Question about Divorce (10:1–12)

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan (10:1). “Judea and across the Jordan” reverses the natural geographical order but indicates that Judea is the goal of the journey (see 11:1, where Jerusalem is mentioned before Bethphage and Bethany).

“JUDEA” COINS

First Jewish coins struck in the land of Israel. These date from 333 B.C. and bear the Hebrew inscription, “Yehud,” the Aramaic name for the Persian satrapy of Judea.

They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away” (10:4). In biblical times, divorce was not a judgment decided by some court of law. It was an independent action taken by a husband against his wife. The husband’s absolute right to divorce his wife was taken for granted by nearly all Jews. According to the rabbis, “The man that divorces is not like the woman that is divorced; for a woman is put away with her consent or without it, but a husband can put away his wife only with his consent.”221 Josephus shares that he divorced his second wife because he was “displeased with her behavior.”222 The husband was only restrained from divorcing his wife if she were insane and unable to care for herself, in captivity,223 or too young to understand,224 if he had brought false charges of premarital fornication (Deut. 22:13–19) against her, or if he had seduced her and thus had to marry her (22:28–29).

Certificates of Divorce in Judaism

Gittin, a tractate in the Mishnah, is devoted to the legal ins and outs of divorce bills. It outlines the procedures to be followed in securing witnesses, the contents of the bill, how it is to be delivered (e.g., the husband is not to slip it in her hands at night while she is asleep), and what to do if he should want to withdraw it. The certificate of divorce meant that the husband gave up his right to his wife. It basically said: “Lo, thou art free to marry any man.”A-33 This certificate allowed her to remarry without fear of being accused of adultery or of being reclaimed by her former husband.

The marriage contract was vital because it specified the amount of money she was to receive if she were divorced or if her husband died. A copy of one belonging to a woman named Babata was uncovered in the Bar Cochba caves. The document was specially wrapped among bundles of others that she kept in a leather purse. It reads, “If I go to my resting place before you, you shall dwell in my house and receive maintenance from it and from my possessions, until such time as my heirs choose to pay you your Kethuba money.”A-34 Yadin speculates that she “spent most of her life in litigation, either suing the guardians of her fatherless son or being sued by the various members of her deceased husbands’ families.”A-35

Malachi 2:13–16 contains the only protest against putting away a wife in the Old Testament, but the Targum to Malachi 2:16 refashions the text to match common practice, rendering it, “If you hate her, divorce her.” One rabbi even claimed it was meritorious to divorce a bad wife (citing Prov. 18:22). If her ketuba, the sum the husband agreed to pay the wife if he divorced her, was large, he advised marrying another to subject her to the anguish of having a rival.225

The instruction given in Deuteronomy 24:1–4 was intended to regulate the practice of putting away a wife, not to give the legitimate grounds for divorce. When a husband decided to divorce his wife, the law of Moses required him to give her a bill of divorce and forbad him from ever remarrying her after she became the wife of another man who later divorced her or died. The abomination is not divorce but remarrying the first wife. The law was primarily aimed at preventing this abomination from occurring in Israel.

The Temple Scroll from Qumran envisaged a time when God would renew the people of Israel and the laws concerning divorce, among others, would become passé since there would be no divorce.226 Jesus’ teaching on divorce assumes that this renewal has already dawned.

But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female” (10:6). Jesus asks what Moses commanded (10:3) and his opponents respond with what Moses permitted (10:4). This response opens the door for Jesus to make his point: Divorce is not a command but a concession because of hardness of heart. The legal stipulations regarding divorce do not mean that God approves of divorce. God’s will is to be found in the beginning, in creation. Citing texts combined from the first book of Moses (Gen. 1:27; 2:24), Jesus implies that they contain God’s intention for marriage and Moses’ real command.

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her (10:11). Jesus contends that marriage is not simply a legal bond but becomes a blood relationship of two persons joined together by God. In Sirach 25:26, we find the advice that if your wife does not go as you would have her go, you should cut her off from your flesh. Jesus rejects any view that regards the spouse as a superfluous limb that can be easily severed. The one flesh relationship is dissolved only by death.

By definition, adultery was the violation of the marriage of your fellow of the covenant, adulterating his property. A man does not violate his own marriage or commit adultery against his wife but only violates the marriage of another married man. Jesus’ radical pronouncement holds the husband guilty of adultery against his wife for remarrying.

If she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery (10:12). Only Mark’s account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce reckons with the possibility of a woman initiating divorce. In the Greco-Roman world, wives were allowed to divorce their husbands, but this action was disallowed in Judaism. A wife could only take steps that would induce her husband to divorce her. We find accounts, however, of women from the Jewish upperclass divorcing their husbands. Josephus reports that Salome, the sister of Herod the Great, sent her husband a bill of divorce and self-righteously declares that it “was not in accordance with Jewish law.” He goes on to comment, “For it is (only) the man who is permitted by us to do this, and not even a divorced woman may marry again on her own initiative unless her former husband consents.”227 Josephus also reports that Drusilla, the sister of Herod Agrippa (Acts 25:13), “was persuaded to transgress the ancestral laws” by leaving her husband to marry the Roman governor, Felix.228 Josephus describes Herodias, who left her husband to marry Herod Antipas, as “taking into her head to flout the ways of our fathers.”229 Jesus may be alluding to this case here.

Bringing Children to Jesus (10:13–16)

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them (10:13). Infant mortality was high in this time. Six of every ten children died before the age of sixteen. “The picture is one of peasant women, many of whose babies would be dead within their first year, fearfully holding them out for Jesus to touch.”230 These parents come from outside the circles of the disciples, and they hope his touch will protect their children from evil. Jesus’ loving response reveals that the new community he founds embraces little ones.

The Rich Man (10:17–31)

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone (10:18). Jesus responds sharply to the man’s deference. Malina and Rohrbaugh contend concerning this culture:

Compliments conceal envy, not unlike the evil eye. Jesus must fend off the aggressive accusation by denying any special quality of the sort that might give offense to others. Such a procedure is fully in line with the canons of honor. The honorable person, when challenged, pushes away the challenge and diffuses any accusations that might fuel the position of his opponents.231

The man may be implying that while Jesus is a good teacher, he is a good man and should have as great a reputation as he has.

Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me (10:21). At Qumran, members were required to contribute all their wealth to the common treasury (see also Acts 4:32–37; 5:1–11). The rabbis, however, forbad giving away one’s property. They limited giving to no more than 20 percent to prevent one from being reduced to poverty by excessive generosity.232

But this man is identified as a rich man (10:22–23). The average peasant assumed that the rich had defrauded others by taking more than their fair share of a limited pie.233 In the New Testament, the rich are condemned as those who oppress the poor (James 2:6), plunder the property of helpless widows (Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47), and defraud their laborers (James 5:1–6). They live in incredible luxury and fare sumptuously (Mark 6:17–23; Luke 16:19–21) while ignoring the abject poverty of those at their doorstep. They built up surpluses only for themselves, disregarding the disastrous consequences for the rest of society (Luke 12:13–21).

When we read “rich” in the New Testament, we should understand it to mean the greedy, dishonorable rich, unless they act in notably charitable ways (see Matt. 27:57–60). Therefore, when Jesus asks this man to sell all that he has and give to the destitute, he is simply asking him to redistribute his wealth among those who lack the necessities of life because their portion has been snatched from them. He will simply be returning to them their share. Almsgiving was also associated with true conversion (see Luke 19:8).234

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (10:25). Jesus uses a deliberately absurd image. The opening of a needle was the smallest thing imaginable, and the camel was the largest animal in Palestine (cf. Matt. 23:24, where camels are contrasted with gnats). A rabbinic tradition from the Babylonian Talmud remarks that dreams are a reflection of man’s thought: “This is proven by the fact that a man is never shown in a dream a date palm of gold or an elephant going through the eye of a needle.”235 The elephant was the largest animal in Mesopotamia, where this tradition was compiled.

Interpretations that try to reduce the size of the camel or enlarge the needle’s eye are suspect. There is no basis for the widely circulated tradition that the eye of the needle was the name of a gate in Jerusalem. Walled cities had smaller gates beside or built into a larger gate so that people could enter when the larger gate was closed. Large animals might be able to squeeze through such a gate. Theophylact (eleventh century) seems to have been the first to make this suggestion.236 Luke uses a different word in Greek for “needle” (belonē, Luke 18:25) than Mark (raphis). If a gate had been known as “The Needle’s Eye,” it seems likely that only one Greek term would have been used. Also to be rejected is the textual variant in a couple ancient versions that have the similar sounding kamilos, meaning a rope or ship’s cable, instead of camel (kamēlos). The disciples’ shocked response (Mark 10:24a, 26a) reveals that they understand Jesus’ statement to be extreme.

Jesus clearly rejects the presumption that prosperity equals divine blessing.237 His pronouncement recalls the danger of the deceit of riches choking the seed (4:19) and makes clear that salvation is only a divine possibility. It does not mean, however, that wealth is the only obstacle to salvation.

Jesus’ Third Announcement of His Death and Resurrection (10:32–45)

They were on their way up to Jerusalem (10:32). Regardless of the direction from which one came, one always “went up” to the holy city. Jesus leads the way to his Passion, as he will later lead the way to Galilee after the resurrection (14:28; 16:7).

Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory (10:37). The disciples recognize that Jesus is destined for great power and ask for special distinction in his messianic kingdom. When Vitellius accepted the title of emperor in A.D. 68, he praised his generals and “placed them on either side of his curule chair.”238 According to the Psalms of Solomon 17:26, the Messiah will judge the tribes of Israel, and the disciples may be bidding to share in this messianic authority. Jesus censures the sinful human craving for positions of honor above others.

Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with? (10:38). The cup is the cup of suffering from divine judgment.239 Baptism paints an image of being submerged in suffering (Ps. 42:7; 69:1). The disciples, however, will sleep as Jesus confronts alone in prayer the cup of his bitter destiny (Mark 14:36–41).

Whoever wants to be first must be slave of all (10:44). The years have dulled the shocking nature of this statement. Plato has Callicles ask: “How can anyone be happy when he is the slave of anyone else at all?”240 The slave experienced “civil death” with no legal or human rights. Seneca characterizes a slave as one who “does not have the right to refuse.”241 The slave’s entire life was at the disposal of the master.

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (10:45). To ransom someone or something means to pay a price to secure its freedom, but it is also a biblical image for the redemption of God’s people.242 Isaiah speaks of making the life of the Suffering Servant “a guilt offering,” which brings forgiveness for the lives of the many.243 In 4 Maccabees 6:28–29 and 17:20–22, the death of martyrs is understood to afford vicarious atonement for the people. The difference from Jesus’ statement here is that it understands the martyr’s death as providing victory over an evil tyrant, whereas Jesus’ death offers final deliverance from all evil.

Malina and Rohrbaugh point out that only one of supreme honor could ransom a great number of others who collectively have less honor. Though the king might be just one person, he is worth a whole kingdom of other individuals.244

The word “many” may suggest an elite number—many but not all. The “many,” however, is a Semitism for “all” (see Mark 1:34; Rom. 5:15, 19). They stand over against the one Son of Man, who acts on their behalf.

Blind Bartimaeus (10:46–52)

Then they came to Jericho (10:46). Galilean Jews on pilgrimage to Jerusalem took a detour around Samaria by passing through Perea on the east side of the Jordan. Coming to Jericho, they would make the journey’s final leg up the steep road to Jerusalem.

JUDEA

The route from Jericho to Jerusalem.

A blind man, Bartimaeus (that is, the Son of Timaeus), was sitting by the roadside begging (10:46). Bartimaeus camps along this road to beg alms of the pilgrims. As a blind man, he is not only impoverished but also excluded from participation in the temple worship.245 A text from Qumran even excludes the blind from the messianic banquet.246 Since there were so many blind persons in this world, the crowds have become inured to their plight.

Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me! (10:47). The title “Son of David” appears only here in Mark. In this context, it does not have the nationalistic and militaristic connotation normally associated with the term (see Pss. Sol. 17). It affirms Jesus’ royal authority “expressed in therapeutic works of mercy and deliverance.”247 The healing is linked to another Isaian theme (Isa. 35:1–7; 42:16).

Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus (10:50). The cloak was placed before him to collect alms. It may be his sole worldly possession.248 He abandons it to come to Jesus.

Rabbi, I want to see (10:51). He addresses Jesus as Rabbouni in the Greek (see John 20:16). This means “My dear Rabbi” and expresses more reverent homage than simply “Rabbi” (see Mark 9:5).