one another here in respect of the place, of the persons to whom Jesus is speaking, and partially of the contents of what He says. Certainly Matthew has furnished the original shape of the matter, since what Mark makes Jesus say only in the house and merely to His disciples (Mark 10:11 with the not original amplification of Mark 10:12) is withal an essential element of the reply to the Pharisees, and does not bear the character of a special private instruction, whereas the private communication to the disciples, Matthew 19:10-12, which as such is just as appropriate as it is original, is indeed “the crown of the whole” (Ewald).

εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν] having come into the house (in which at that time they were lodging). The same brevity of expression occurs at Mark 13:9.

πάλιν οἱ μαθηταί] again the disciples, as previously the Pharisees.

περὶ τούτου] (see the critical remarks): upon this subject.

Mark 10:11. ἐπʼ αὐτήν] in reference to her, the woman that is put away.[132]

Mark has not the μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (Matt.), which makes no essential difference, as this ground of divorce is obvious of itself as such. See on Matthew 5:32. Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 410.

Mark 10:12. καὶ ἐὰν γυνὴ ἀπολύσῃ κ.τ.λ.] Matthew has quite a different saying. The narrative of Mark is certainly not original (in opposition to Schenkel), but puts into the mouth of Jesus what was the custom among the Greeks and Romans, namely, that the wife also might be the divorcing party, and very often actually was so (see on 1 Corinthians 7:13, and Wetstein in loc.; also Danz in Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. p. 680 ff.), which was not competent to the Jewish wife (Deuteronomy 24:1; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10), for the instances of Michal (1 Samuel 25:41), of Herodias (Matthew 14:4 f.), and of Salome (Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 10) are abnormal in respect of their rank; and the cases in which, according to the Rabbins, the wife might require that the husband should give her a writing of divorcement (see Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 806 f.) do not belong to the question here, where the wife herself is the party who puts away. The proposition in the passage before us is derived from an Hellenic amplification of the tradition,[133] which, however, in Matthew is again excluded. Comp. Harless, p. 25f. According to Kuinoel (comp. Lange), Jesus purposed to give to the apostles, as future teachers of the Gentiles, the instruction requisite for judging in such a case. But He must have said as much, as the question had reference to the Jewish relation of divorce.

μοιχᾶται] the subject is the woman (comp. Mark 5:11), not the ἄλλος. Moreover, Grotius appropriately says: “Mulier ergo, cum domina sui non sit … omnino adulterium committit, non interpretatione aliqua aut per consequentiam, sed directe. Ideo non debuit hic addi ἘΠʼ ΑὐΤΌΝ.”

[132] Observe that Jesus here of necessity presupposes the acknowledgment of the principle of monogamy. Theophylact and many others, including Lange, Ewald, and Bleek, have erroneously referred αὐτήν to the second wife. Erasmus appropriately says: “in injuriam illius.” Comp. Calvin and Bengel: “in illam.” It is only thus that its emphatic bearing is brought out; the marrying of the second wife makes him an adulterer towards the first.

[133] According to Baur, from a reflection of Mark on the equal rights of the two sexes.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Mark 10:10-12 report as spoken to the Twelve in the house (as opposed to the way in which the Pharisees are supposed to have encountered Jesus) what in Mt.’s version appears as the last word to the interrogants (Mark 10:9). Two variations are noticeable: (1) the absence of the qualifying clause εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, and (2) the addition of a clause (Mark 10:12) stating the law in its bearing on the woman = if she put away her husband and marry another, she is an adulteress. In the former case Mk. probably reports correctly what Christ said, in the latter he has added a gloss so as to make Christ’s teaching a guide for his Gentile readers. Jewish women could not divorce their husbands. The ἐπʼ αὐτήν at the end of Mark 10:11 may mean either against, to the prejudice of, her (the first wife), or with her (the second). The former view is taken by the leading modern exegetes, the latter by Victor Ant., Euthy., Theophy., and, among moderns, Ewald and Bleek.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

10. in the house] St Mark records several confidential household words of our Lord to His disciples, e.g. concerning (a) the power of casting out demons (Mark 9:28-29); (b) the great in the kingdom of heaven (Mark 9:33-37); and (c) here, the Christian law of marriage.

Bengel's Gnomen

[10. Πάλιν, again) The Saviour had given the reply which follows to the Pharisees, Matthew 19:9; but the disciples, by repeating the question, called forth a repetition of the same reply.—V. g.]

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 10. - The discussion with the Pharisees, related in the previous verses, had taken place in public. But now in the house, and in private, the disciples asked him again of this matter; so that what follows seems here to have been said to them privately. But it would appear from St. Matthew (Matthew 21:8) that our Lord had already said this in public; so that here he proclaims a new law, or rather affirms the sanctions of the primitive institution, abrogating the "bill of divorcement" excepting in the one case of fornication, and restoring the rite of marriage to its primaeval and indissoluble character. Mark 10:10