The Gospel of Mark 9:42-10:12 - The Dangers of Sin and Divorce
After the fight over who is the greatest and some lessons in humility, Jesus warns against several traps. He warns against causing a child to stumble in sin and even leave the Kingdom. He says that the most horrible death would be a mercy compared to the judgement against those who harm the least child. Jesus then warns of the danger of sin and reminds us that a harm of the physical body is more desirable than eternal suffering! Jesus then ends by warning His followers that they cannot divorce their spouse for just any reason. He instead places His emphasis on the importance of marriage.
Discussion:
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”
Mark 9:42 (ESV)
Causes…to sin
The Torah prohibits putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person.
“You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD.”
Leviticus 19:14 (ESV)
The context of Jesus statement however is not of a physical stumbling block but of a spiritual one. It is referring to someone who causes a child (the least in their society) to stumble and fall away and be damned (Keener 2009, 449). This is not just a statement that even the very least will be protected though, because in their day Jews considered drowning to be more horrible than even crucifixion (Keener 2009, 449)! This was so revolting because a Jew who died at sea could not be recovered and buried with his fathers (Witherington III 2001, 272).
This would perhaps be a type of “trial by water ordeal,” where the innocent would successfully swim out but the guilty would drown (Witherington III 2001, 272). This was a common punishment in the ancient near east for a crime that you were accused of but could not be proven innocent of, like adultery. The belief was that if you were guilty God would cause you to drown and if you were innocent God would cause you to swim free. Thus, Jesus warns that even the worst punishment they could imagine would be a kindness compared to the coming judgement of such a person (Keener 2009, 449).
It is also of note how Jesus seems to go out of His way to protect the innocent. This can be compared to the actions of the Kingdom of Satan today and provide a strong juxtaposition. One might think of the heinous sins of abortion or even of a certain list that is much spoken of today. The difference is clear. Satan wishes to destroy the innocent, and Jesus will protect them and avenge them if they are harmed.
What He has said so far doesn’t seem to shock us today, but what He says next is so shocking that we automatically place it in the realm of exaggeration!
“And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,”
Mark 9:43–47 (ESV)
Cut it off
At that time Jews spoke by describing the body part that did the action instead of the concept (Lane 1974, 347–348). An example of this would be “his eye is lustful” or “she has a harlots forehead” (meaning she is not ashamed of what she should be ashamed of). This kind of action, the cutting off of a hand, or the plucking out of an eye may sound severe, but was more common then for certain punishments (example, a runaway slave may have their foot cut off (Witherington III 2001, 272). The point Jesus makes is that it would be better to receive such a severe punishment on earth but to escape Gehenne than to be whole on earth but to suffer in Gehenne. Better to judge yourself than to be judged by God!
Thrown into hell
Gehenne was the place of final judgement, often called Hell in English translations (Balz and Schneider 1990, 239–240). It is the Greek word for Hebrew gê-ḥinnōm and Aramaic gêḥinnām which both mean “the Valley of Hinnom (Marcus 2009, 690–691) or “valley of the sons of Hinnom” (Balz and Schneider 1990, 239–240). This was an area that was like a trash dump for Jerusalem but was also a place of child sacrifice to Molech that began to be associated with the underworld because of it’s connection to death (Marcus 2009, 690–691). A modern day equivalent would be an abortion clinic. It was a place of death and dead bodies, which is what I believe the reference to the “worm” is. A place of death and decay will have worms.
“‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.”
Mark 9:48–49 (ESV)
Worm does not die, Fire is not quenched
This phrase is a reference to a prophecy in Isaiah (in the Septuagint) (Collins and Attridge 2007, 454).
“And they will go out and see the corpses of the humans who transgressed against me, for their worm does not die, and their fire will not be quenched, and they will become a spectacle for all flesh.”
Isaiah 66:24 (The Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition)
The verse is clearly about a place of physical death. However, it seems unlikely that the statement of Jesus is only about physical death. It is possible that we have here a description of shame, that is, the death at this judgement is so much more shameful than the shame of cutting off your own arm, or plucking out your own eye, however, it seems more likely that it is speaking of both spiritual suffering and physical death.
Salted with fire
This statement is very confusing. When I read this verse I immediately wrote down that I wanted to research what it meant, as it was confusing to me. What does it mean to be “salted with fire?!” It is possible that this is a reference to the sacrifices, specifically the command to salt the sacrifices (Evans 2001, 73).
“You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.”
Leviticus 2:13 (ESV) (see also Ezekiel 43:24)
Taking it further, John said that Jesus would baptize us with fire.
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Matthew 3:11–12 (ESV)
Notice that the chaff is burned. Everyone is baptized with fire, but only the chaff is burned up. This is possibly because the end will come with a judgment of fire (2 Peter 3:7). Some will perhaps barely escape this judgement (1 Corinthians 3:13–15), although it is possible that this verse is unrelated to the concept that we are discussing.
“Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”
Mark 9:50 (ESV)
Have salt in yourselves
It seems then that the subject is changed to another statement which was probably said at a different time. However, because the theme of salt connects them, Mark placed them together. There was a time when Roman soldiers were paid in salt (where we get the phrase “worth his salt”) and salt was viewed as a very valuable product, especially among those who lived in the desert and had strong need of it.
There are qualities of salt, and it seems that the salt of the dead sea was described as being low quality (Lane 1974, 350). Having salt in yourself is compared to being at peace. Salt was often used as a reference to wisdom, whereas unseasoned or tasteless could refer to being foolish (Marcus 2009, 693). Remember that the Disciples had just fought over who is the greatest. I think this may be a reference to that, and Jesus is encouraging them to focus on the eternal, be at peace, and not have foolish fights. After this Jesus went on to teach where He was challenged again.
“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. And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
Mark 10:1–2 (ESV)
Is divorce lawful
It is likely that here we get an excerpt of the conversation, but not all the details. In fact, this story in Matthew adds some context which makes it clear that the question of divorce here is not of all divorces, but of a specific type of divorce, what we would call a “no fault” or “no cause" divorce today. In order to understand this we must back up and understand more about divorce.
First, this may be shocking to some today, but divorce laws in the Torah were mostly about protecting women. A woman without a man would likely suffer and perhaps even starve. The certificate of divorce allowed her (in most cases) to reclaim her dowery, a large sum of money, and most importantly, to remarry. A good analogy today would be to say that a divorce certificate would be like a person losing their job but still being able to find another one in its place. The inability to find work would be very scary, because it implies starvation and suffering. This is how a woman would view a divorce without a certificate.
However, by the time of Jesus, some had taken divorce to the extreme. The Pharisee House of Hillel argued that you could divorce your wife even for burning your food or for any other reason. In contrast to this, the House of Shammai argued that you could only divorce your wife for adultery or sexual immorality (Lane 1974, 353–354). It is possible (in my opinion, almost certain) that this conversation was around this controversy (Marcus 2009, 700).
There is more here though, for this conversation took place in the area that Herod ruled, and it was his marriage to his brother’s divorced wife that John the Baptist had challenged. Thus, it is likely that this question was also a political trap (Lane 1974, 353–354). But Jesus answered in a way that shocked them all!
“He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.”
Mark 10:3–5 (ESV)
Hardness of heart
Roman law required a Roman citizen to divorce their spouse (women could divorce men) if they were caught in adultery (adultery was relations with a married person, fornication was excluded from adultery). Jewish law mostly didn’t allow for women to divorce men, but social and religious pressure would have led to people feeling compelled to divorce because of adultery (remember that before the Roman empire took away capital punishment in 6 AD adultery was a capital offense. The social stigma against adultery was so severe that a women in the east would leave her door open all day to show that nothing inappropriate was going on inside! Jesus however said that you were not required to divorce, but only allowed to divorce. The allowance for divorce was because of the hardness of the heart.
There is an important point to make here. In a situation where a spouse is divorcing for adultery, the hard heart is referring to the one who committed adultery, not to the innocent party. The hard heart is a reference to our heart attitude towards God (France 2002, 391). I would argue that one cannot commit adultery and have a soft heart towards God.
The point is that the will of God is not divorce, but marriage (Stein 2008, 456). However, people have always been rebellious and rejected His heart. He goes on to explain the heart of God, found in the very law they were quoting from.
“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.”
Mark 10:6–8 (ESV)
In the beginning
There is an important point to make here. Jesus is not speaking against the Torah, indeed, He uses the Torah in His very argument. Instead, He is showing the greater good. Yes, God’s law does allow for divorce when the covenant has been broken, but the heart of God is one that desires faithfulness, life, and love to be expressed in marriage. Jesus here, uses Adam and Eve as the example of what marriage should look like. It is God’s desire that a man and woman would marry each other for life.
Two become one
In the beginning Adam was one person and then God took him and formed Eve from his rib or side, thus, one became two. Then when they united in marriage by God they became one flesh again. Thus, marriage represents the forming of two individuals into one unit, just like Adam before Eve’s creation. Although this is symbolic, and not literal, it paints a very clear picture that would have been shocking to Jews, or any people, of that time. They believed that women were inferior to men. But Jesus is making the opposite point, women are not inferior to men, in marriage, they are to become one with them. Jesus then commands that this spiritual union not be divided.
“What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Mark 10:9 (ESV)
Let not man separate
An important point to make here is that the command to not divide assumes that the marriage has not already been divided. If a spouse commits adultery they have broken the covenant and divided the marriage already. This points back to the context of Jesus statements about divorce being in regards to the “no cause” divorce. Jesus does not allow believers to divorce without cause, that is, to break a covenant that has not already been broken. This is because divorce is the equivalent of undoing creation (Evans 2001, 84)!
This was all so different for the Disciples that later when they were in private they had to ask more questions. We don’t know the exact question, but I imagine they asked “what happens when you do divorce your wife without cause?”
“And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
Mark 10:10–12 (ESV)
Commits adultery
We must remember that the context here is most likely a “no cause” divorce, and if this is true, the conversation about adultery must also be related to that. It seems that Jesus views a “no cause” divorce as invalid, and thus, the following marriage is adulterous.
I would like to make two more points about this topic. The first is that the kingdom of God is about mercy, love, and justice. When we approach this topic, we must remember that! There are some in the kingdom who show no mercy, and punish the victims of divorce equally with those who have broken the covenant. This is not the way of God in my opinion.
The second thing to remember is that God Himself divorced Israel (Jeremiah 3:8), we would be wise to remember this when we discuss this subject. It is possible to be innocent in a divorce, and we must not assume guilt.
For further reading on this topic see “…And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament” by Craig S. Keener.
Life Application and Questions to Consider:
How can we apply this to our life today? The first is that we must see the protection of the young and innocent as an imperative of the church. Any church that covers up wrong doing towards the young is breaking this commandment.
But we can also take this another way. We are not just commanded to protect the young from wrongdoing, in this command we also see a command to properly disciple them! As parents we are to disciple our children and lead them in right relationship with the Lord. This is our first and greatest ministry, we are to lead our house in a relationship with Him.
What of divorce, how does this apply to us today? There are two points in this area. The first is that we must not look at divorce so lightly. The kingdom of God does not allow for divorce without cause. In today’s society, it is easy to see divorce as an easy out. But Jesus didn’t look at it this way. He sees marriage as a life long commitment.
The second point is that there are others who treat divorce as something that is hateful and not permissible for any reason. This is also untrue. I have seen church leaders instruct a man and/or woman to remain in an abusive relationship. This is also dangerous, and can lead to corruption and death. We must be careful in handling this topic, that we do not, like the Pharisees, place walls around the law of God that are not put there by Him. We must also be careful not to blame the victims of divorce and push away them from the Kingdom of God.
Connections
Matthew 18:7–9, 19:1–9
Luke 17:1–4
Outline
Jesus warns against causing a child to stumble in sin.
Jesus warns of the danger of sin and instructs to remove it harshly from your life.
Jesus condemns Divorce (without cause) and exalts marriage.
References-
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 449.
Ibid
Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 272.
ibid
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 449.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 347–348.
Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), 272.
Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 239–240.
Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 690–691.
Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–), 239–240.
Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 690–691.
Rick Brannan, Ken M. Penner et al., The Lexham English Septuagint, Second Edition (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Is 66:24.
Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 454.
Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2001), 73.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 350.
Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 693.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 353–354.
Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2009), 700.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 353–354.
R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 391.
Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 456.
Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2001), 84.
