Introduction

‘Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again, crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.’ Mark 10:1-2

Mark Here Records The final Journey

At this time in His ministry, Jesus went south to the region of Judea, Mark 10:1. Jesus once again teaches the crowds as was His custom, Mark 10:2. In Mark’s writing of the ministry of Jesus, this was the only journey to Judea of the three possible journeys that Jesus made during His ministry to this area that was recorded by Mark. From this chapter onward, Jesus focused on the cross. He prepared His disciples for His final confrontation with the religious leaders and His subsequent victory on the cross.

Marriage, Divorce And Remarriage

“Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied. They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:2-12

The topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage is probably the most debated topic there is within the religious world. There are many sermons, lessons and books written on the topic, some of which are very useful, and others just make the topic even more confusing to understand.

Surprisingly, the Bible really doesn’t have much to say about divorce and remarriage, there aren’t a lot of references on the subject. You would think by all the books that have been produced and all the uproar that has been made over it, that the Bible says a whole lot about it, but the Bible says very little.

I think it would be useful if we look at a few passages from the Old Testament where we can highlight some important points. We’ll look at these passages again in the wider context later to make further points but for now, I want to focus on some words in the immediate context. For the purpose of this study, I will be using the N.R.S.V. unless otherwise stated.

PROMOTING DIVORCE!

You might be wondering if I’m advocating divorce, no I’m not. I believe that marriage is for life and shouldn’t be entered lightly but at the same time, I realise that sin can enter a marriage relationship like every other part of our lives, which may end up leading to a divorce. I’m simply trying to show that some of the doctrines being put forward on this subject are not as straightforward as we think.

CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND AWAY

In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, we see that God through Moses was protecting the rights of women and if one thing is clear, it’s simply this, divorce, and remarrying was happening back in Moses’ day. Moses gives an example of a woman who is married but her husband isn’t happy about something, we’ll look at what the word, ‘objectionable’ means later, so he divorces her. She then marries again and sadly the same thing happens.

Notice there are two separate actions required in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, ‘write her a certificate of divorce’ and ‘send her out’. Notice again there are two separate actions mentioned Jeremiah 3:8, ‘sent her away’ and ‘a decree of divorce’. The Hebrew word for ‘put away’ is ‘shalach’ which means to send away, or out. And the Hebrew word for ‘certificate or bill or decree of divorce’ is ‘kriythuwth’ which means a cutting, of the matrimonial bond, i.e. divorce.

Clearly, there are two separate words used to describe two separate actions. Just as there is a legal way to get married, there is also a legal way to get a divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 / Jeremiah 3:8. Any man who wants a divorce must give the woman ‘a certificate of divorce’ and then ‘send her away’, otherwise legally they are still married. They are still married because they haven’t got the legal paperwork, i.e.., the divorce papers to prove they’re legally divorced.

SEND AWAY

The word, ‘shalach’ ‘send away’ is used seven-hundred and ninety times in the Old Testament. There are too many to quote but below are a few examples, please take the time to read each passage because it will help clarify the point. The English equivalent word is written in blue.

THE WORD ‘SHALACH’ USED IN GENESIS

In Genesis 3:22-23, we find the words ‘reach out’ and ‘sent’, this is the word ‘shalach’. In Genesis 21:14, we find the words, ‘sent her away’, this is the word ‘shalach’.

THE WORD ‘SHALACH’ USED IN EXODUS

In Exodus 2:5, we find the words, ‘sent her’, this is the word ‘shalach’. In Exodus 8:32, we find the word, ‘go’, this is the word ‘shalach’.

THE WORD ‘SHALACH’ USED IN 1 SAMUEL

In 1 Samuel 4:4, we find the word, ‘sent’, this is the word ‘shalach’. In 1 Samuel 30:26, we find the words, ‘he sent’, this is the word ‘shalach’.

THE WORD ‘SHALACH’ USED IN MALACHI

In Malachi 2:16, we find the word, ‘divorce’, this is the word ‘shalach’. The Hebrew word used in Malachi isn’t the word ‘divorce’ as the N.R.S.V. translates it, it should be the word ‘shalach’, which means to ‘send away’ or ‘put away’, the K.J.V. renders it this correctly.

TWO SEPARATE WORDS

The word, ‘shalach’ ‘send away’ has a different meaning from the word, ‘kriythuwth’ ‘bill of divorcement.’ They don’t mean the same thing and both words certainly don’t mean divorce. I simply want us to see that there are two separate words which imply two different actions. We’ll come back to the Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and Malachi passages later and look at them in more depth. I believe this is important to understand and make the distinction between the two words used as we go on to the New Testament passages which deal with this topic.

THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF THE WORDS

In Matthew 5:31-32, we find the words, ‘divorces, divorce, divorced’. We will look at these verses in more depth later but for now, I want to focus on two words again to show that we’re dealing with two separate actions. We saw earlier that the Hebrew word for ‘bill of divorcement’ is ‘kriythuwth’ which means a cutting of the matrimonial bond, i.e. divorce. Here in the New Testament passages, we have the Greek word equivalent. The Greek word for ‘writing of divorcement’ is ‘apostasion’ and it means something separative, especially divorce. The Hebrew word for ‘put away’ is ‘shalach’ which means to send away, or out.

Here in the New Testament passages, we have the Greek word equivalent. The Greek word used for ‘put her away’ is ‘apoluo’ which means to free fully, that is, literally relieve, release, dismiss, reflexively depart, or figuratively, let die, pardon, or specifically, divorce:- (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

I included the entire entry from Strong’s definition of the word but remember that anything after the :- isn’t a part of the definition but is merely a listing of ways the word was translated in the KJV. Also remember that Strong stated that the first word is the most reliable word, in this case, ‘free fully’, while the most radical understanding is the last word, in this case ‘specifically divorce’.

Notice again in Matthew 19:1-9, the Greek word used for ‘writing of divorcement’ is ‘apostasion’ and it means something separative, (especially) divorce. The Greek word used for ‘put her away’ is ‘apoluo’ which means to free fully. The K.J.V. again makes this clearer.

Notice also in Mark 10:1-12, the Greek word used for ‘a bill of divorcement’ is ‘apostasion’ and it means something separative, especially divorce. The Greek word used for ‘put her away’ is ‘apoluo’ which means to free fully. Note again that even in the New Testament there are two separate words used to describe two separate actions. The K.J.V. makes this clearer.

I think it’s possible that some sincere people have kind of joined the two words together to make them mean the same thing. This is possibly because of some bad translations, as we shall see later, many times the word ‘divorce’ has been translated in the Scripture when the word should be ‘put away’, you see this, especially in the N.I.V. which we’ll look at later too.

The Greek word, ‘apoluo’ ‘put away’ cannot mean the same as ‘apostasion’ ‘bill of divorcement’. It cannot mean ‘divorce’ and here are a few examples of why it can’t. Here is a list of passages which use the word ‘apoluo’. Please take the time to read through them, as it will drive the point I’m trying to make across.

THE WORD ‘APOLUO’ USED IN MATTHEW

In Matthew 5:31-32, we find the words, divorces, divorced, this is the word, ‘apoluo’. In Matthew 14:15, we find the word, ‘away’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’.

THE WORD ‘APOLUO’ USED IN MARK

In Mark 6:36, we find the word ‘away’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’. In Mark 6:45, we find the word, ‘dismissed’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’.

THE WORD ‘APOLUO’ USED IN LUKE

In Luke 6:37, we find the words, ‘forgive, forgiven’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’. In Luke 13:12, we find the words, ‘set free’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’.

THE WORD ‘APOLUO’ USED IN JOHN

In John 18:39, we find the word, release’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’. In John 19:10, we find the word ‘release’ again, this is the word, ‘apoluo’.

THE WORD ‘APOLUO’ USED IN ACTS

In Acts 3:13, we find the word ‘release’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’. In Acts 23:22, we find the word, ‘dismissed’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’.

THE WORD ‘APOLUO’ USED IN HEBREWS

In Hebrews 12:23, we find the words, ‘set free’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’.

‘APOLUA’ TRANSLATED AS DIVORCE

As you have just read the word ‘apoluo’ appears quite a lot in the New Testament and hopefully, you noted that only one time in all of these verses was the word ‘apoluo’ translated ‘divorce’. Please note that the Matthew 5:32 passage is the only occurrence of the word ‘divorce’ in this list and should have been rendered ‘put away’. Other translations such as the N.I.V. use the word ‘divorce’ and the words, ‘send away’ which may be the cause of much of the confusion on the subject.

If ‘divorce’ is the only possible translation of ‘apoluo’ in Matthew 5:31-32, then it must be asked, why would it not be the only legitimate translation in all other uses of the word? Though context might often affect the appropriate translation of a particular word, it does not necessarily preclude other possible translations. The word ‘divorce’ is a legal term.

In Acts 19:41, we find the word, ‘dismissed’, this is the word, ‘apoluo’. So, if it’s valid to translate ‘apoluo’ only as such, then we must admit that in Acts 19:41, for example, the entire assembly were married to the town clerk of Ephesus and then divorced by him.

It seems to me that many who support the idea that Matthew 5 is addressing the matter of divorce are perhaps not making a distinction between being separated, without being divorced, and actually being divorced. The problem Jesus was speaking about isn’t primarily focused on ‘divorce’ but on the ‘sending away’. Men were ‘sending their wives away’ without giving them the ‘certificate of divorce’ which had devastating results for the women of the time.

They couldn’t marry anyone else without this certificate and if she did, she would end up committing adultery, hence causing the man who ‘sent her away’ to make her an adulteress. Why? Because legally she was still married, Matthew 5:31-32.

THE BRIDE PRICE AND THE DOWRIES

Jesus is dealing with the real problem, the problem of HOW they were ‘sending their wives away’. I believe it all had to do with the dowry. Let’s look at these passages which speak about the dowry, Genesis 29:18-27 / Genesis 34:11-12 / 1 Samuel 18:25 / Hosea 3:2.

In eastern countries, the bridegroom was required to pay the father of his betrothed a stipulated portion, in money or other valuables, proportioned to the rank and position of the family to which she belonged, this was the dowry. This is still practised in many countries even today.

There were two forms of payment made on the occasion of a wedding, first, there was the bride price and then there was the dowry Exodus 21:10-11 / Exodus 22:16-17. Both of which were designed to support a woman and her children, should she be left widowed or divorced. The Bible constantly commands God’s people to look after the vulnerable in society, especially widows and orphans, Isaiah 1:17 / Psalm 68:5 / James 1:27.

What was the bride price? The bride price was more than money, it was about protecting the woman. If a widow or a divorced woman wanted to be independent, she needed this money to help her in her current circumstance, women didn’t want to be at the mercy of a husband who might or might not provide for her and her children.

The prospective groom gave the bride’s father a present, either a sum of money or its equivalent in goods, cattle, land, woven goods, work, etc, we see this in Genesis 29:15-30, where Jacob paid for Rachel’s sister Leah with seven years’ work. We see this with David in 1 Samuel 18:25-27, where David paid for Saul’s daughter Michal with the grisly gift of one hundred Philistine foreskins. We see this in Judges 1:11-15, where Othniel conquered a town as payment for Achsah.

The amount of this bride price was geared to the status and wealth of the girl’s family. It was seen as compensation to the family for the loss of the girl, as well as the means of providing her with certain necessities. We don’t know what the Israelite custom was regarding the disposal of this money, but in Babylon, the goods belonged to the girl. The father was given the interest or other income on it for life, but he wasn’t allowed to touch the capital, Genesis 31:14-16. The purpose of the bride price was to insure the woman against being left unsupported if she was widowed. Without a dowry, they could end up destitute.

What Was The Dowry?

There are many passages in the Bible relating to dowries, but sadly, specific details are not given. However, in Babylon, a bride’s parents had to make a settlement on her which remained her property even though the husband received the interest from the capital and was entitled to invest the money in business. If a woman was later widowed, or divorced through no fault of her own, the capital reverted to her.

Pharaoh gave his daughter the city of Gezer as a marriage settlement when she married King Solomon, 1 Kings 9:16. Rebecca, Leah and Rachel were each given a handmaid as a wedding gift from their parents. The sum of money or goods was registered in the marriage contract. If it was money that the husband wanted to invest, he contracted to repay his wife the full amount, plus one-third interest. If it was something that would depreciate, such as clothing or household goods, the husband only had to repay one-fifth of the original value.

Why Did The Jews Send Away Their Wives Without The Certificate Of Divorce?

Do you know why the Jews were ‘putting their wives away’ without giving them a ‘certificate of divorce’? They didn’t want to return the dowry; it was going to cost them, Exodus 21:10. It was much easier to just abandon them, to put them away and allow them to go back to their home or fend for themselves and ignore them.

If a man ever gave his wife the ‘bill of divorce’, then he had some obligations to their wife, he had to return the dowry, and he had to provide for his wife if they ‘sent them away’. This was the Jew’s loophole, they ‘put them away’ without the official ‘divorce’. If there is a ‘legal divorce’, then the husband would be required to return the dowry, the sad news is, he probably would have spent it.

What dowry are we speaking about? It’s not the dowry the groom paid to the father, but the dowry that the bride’s father gave his daughter as a gift for her marriage. This included servants, Genesis 24:59 / Genesis 24:61 / Genesis 29:24 / Genesis 29:29, land, Judges 1:15 / 1 Kings 9:16.

When the couple are married, the servants, the land, gold, silver, whatever gifts she was given by her father now become her husband’s property. However, if he was to legally divorce her, that is give her a certificate of divorce, he has a duty, not only to care for her but to return the dowry to her that she received from her father.

The 1901 Jewish Encyclopaedia, says the following.

‘The dowry that the woman brought to her husband, whether real estate, slaves, or movable property, was recorded in the marriage contract (KETUBAH). Custom decided whether the sum mentioned in the marriage contract should be exactly the same as the dowry was really worth, or more or less. In some places the custom prevailed of recording an amount one-third or one-fifth more than the value of the actual dowry; in others, less than the value of the dowry (Ishut 23:11 / Eben ha-‘Ezer, 66:11). This sum then became a claim upon the husband’s property equally with the ketubah itself; so that when he died or divorced her, the woman could collect from his estate both the sum stipulated in the marriage contract and the value of her dowry. During the husband’s life, however, the dowry belonged to him, and he might derive all benefits from it. He might even sell it for the period of his lifetime. The laws governing the relation of the husband to the dowry vary with the manner in which the woman has acquired that property.’

Jesus is going to imply this later, He basically is going to say, ‘husbands have to honour and respect the rights of their wives’. It shocked them in a society where women had no rights because they didn’t have to think about this. Hence why the disciples were shocked at Jesus’ teaching, Matthew 19:10.

The ‘sending away’ without the ‘certificate of divorce’ was also liked by the wives because it didn’t require any court case, you didn’t need to prove negligence or any other embarrassing details in public and unless the wife had been unfaithful, she would get her marriage dowry back. This was often enough to live on, or it would help her get a new husband. Remember Joseph didn’t want to go down the court road, to ‘divorce’ ‘apoluo’ ‘send away’, Mary ‘quietly’, i.e. without a public hearing, Matthew 1:19.

THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE

What about the exception clause? Jesus said anybody who ‘apoluo’, ‘puts away’ his wife, commits adultery. Matthew 5:32 / Matthew 19:9. Why? Because he entered into a relationship with someone else but doesn’t have the legal right to do this. Now Jesus says that one can ‘put away’ his wife without the ‘apostasion’, without the ‘written certificate of divorce’, in the case of marital unfaithfulness.

Now, why would that be true? Why does ‘unchastity’, ‘sexual immorality’, N.I.V., ‘fornication’, K.J.V., become the ONLY reason that a man can ‘put away’ his wife without the legal, official written document of divorce? I believe that the answer to that is very simple. But to understand it, there is something of vital importance that we must remember. What Jesus is saying is written to a society that was governed and controlled by the Law of Moses. What could be done and would be accepted practice in Jesus’ day could never be done in our own culture.

THE DEATH PENALTY

Now under the Law of Moses, the penalty for adultery, for marital unfaithfulness, was death, Leviticus 20:10 / Deuteronomy 22:22-25. Now quite obviously, if a man ‘puts away’ his wife because of marital unfaithfulness, legally, technically, she is to die. Therefore, you DO NOT NEED an ‘apostasion’, ‘certificate of divorce’.

You DO NOT NEED to divorce if your wife is stoned to death, just like if your wife were to die naturally, you would be free, 1 Corinthians 7:39. So, whether that death comes by natural causes or whether that death comes by a violation of the Law of Moses and the penalty is death, the man is free and wouldn’t need the ‘apostasion’. But Jesus says, ‘I tell you if anyone puts away his wife, commits adultery,’ Matthew 5:32 / Matthew 19:9 / Mark 10:11, he puts her away without the ‘apostasion’, except for marital unfaithfulness of course. Because then the woman comes under the penalty of death.

Now God’s original law was that a man marries a woman and if that woman committed adultery, then that woman would be stoned to death and the man would be free to marry again. By the time Jesus comes on the scene they weren’t practising the stoning to death of people who committed ‘porneia’ or ‘marital unfaithfulness’, or ‘fornication’ and it appears they only wanted to stone someone when it suited their own evil purposes, John 8:11 / John 8:48-49.

The Romans had come in and taken over that facet of the law in the first century in Palestine and had taken away from them the right of the death penalty. That’s why the Jews had to take Jesus to Pilate to get Him officially condemned and executed, John 18:28-38.

Now, of course, there were some riot acts in the New Testament. Stephen was stoned to death, but that was the result of a riot, Acts 7:54-58, but it wasn’t a legal action. Paul was arrested in the temple, and they were going to kill him, Acts 21:27-40, but again, that was a riot, that wasn’t formal legal action. The Romans had taken away from the Jews the right of formal, legal execution for any crime.

Jesus is talking about the Law of Moses. The Pharisees said, what about Moses? Moses commanded it, Matthew 19:7-9 / Mark 10:3. Jesus is saying if they’re going to enter into a relationship with somebody other than the person that God intended for them to marry. They already have a relationship with a person that God expects them to honour.

If their mate is unfaithful to them, if they break this vow, the intimacy of this covenant, then as far as the Law of Moses is concerned, technically they are dead. Therefore, they don’t need an ‘apostasion’ because they have dissolved the relationship by virtue of their action, they have violated the covenant. If you think about it, dead people can’t marry, dead people don’t marry and here the guilty party, in the sight of God, is technically dead. That’s why God doesn’t give them the freedom to re-marry, it’s a part of their penalty for having transgressed the marital covenant.

In that culture, in that day, Jesus says to a man, ‘if their wife is unfaithful to them, technically, she is dead, and you can re-marry in that case’. But, if she isn’t unfaithful to them, then they have no right to ‘put her away’. They’ve entered into a covenant with her, they’ve entered into a contract with her, and they are to honour that. If they ‘put her away’ without officially dissolving it, without going through legal channels, just like there must be legal channels to have a marriage, there must be legal channels to dissolve that marriage.

If they don’t go through the legal channels, if they don’t protect the rights of a woman, if they don’t see that her needs are met and give the legal document, ‘a certificate of divorce’, that proclaims to others that she is free of this marriage bond and is free to marry someone else if they just ‘put her away’, they’re committing adultery, that’s what He says in Matthew 19.

In Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:12, Jesus said when the man who marries the woman who was ‘put away’ and the woman who is ‘put away’ remarries, they commit adultery because they aren’t in a legal, official situation where they are free to contract new relationships.

They thought they could just go ahead and ‘put away’ their wives for any old reason, but Jesus says, if they’re going to ‘put away’ their wives, they better make it legal. They better give her a ‘certificate of divorce’. Otherwise, whenever any of them marry again, they will be committing adultery and they know what the penalty is for that, stoning to death, Leviticus 20:10 / Deuteronomy 22:22-25.

TWO DIFFERENT WORDS WITH TWO DIFFERENT ACTIONS

No one would ever argue when Jesus said, ‘you must believe AND be baptised to be saved,’ Mark 16:16 that Jesus meant the same thing and the same word was used for both. They are two different words which imply two different actions. When we understand that there are two different words used, ‘certificate of divorce’ ‘apostasion’ and ‘putting away’ ‘apoluo’ which imply two different actions, I believe we can see that the issue Jesus was addressing wasn’t about divorce but about how they were sending their wives away. They were sending their wives away without the certificate of divorce, this meant the divorce wasn’t legal, they were still legally married.

Notice the word, and’ in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 / Jeremiah 3:8 / Matthew 19:7. This is what Jesus emphasised when He said, ‘It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE.’ Matthew 5:31. If the ‘sending away’ and ‘divorce’ were two separate words used in the Old Testament, what makes the same Greek equivalent words in the New Testament ‘sending away’ and ‘divorce’ mean the same? They don’t mean the same because they are two separate words with two separate actions implied.

The point is that the Jews had to do both, they had to give their wives the divorce certificate and then send them away. That’s what Moses said in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and that’s what God did with Israel, Jeremiah 3:8. In other words, just as there was a legal way to get married, there was also a legal way to get divorced. They were just sending their wives away without making it legal and this is what Jesus was emphasising. Jesus was doing what Moses was doing, protecting the right of vulnerable women.

DIGGING DEEPER

Let’s go ahead and have a deeper look at all these passages mentioned above to emphasise the point further and try and answer some questions. Let’s turn to Matthew 19, and Mark 10, that’s where we want to start and begin to set the stage.

MOTIVES BEHIND THE QUESTION

1. Let’s look at the attack.

There’s an attack made here on the Lord Jesus. ‘Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him,’ Matthew 19:3 / Mark 10:2. They didn’t come because they were looking for honest answers, they didn’t come because they had some serious questions about marriage, divorce and remarriage. They came because they wanted to test Jesus, they wanted to attack what He was teaching, and they had two underlying motives in doing that.

One of them was to ‘discredit’ Jesus so that He would lose popularity, they see Jesus as a threat. Here is a rabbi who has no official training, He hasn’t been to any seminars, and He doesn’t have a certificate. He’s not a qualified, certified rabbi and yet He has a tremendous following. That concerns the establishment, so, they are seeking to discredit Jesus, to try to get him to say something that would cause Him to lose favour with the populace so they would stop following Him. So, they are seeking to discredit Him.

2. They are seeking to ‘destroy’ Jesus.

They are trying not only to get Him to lose favour with the people, but they are trying to get rid of Him. So those are their underlying motivations, they aren’t honest in the pursuit of the question that they raised. We have to remember that as we listen to what Jesus has to say to these men.

The Pharisees did have a particular view of divorce, a divorce was a volatile issue in the first century even as it is today. That was very common, very widespread, even among the Jewish people, but there was a lot of disputes over divorce and what would be satisfactory and what wouldn’t be satisfactory to God.

SHAMMAI AND HILLEL

Just before Jesus was born, there were two rabbis living who became the most influential rabbis of the day, their names were Shammai and Hillel. Pretty much in the first century, in the time of Jesus, people lined up behind Shammai or Hillel on any given issue. It’s kind of like in some churches today, you are either conservative or liberal.

You’re either with Hillel or Shammai, one or the other. Who do you stand behind? Fundamentally, what these Pharisees are asking Jesus is, ‘Okay, buddy, who do you line up behind?’ We can see how they put the people behind them because some will be with Shammai, and some will be with Hillel?

Shammai was the conservative one. Let’s read a section from the Mishnah, the Mishnah is the collection of the oral traditions of the Jews, the oral law that you hear so much about. A couple of hundred years after the time of Jesus, one of the rabbis realised that they were forgetting all this accumulation of oral knowledge, all the oral laws that the people were expected to keep. Because Jerusalem had been destroyed, in 70 A.D. and the centre of Judaism had been destroyed, so they began to write it down.

‘The School of Shammai says a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, because he has found in her indecency in anything.’ Giteen, chapter 9, section 10. And the School of Hillel says, ‘He may divorce her even if she spoils a dish for him for it is written that he has found indecency in anything’. Rabbi Akebah says, ‘even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written if she has found no favour in his eyes.’

This is a discussion these rabbis had based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and we will get to that later, but the point is that Hillel and Shammai had two opposing points of view. They also mentioned Rabbi Akebah, Akebah doesn’t live until after 100 A.D. so what he said doesn’t bear on the discussion here.

Rabbi Shammai says, ‘The only reason for divorce is if you find unchastity, if there is marital unfaithfulness on behalf of your partner. If you find sexual infidelity on behalf of your marriage partner, then you may divorce.’ Hillel, on the other hand, said, ‘No, it says in Deuteronomy 24, if you find indecency in her in anything.’ You notice the text said, ‘she had prepared a dish that he didn’t like. Oh, dear, you scrambled these eggs, I wanted them fried, divorce her!

In other places, it’s said that Hillel said, ‘if she talked to a man in the street, that was a legitimate reason for divorcing her’. ‘If she turned around too quickly so that her legs became exposed, that was reason for divorcing her’. ‘If you didn’t like your in-laws, good enough reason, divorce her’.

Hillel has a much more generous interpretation of what the Old Testament said about the basis for divorce. So, people of the first century were lining up behind one or the other and the Pharisees came to test Jesus, to find out who will he stand with, Shammai or Hillel, and in so doing they could turn the people against him. After all, the majority of the people followed Hillel who had the liberal interpretation that any old reason you could think up was an adequate reason for divorce.

Now they have already heard Jesus address the subject of divorce and remarriage before, in Matthew 5:31-32 in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made a statement about it. They have already heard about this, that’s why they can come up with this test question because they know Jesus has taken a conservative approach and they can turn the majority of the population against Him, remember, that is their motivation.

We need to see what it was that Jesus said back in the Sermon on the Mount that became the basis of what the Pharisees are going to use against Him or try to use against Him. When you read, Matthew 5:31-32, ask yourself, which of those two rabbis does that sound like? Sounds like Shammai, doesn’t it?

DO THE TWO WORDS MEAN THE SAME?

I think it is important to understand the distinction that I believe existed in the first century. The N.I.V. follows many other translations in using the word ‘divorce’ which I believe is a mistranslation and leads to an erroneous conclusion. Remember what we learned earlier, there are two distinct words used in the Bible that we need to be familiar with.

In the Old Testament, there is the word ‘shalach’ and it means, ‘to send away, to drive away, to drive out’. We saw that its corresponding word in the New Testament would be the word ‘apoluo’ which means to let loose, to set free, to send away, to drive out. The other word we looked at earlier in the Old Testament is the word ‘keriythuwth’ which means, ‘a divorcement’. We saw that its corresponding word in the New Testament will be ‘apostasion’.

Now, here we have ‘send away’ or ‘put away’ for the first word I mentioned ‘shalach’ or ‘apoluo’. The second one ‘apostasion’ means ‘divorcement’. What happens is that these two words, both Old and New Testament words become sort of blended and we accept them as meaning one and the same thing. Part of the problem comes is if we were to read all of the passages in the New Testament that deal with divorce and remarriage, and we found the parallel passages, the ones that read the same, as just one test, we would find that Jesus uses the word ‘apoluo’ ten or eleven times.

The King James Version will translate it every time when it is ‘apoluo’ as ‘put away’ with the exception of one time. Here in Matthew 5:32, the word occurs twice and the second time they translate it as ‘divorce’. Every time the word ‘apostasion’ occurs in the New Testament, it will be rendered ‘divorce’. Now there is a difference, they aren’t the same.

In the Bible, both Old and New Testament, there is only one divorce recorded. Did you know that? For all we have talked about it, for all the instruction in the Bible, in the word of God, there is only ONE divorce recorded. Do you know who it is? In Jeremiah 3:8, God says, ‘I have divorced Israel,’ that is the only time. You have information about divorcing and remarrying, but that is the only time that we know of in Scripture when somebody divorced somebody, when God says, ‘I divorced Israel.’ In Jeremiah 3:8 it’s the word ‘keriythuwth’, the word that in the New Testament is rendered ‘apostasion’.

But we know from reading the Old Testament, for example, that men put away their wives. Men had more than one wife, and David had several wives. Abraham is another example, he was married to Hagar as well as Sarah, Genesis 16:3. Now look at what he did, ‘he sent her away’, Genesis 21:14. She was still married to him, technically, but he didn’t fulfil any husbandly responsibilities to her.

What we have in effect then is that our word ‘apoluo’ which means ‘to send away’ or ‘put away’ becomes ‘practical divorce.’ But ‘apostasion’ which literally means ‘a bill of divorcement’ becomes ‘legal divorce’, and this is an important distinction. We need to see this in Scripture, there were men who were putting away their wives and marrying somebody else, but they never gave their wife a legal divorce, therefore, she had no legal right to marry again.

In each instance, with one exception, Matthew 5:31-32, the word is ‘apoluo’ or ‘to put away’ or maybe we would say ‘abandon’ on some occasions. A man abandons his wife and then goes out and marries somebody else. What would we call that? Bigamy, right? He technically, legally has two wives. Jesus says, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce,’ Matthew 5:31. Now, see what we I’m saying? Here were men who were putting away their wives, not legally, they weren’t finalising it. They didn’t go to court; they didn’t give her the written certificate that legally sets her free.

Jesus says, ‘Anyone who puts away his wife must finalise that process. He must give her a certificate of ‘apostasion’ a certificate of divorcement. I tell you, anyone who puts away his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.’ Matthew 5:32 / Matthew 19:9. Why? Because it hasn’t been legalised, the man put her away, he sent her out. He didn’t want anything else to do with her. Why didn’t he want to legalise it?

Like we noted earlier, he might have to pay dowry. It’s just easier to put her on the back shelf and not have anything to do with her and marry someone else he liked more. Polygamy in the Old Testament is a big problem, even in the first century, there is evidence of polygamy.

Jesus understood that there were practising practical divorce, but if they are going to practically divorce somebody, they better legally divorce their wives. Because, if they marry somebody who has been practically divorced, but not legally divorced, they are committing adultery. It’s not just a matter of divorce, it’s a matter of whether this thing has been made official or not. I believe that this is an important distinction to make between these two words.

They were proclaiming that they don’t commit adultery, but Jesus tells them that are propagating adultery all over the land, Matthew 5:27-28. Do you know how you do it? They put away their wives without giving her a bill of divorcement, they put her away without making it official and then they go out and marry someone else.

They needed to know, that when they marry someone else without officially having separated from their first wife, they commit adultery and anybody that marries her, that has been put away without having been officially separated with a bill of divorcement, commits adultery. Because they would now have two legally binding marriages for one person and that’s wrong. That’s what He is talking about, Jesus uses a different word.

Is divorce sinful? Or is it the sending away without the divorce papers? If a couple divorce for adultery reasons and the ‘guilty’ party then remarries, do they have to leave their new wife and return to their former wife? Matthew 5:31-32 / Matthew 19:9.

A simple diagram may help us out here.

Here we have a man, let’s call him Mark and a woman, let’s call her Sue.

Right here in this chapter, Jesus says if this woman, Sue is sent away and she marries another man, let’s call him Ben, the result is adultery. Why? Because she was abandoned or sent away, and she wasn’t given a bill of divorcement. It’s not legal.

Another diagram may be useful.

Now, we would assume also that if Mark, then, marries a woman who we will call Beth, the same thing would be true, but that’s an assumption that would be adultery, based on this verse because Jesus doesn’t say that in Matthew 5:31-32, or Matthew 19:9. We’ll get to that later, but here in Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9, He doesn’t say that Mark and Sue is a case of adultery.

This position that we just looked at here in Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9, is a teaching that Jesus made, you can’t put your wife away unless it was for marital unfaithfulness. That sounds a whole lot like what Shammai said, it’s very unpopular and that spread like wildfire. The Pharisees heard that back in Matthew 5, and they come to Jesus in Matthew 19, knowing they can use this teaching to turn the people against Him.

One time John the Baptist had something to say about divorce and remarriage and it cost him his head, Matthew 14:3-4. It’s here we see the Pharisees thinking, they thought they could probably do the same thing with Jesus. They thought they could get people turned against Him if they can just test Him and expose Him and get Him to make a commitment on this thing.

JESUS’ RESPONSE

They have come with the question, ‘is it lawful for a man to put away his wife ‘apoluo’ for any old reason?’ Can he send her away? Matthew 19:3 / Mark 10:2. And Jesus responds to their question. Jesus, in making His defence, goes back beyond Himself, He goes back beyond Hillel and Shammai, He goes back beyond Moses, and He goes all the way back to the creation, Matthew 19:4-6 / Mark 10:6-9. And He’s going to make four points of defence as to why you shouldn’t put away your wife.

All they bothered about was, divorce, divorce, divorce, they always were talking about divorce. Why and how can they get a divorce? Jesus tells them that God didn’t even think about divorce when He made man and woman. And we can imagine Him thinking to Himself, why don’t they talk about permanency, why don’t they talk about what can they do to keep this thing together? Why are they always talking about why and how we can put her away?

FOUR REASONS

These are the four reasons that Jesus gives why they shouldn’t even be concerned about this issue.

1. Because in the Genesis account, there was one man for one woman.

Jesus was very clear. In the Garden in Eden, God didn’t create Adam and Eve and Ethel. He didn’t say, try it with Eve and if that doesn’t work, try it with Ethel. If Adam had put away Eve for any old reason if he had said, ‘you ate from the tree, I’m going to put you away’, the Bible would have ended on page two, that would be the end of it. One man created for one woman, that was God’s original design.

2. He says that there is a strong bond made.

He says, ‘a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,’ Genesis 2:24 / Matthew 19:5 / Mark 10:7. A strong bond, the word for ‘united’ means to be stuck fast, to be glued to, it’s a bond that is being made. The Jews were always talking about ways to break the bond. They should have been talking about how strong the bond is to stay together. Here again, we are talking about the ideal. We talked about the permitted, we’ll talk about the exceptions later, but right now Jesus is calling these Jews back to a discussion of the ideal. There will be a uniting of husband and wife, a strong bond.

3. He said, ‘They will become one flesh’, Genesis 2:24 / Matthew 19:5 / Mark 10:8.

In the sight of God, there formerly were two personalities, but Jesus says in marriage, those two become one. One is the indivisible number, if you divide it, you get a half and that’s not a number. One is a whole number, it’s the first whole number, you can’t get any less than that. Jesus says that when God made Adam and Eve, He made them to be one. For that reason, you shouldn’t try and break that bond because you end up with something less than a whole person in the sight of God, that’s the way God meant it.

4. The last reason that Jesus gives is that this whole marriage business is the work of God.

Notice, He says, ‘therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate,’ Genesis 2:24 / Matthew 19:5 / Mark 10:9. It’s not just some registrar official, it’s not just something that a minister does, it’s not even a decision that you make. In the final analysis, when a marriage takes place, that marriage is the work of God, in the mind of God, they are one. In the mind of God, that oneness should not be broken, God intends for that oneness to be formed and to stay oneness.

It is the work of God and to divorce is to wreck the work of God without His permission. He is the one that bound them together, if He wants to set them free, He sets the rules for setting them free. He does it. The Jews want to talk about divorce, practical divorce but Jesus won’t let them get away with that, Jesus talks about marriage. He goes all the way back to the beginning to stress the permanency of this relationship. All they talked about was reasons to divorce, instead of speaking about reasons to stay together. Jesus refuses to deal with the issue that they want to deal with.

WHEN IS A MARRIAGE A MARRIAGE?

I think it is important to ask the question when is a marriage, a marriage because there seems to be a lot of confusion on this. What makes a marriage? How do I know that a marriage has taken place? There is a point of view that says, ‘when a man and a woman have a sexual relationship, at that point, they are married’. Because people believe that, then they say that if a single man out there goes to bed with a single girl in the sight of God they are married because they had sex and sex makes a marriage.

If that were true, you couldn’t have ‘fornication’. You could have a marriage, but you couldn’t have ‘fornication’. The Bible does recognise fornication, it does recognise sexual activity outside the marriage relationship that God says is illegal. If simply having sex made one married, God would talk about marriages, but He wouldn’t talk about fornication, so the Bible does recognise it.

More evidence comes from Exodus in the giving of the law Moses. Exodus 22:16-17, says if a man finds a woman who isn’t even engaged to be married and he sleeps with her, he has a moral obligation to go to her dad, pay the bride price and marry her. If her father says, ‘no way! We don’t want to be hooked up with your family. You still have to pay the bride price because you’ve dishonoured her, but no wedding takes place.’

We must remember that it’s not just a daughter marrying a man, it was the union of two families back then. This man couldn’t turn him down if the marriage had already taken place automatically because of the sex act. That gives me evidence that marriage isn’t made by sexual activity.

Furthermore, adultery doesn’t dissolve a marriage. Some people think, that if they’re married and their husband or wife goes out and sleeps with someone else, that means the marriage has ended. That’s not the case, it may give the innocent party freedom to divorce, but that doesn’t mandate it, nor does it automatically end a marriage. It’s important to recognise that.

In Malachi 2:14-16, we find the Israelite men had been adulterers, but they still had the wives of their youth. God calls on them to be faithful to the wives of their youth. If adultery destroyed marriage, they would not have the wives of their youth anymore. God says you need to be faithful to your wives.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A MARRIAGE?

In the Old Testament and the New Testament and even today marriage is constituted by the covenant. Marriage is the coming together of two people who pledge a lifelong commitment to each other. God says, ‘remember the wife of your youth with whom you entered into a covenant,’ Malachi 2:14.

It’s the entering into a covenant, it’s the intentional choice to blend your life with hers. Whatever that covenant is will vary from culture to culture, in some countries, there are different things that you do. Maybe you take a pig and give it to the girl’s father, so he’ll give you the girl and a written contract is made and it’s official. In other cultures, you can buy a wife, that’s a part of a covenant.

Whatever it is, when you meet those agreements, then in the sight of God and in the sight of the law of the land, you are married, you have intentionally entered into that arrangement. Jesus says that marriage should be viewed as permanent, that’s the way God intended it, that’s the ideal.

THE IDEAL

What happens if we don’t measure up to the ideal? What happens when there is a failure? What does God say about that? What are we to do? The Pharisees come to Jesus, and they ask him, ‘is it lawful to ‘apoluo,’ is it lawful to put away your wife for any and every reason?’ Matthew 19:3 / Mark 10:3. After all, that was the practice in their culture.

We know from the Talmud that polygamy was exceptionally widespread among the Jews in the first century, it was being practised. The Talmud is very clear that it was expected of a rabbi that he has only one wife. The high priest, specifically stated in the Talmud, ‘a man could only have one wife, but the average person could have more than one’.

So, polygamy was practised, a man would find something he didn’t like about a wife and become displeased with her, so he would simply send her back to her father. There would be no legal divorce, and, in that culture, he could do that. In our British culture, that can’t be done, there are specific legal specifications that must be met for a divorce to be recognised in this culture and for remarriage to take place without there being bigamy or polygamy. But, not so in Jesus’ time.

In Biblical days, a man could simply send his wife away, he could stop meeting her emotional needs, her sexual needs, her financial needs, he could send her back to her home and go out and contract a new marriage and it really didn’t matter.

So, ‘apoluo’ became ‘practical divorce’, while ‘apostasion’ was ‘legal, official divorce’. Jesus had commented on this back in Matthew 5. ‘It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce ‘apostasion’. Matthew 5:31. Jesus was saying, ‘anyone who divorces his wife, ‘apoluo’ except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced ‘apoluo’ woman commits adultery,’ Matthew 5:32.

How does He do that? Because he hasn’t given her the ‘apostasion’, he hasn’t given her a ‘legal certificate of divorce’ and anybody who marries that woman who has been put away, who didn’t get the legal divorce, who didn’t have that ‘written bill of divorcement’ in her hand, anyone who would marry her also commits adultery because he’s forming a relationship with a woman who, in the eyes of God and, technically, in the laws of the land, is still married to someone else.

The Pharisees heard that Jesus took a very conservative point of view, so they come here in Matthew 19:3 / Mark 10:2, on the attack. They are looking to discredit Jesus, they are looking perhaps to destroy Him, to turn the masses against Him and perhaps to use His teaching against Him as John the Baptist found his teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the situation with King Herod to work against him.

Jesus gives a reply, which we read in Matthew 19:4-6 / Mark 10:8-9, where Jesus goes back beyond their culture, back beyond the Law of Moses, back to the creation. They were always looking for loopholes, they were always looking for ways to get around things. But God has a design, and that design is permanency in marriage. They were always looking for ways to break things. They always wanted to know how they could put their wives away for any and every cause, but God said they should stick together with their wives, they ought to be united as one, be one flesh in the sight of God.

THEIR ARGUMENT

The Pharisees began to press Jesus, and they come up with an argument. Their question to Jesus is, ‘what does the Law of Moses say?’ Matthew 19:7 / Mark 10:4. Why did Moses command us to give our wives a certificate of ‘apostasion’ and then send her away? Jesus had been teaching about permanency in marriage is the most important thing, they ask, why did Moses talk about divorce? Why did he talk about this certificate, this legal, official thing of divorce? Jesus will have an answer for this argument in just a moment, but let’s think about what’s behind the words of the Pharisees.

The Pharisees didn’t practice divorce, rabbis were discouraged, as I mentioned earlier, but as a general rule people in the first century, including the Pharisees, did practice the putting away of their wives. Their rationale was based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. That is the only place in the Law of Moses that speaks of divorce, let’s go for a moment to Deuteronomy 24 and find out what Moses said.

MISTRANSLATION

There is a great misunderstanding, the Pharisees misunderstood it, and that misunderstanding continues even today. If you have the King James translation of the Bible, you will find that it’s had a mistranslation. In fact, its mistranslation is so bad that it leads to a misunderstanding of the passage altogether.

Now the problem here comes in the fact that the word ‘then’ which occurs in Deuteronomy 24:1, in the King James translation doesn’t occur in the Hebrew text. The word ‘then’ draws a conclusion, and it makes it sound like Moses is saying, ‘If a man marries and finds something that he doesn’t like about his wife, THEN let him divorce her’. But a point of fact is, that isn’t what Moses said, the word ‘then’ doesn’t occur in the text until Deuteronomy 24:4.

In the New International Version, the New American Standard Version and perhaps in others, it’s correctly translated in Deuteronomy 24:1. So, if you aren’t using the N.I.V. or the N.A.S.V. or a translation that has correctly translated this passage, read very carefully at these four verses together. Moses is speaking to the people. In fact, this is the only place where he gives them insight in regard to this situation of divorce and remarriage.

Now notice the King James Version has this saying, ‘If a man marries and if he becomes displeased with his wife, THEN let him give her a bill of divorcement’, but that’s not what Moses said. Deuteronomy 24:1-2 are written without any comment, without any editorialising, without any approval or disapproval.

Moses simply says, ‘If a man marries, if he becomes displeased with that wife, if he gives her a certificate of divorce (Moses didn’t say whether that was right or wrong, he simply said if he does that), if she goes out and marries husband number two and if husband number two divorces her or if husband number two dies, THEN, (here is the conclusion). God said that woman cannot go back to her first husband, she cannot remarry to her original mate, it’s an impossibility. Moses goes on to say it is an abomination in the sight of God. So, Moses didn’t command a ‘bill of divorce’.

He simply assumed that a ‘bill of divorce’ was being given. If it was given, if the woman was legally divorced and she goes out and marries again, then she cannot under any circumstances ever go back to her first husband. God said that is morally objectionable to Him, it’s an abomination in His sight.

WHAT DOES UNCLEANLINESS MEAN?

But what does ‘uncleanness’ mean as the King James renders this? What does ‘indecency’ mean in Deuteronomy 24:1 as the N.I.V. has it? It’s the Hebrew word, ‘ervah’ and that’s really where the Pharisees got hung up, they tried to figure out, what is this ‘indecency’ that allows him to give her a bill of divorce and send her away so he can marry someone else.

Again, the debate between Hillel and Shammai comes in here. Shammai took a very conservative point of view, he believed it was fornication or adultery. Hillel, on the other hand, took a much more liberal view, if he finds any uncleanness in her, any indecency in her, then he may put her away.

Hillel said that indecency could be something like talking to men in public, spinning around so that her legs could be seen when she was out in public, or maybe cooking a meal that he didn’t like, maybe she scrambled his eggs when he wanted them fried, anything about her that she did, whether it was actions, appearance, attitude, if it displeased the husband, Hillel said that was enough justification to get rid of her. He said you can put her away, you can give her a bill of divorcement and send her out.

Well, what is this uncleanness? What did Moses have in mind? I’m not exactly sure, and to be honest, nobody knows, nobody is positive, the Pharisees debated it, and we debate it today. However, there is something very interesting back in Deuteronomy 23, just prior to what Moses said here in Deuteronomy 24, it’s interesting because we find this same Hebrew word used, ‘ervah’, Deuteronomy 23:14.

The word ‘indecent’ is the same word that is used in Deuteronomy 24:1. In Deuteronomy 23 in context, it’s a reference to human excrement. God says that He is going to come down and be walking in the camp of the Israelites and He doesn’t want to be stepping into that. When they go out, He wants them to dig a hole and relieve themselves and cover over it, He doesn’t want to see that indecency. Moses now says, ‘Now if a man marries a wife and he finds some indecency in her (something shameful, something vile, something corrupt, something that is a tremendous embarrassment to the husband) and he writes her a bill of divorcement and sends her away.’ Deuteronomy 24:1. N.I.V.

Even Moses doesn’t pretend that it’s a light-hearted matter, it’s something vilely immoral to the man, something terribly offensive. But may I say, with all confidence that it’s not adultery. Shammai contended that it was adultery. I don’t believe it is for the simple reason that in Deuteronomy 22, two chapters earlier, God said that the penalty for adultery is death, not divorce, Deuteronomy 22:22-24.

If a husband found some indecency in his wife and God meant by that, indecency in adultery the solution wouldn’t be divorce under the Law of Moses, it would be death. This implies the indecency must be something short of adultery, something short of marital unfaithfulness. Whatever it is, it was something vile and terribly offensive to the husband.

Moses says if a man marries and his wife does something horrendously vile, offensive, and embarrassing to him, and if he gives her a bill of divorce and sends her away and if she marries somebody else, then he never, never, never can remarry that woman again. No matter if he comes to forgive her and love her and wants to return to her, God says that it would be an abomination in His sight. Now that’s what is behind what the Pharisees had to say when they start talking about Moses commanding them to write a certificate of divorce.

JESUS’ ANSWER TO THEIR ARGUMENT

Remember we are talking about ‘apoluo’, putting away a wife without giving her an official, legal certificate of divorce. They want to know, can we put them away for any reason. The Pharisees are thinking if God is so interested in permanency in marriage, why did Moses command us to divorce our wives? Matthew 19:8-9 / Mark 10:5 / Mark 10:11-12.

Notice what Jesus says in Matthew 19:8. Jesus is going to tell them that Moses ‘allowed’ it, Moses never ‘commanded’ it. You will not find anywhere, not even in Deuteronomy 24 nor anywhere in all the Law of Moses, where Moses commanded people to divorce. In Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, ‘Moses ALLOWED you to divorce.’ In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses assumes that was what was happening, that there already was a certificate of divorce, but Moses didn’t command it. Moses did recognise it, though, he did allow it. Jesus said, ‘Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard,’ Matthew 19:8 / Mark 10:5.

In other words, they wouldn’t consent to live with the same woman, they wouldn’t consent to honour God’s arrangement in the marital relationship. It’s the hardness of their heart that kept God from forcing the ideal on them, so there is the ideal of permanency but then, there is the divorce which is ‘allowed’. God did tolerate them putting away their wives with a legal certificate of divorce and then marrying someone else. But, Jesus said, ‘it was not this way from the beginning’, Matthew 19:8 / Mark 10:6. God didn’t tell Adam if you don’t like Eve then give her a bill of divorcement.

From the beginning, God’s intent was for permanency, but as through sin men became corrupt, as men became hardened and rebellious, as they were determined not to honour the ways of God, God gave them the arrangement of divorce that is, He ‘allowed’ it, permitted it. It wasn’t His pleasure, and it didn’t please Him. It wasn’t what He really wanted, it wasn’t the ideal, but God did recognise divorce, He did allow it.

Notice carefully what Jesus says. Anyone who puts away his wife has committed adultery, Matthew 19:9 / Mark 10:11. Why is he putting her away? Possibly because he wants to marry someone else, yet he doesn’t have the right in the eyes of God to marry that other person because he hasn’t given his first wife the certificate of divorce, ‘apostasion’. He hasn’t taken care of her.

They didn’t want to return the dowry their wives were given by their father. The certificate of divorce was going to cost them. It was much easier to just abandon them, to put them away and allow them to go back to their home or fend for themselves and to ignore them. If they ever gave them the certificate of divorce then they had some obligations, they had to provide for their wives and children’s needs if they sent them away, but this was their loophole, they put them away without the official divorce.

THE DISCIPLES REACTION

The very thought that what Jesus was saying brings the disciples to a very surprising conclusion, it shocks them, Matthew 19:10. Is it possible that a person who has a ‘bill of divorcement’ is really free to marry again? Now traditionally, some have said, ‘No!’ The only reason you could divorce your wife, or your husband was because of ‘marital unfaithfulness’. That doesn’t seem to be what Jesus is saying, Jesus, is saying if they ‘put them away’, they must make it an official divorce for them to be able to marry again.

It seems to me that if our traditional position is the correct one, then we have jeopardised the integrity of God because God is the only one in all of the Bible who is ever said to have divorced someone and given them a bill of divorcement. Israel had chased after pagan gods, they had chased after false gods, and they had entered into a covenant with God.

They said, you’ll be our God, we’ll be your people, but they opposed that, not just once, but many, many times. They were unfaithful to God and so God said, ‘I gave them a certificate of divorce,’ Jeremiah 3:8. When he sent her away then, he had the freedom to marry another.

The bride of Christ today is the church, but if divorce is wrong, if giving a certificate of divorce and marrying someone else is wrong, then we have jeopardised God, it would appear to me because God Himself is the only illustration in Scripture of anybody who divorced. He didn’t do it for just one adultery, He did it for many adulteries, Jeremiah 3:8, many, many occasions. He held on as long as He could with the people, but they wouldn’t come around. This again is about the hardness of the people’s hearts, their inability, and their lack of desire to be loyal and faithful to God.

We saw earlier, Matthew 19:1-9 / Mark 10:1-12, that Jesus uses two different words in the text, one word that could properly be translated as ‘putting away’ which is ‘apoluo’, it means ‘to send away’ or ‘to abandon’. Then he uses the word ‘apostasion’ which is the legal document, certificate of divorce, granting a divorce. On the basis of the fact that there are two different words used to describe two different actions, the distinction should be maintained.

Jesus says, if they put their wives away if they don’t make it legal and they go out and marry somebody else, they commit adultery because they have married a second person when they are still married to the first person, therein lies the problem. Back in Matthew 5:31-32, we saw the other side of the coin, if a man sends away his wife without granting divorce and she marries somebody else, then she commits adultery and the man who marries her commits adultery because legally, technically she is still married to her first husband.

WHY WERE THE DISCIPLES SHOCKED?

All of this raises a question on the part of the disciples, they are in absolute shock in Matthew 19:10. What is it that shocks the disciples when Jesus says to them, ‘you can’t just send your wife away’? There has to be a legal procedure before you are free to marry someone else.

If there is a legal divorce, then the husband would be required to return the dowry his wife was given from her father. Jesus is saying they have to honour and respect the rights of their wife, Exodus 21:10. It shocked them in a society where women had no rights because they didn’t have to think of that. They could just send their wives away for any old cause as far as they were concerned. Now Jesus says, no, they can’t do that, they have to respect their wives. They have taken her into their home, they have married her, and they can’t just dismiss her.

If they’re not going to live with her, they must give her an official, legal divorce, whatever that might cost them, whatever they have to struggle with, whatever consequence that brings into their lives, they have to respect their wife as a woman and meet her needs and meet her rights and legally set her free so she can marry someone else without incurring the charge of adultery.

I think there is something else here that shocks the disciples. Jesus says, if they send away their wife without giving her a legal divorce and they marry somebody else, they commit adultery. What does the Law of Moses say about committing adultery? The disciples realise what Jesus was saying, death is the penalty for adultery! Leviticus 20:10 / Deuteronomy 22:22-25. They realise if that’s the situation between a husband and wife, it’s better not to marry.

When we read Matthew 19:11-12, we must bear in mind that Jesus isn’t talking here about the person who has never been asked to be married. Nor is He talking about the person who asked someone to marry them but was turned down when He talks about singleness here. He’s talking about people who are single for three different reasons.

1. Congenital.

They were born that way; their sexual organs were dysfunctional, so they have no sexual drive. They have no real need to be married to satisfy that desire, so they don’t get married. Jesus says some people are born that way.

2. Castration.

They were made that way by men, kings in ancient society used to do that a lot. They had their harems, and they didn’t want the man in charge of the Harem messing around with the women, so they castrated them so they would lose sexual desire, and they could do their business without being attracted to the women.

3. Commitment to God.

They want to serve the kingdom of God without being tied down to a wife and the responsibilities and time commitment that would take. So, by choice, they remained single. Jesus said, ‘not everybody can accept that’, Matthew 19:11. God designed man to be married but when a man marries, here are the requirements that Jesus says he must meet. He cannot dismiss his wife for any old reason in the book and go out and marry someone else.

If they dismiss their wife, they must give her a certificate of divorce. If they don’t legally divorce her, they commit adultery when they remarry, she commits adultery when she marries and the one who marries her commits adultery because they have never legally been divorced.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUTTING AWAY AND DIVORCE

If this distinction stands up between ‘putting away’ and ‘divorce’, then the only conclusion that I can come to is that God has NO regulations about reasons for divorce. Jesus is saying, if they put their wives away, they better give them the ‘apostasion’, they better make it legal, so she can have the certificate and show anybody else that she has the right to marry again.

If they put their wives away, if there is separation, if there is abandonment, then they must give them the legal certificate of divorce, or they are going to incur adultery, and she will incur adultery when there is remarriage.

IS DIVORCE A SIN?

I think we can also come to the conclusion that Jesus doesn’t condemn ‘divorce’ as a sin. Many people teach that divorce is a sin, but the Bible doesn’t say that. Where does the problem come from in this text? Does it come in the divorce? No! It’s in the remarriage, that’s where the problem is, the problem comes in the remarriage. Jesus says they can’t remarry unless there has been an official divorce.

I’m sure some people will still ask, what about that passage in Malachi 2:16, in the Old Testament where God says, ‘I hate divorce’? He said, ‘I hate shalach’ which we now know means ‘putting away’. I hate putting away, God says. Why? Because they hadn’t been granting their wives the ‘apostasion’, they hadn’t given them the ‘keriythuwth’ they hadn’t given them the legal certificate.

God says He hates it when they just abandon their wives. He hates it when there is separation and they don’t meet her financial needs, her emotional needs, her sexual needs, and her psychological needs. They just put her on the shelf and forget about her. And she doesn’t have the right to go out and marry anybody else who will meet those needs. God says I hate that.

If the husband is going to separate from her and abandon her, give her a divorce, make it official so she can remarry. God says, ‘I hate the putting away’, not I hate divorce. Even if Jesus is talking about legal divorce all the way through, He says the problem comes when one divorces his wife and then marries another. The person who divorces and marries another commits adultery. Isn’t that what He said? However, by default, we could say if a person divorces and never remarries, they have not sinned in the sight of God., therefore divorce is not a sin.

IMAGINE!

We know that there are women out there who are severely abused by their husbands, they beat them unmercifully. He’s not a Christian and has no desire to treat her right. He has literally broken her bones at times in abusing her. And finally, after having struggled through all that and trying to make that marriage work for the sake of her own emotional and mental health, she divorces him.

Would God say to her, ‘that’s wrong, that is sin’! There are some who would say, ‘yes’, and some would say, she must stay with her husband or if she does leave him, she can’t divorce him! I don’t believe for one moment that God penalises a person who is trying to do what is right.

Some suggest that a person who was married but got divorced, not for unfaithfulness or adultery, then she must go back to her original husband. This would go against what God said through Moses back in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, this would be detestable in God’s eyes. It’s really difficult speaking to anyone about divorce because we know that God wants permanency, but I believe that Jesus recognised that at times, sin enters into people’s marriages as it does into people’s lives.

Divorce is not what God wants, it’s less than the ideal, but God allows it. God permits it but to say that they aren’t free to marry again, is reading into the text something which Jesus never said, Matthew 5:31-32 / Matthew 19:9 / 1 Corinthians 4:6.

CONCLUSION

I believe that the two words ‘apoluo’ and ‘apostasion’ mean different things and that Jesus is talking about ‘abandonment’ or ‘separation’ and remarriage without legal divorce from the first person. To do that means that one commits adultery when they form a second union to which they have no right because the first union still exists.

You see, slavery wasn’t what God wanted, He didn’t create slaves in the beginning, but He allowed it, He didn’t want a man to have more than one wife. He created Adam and Eve and that’s all, but He did permit it, right? Abraham had several wives, David had several wives, and Solomon had several wives. Others had several wives. God never came to David and said, ‘All right now, David, you have to give up all your wives except the first one that you married.’ He never said that, it wasn’t what He wanted, it wasn’t the ideal, but it was permitted. God never wanted divorce, but He did permit it.

Jesus spoke to people who were under the law of Moses, in a covenant relationship with God and as a part of that covenant they had certain terms, certain conditions that they were to meet that flowed over into their marriage.

What about the Gentiles who weren’t under the Law of Moses, who didn’t have any special specifications lined out? Does God have any directions for them? I believe He does, and Paul addresses those questions in 1 Corinthians 7. In Matthew 5:21-32 / Matthew 19:1-9 / Mark 10:2-12, Jesus deals with the problem of ‘abandonment’, He says, ‘If a man puts away ‘apoluo’ his wife, ‘if he abandons her’, he must give her a certificate of divorcement ‘apostasion’.’

The man must make it legal. If he puts her away, but he does not make it legal and she marries somebody else, she is committing adultery. If he marries another woman without having put her away legally, he commits adultery. There must be the legal, official termination of the marriage for there to be freedom to remarry.

Paul comes along and says in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, that it would be better to stay unmarried for several reasons, in the present crisis, they can give devotion to the Lord, it will keep them from getting trapped in a relationship with an unbeliever who would make it difficult for them to function properly. But he says if the pressure is there, the sexual, emotional, and psychological needs are there to be fulfilled and they must have them fulfilled and he says to get married.

In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, he tells the divorced and the widows that they can get married, and he tells the virgin in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35, that they can get married. He tells the man who is engaged to the virgin that he can get married, that may not be the best thing to do because of the present crisis, but they can do it and do it in a way that will honour God, have a marriage that will uphold His ideals.

Then he says where both are believers, they mustn’t contemplate divorce, they must do all they can to maintain that marriage. If they are married to an unbeliever, if they become converted after they are married, they are to maintain that marriage because it’s an acceptable marriage to God. If the unbeliever terminates it, it’s terminated, it wasn’t what they wanted. They didn’t pursue it, they didn’t ask for it, they terminated it. Therefore, they aren’t bound in such circumstances.

This is the height, breadth, length, and width of what the Bible has to say about marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The Christian has an ideal to uphold, the Christian looks to save the marriage, strengthen the marriage, to make the marriage last. But sometimes marriages break down, sometimes sin enters the marriage relationship and Jesus gives us the guidelines for what to do when that does happen.

The Little Children And Jesus

‘People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.’ And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.’ Mark 10:13-16

The disciples never seemed to want Jesus to be bothered, so they were constantly trying to keep certain kinds of people away from Him, Mark 10:46-52. In this case, it was children and notice the disciples actually rebuked those who brought the children to Jesus children, Mark 10:13 / Matthew 19:13 / Luke 18:15.

When the disciples hindered those who brought the children from coming to Jesus, Mark records that Jesus was greatly displeased, Mark 10:14. When Jesus saw that they were hindering the children from approaching Him, He was indignant and rebuked them, Mark 10:14.

He was greatly displeased because the children represented the nature of those who would accept His kingdom’s reign in their hearts, Mark 10:14-15 / Matthew 19:14 / Luke 18:17. He said that the kingdom of God itself belongs to people who become like children, Mark 10:14-15 / Matthew 19:14 / Luke 18:16-17. He took the young people into His arms and began to bless them, then left, Matthew 19:15. He always had time for children, Mark 10:16 / Matthew 19:15.

When these children were brought to Jesus, He took them into His arms and blessed them, Mark 10:16 / 1 Corinthians 14:20 / 1 Peter 2:2. These children were simply brought to Jesus for blessing and prayer, a practice which was common in Israel, Matthew 19:13. As Christians, we need to have the same submissive attitude toward our heavenly Father if we want to receive eternal life, James 4:6-7 / 1 Peter 5:6-7.

The humility of a child should always be the characteristic of the disciple of Jesus, we should always be willing to serve and put others before us, not thinking too highly of ourselves, Matthew 18:4 / Mark 10:35-45 / Luke 9:48. Jesus wants disciples who are humble like a child, free from prejudice like a child, teachable like a child, lovable as a child, He wants His disciples to have the same simple faith of a child, trust like a child, He doesn’t want His disciples to worry about anything but trust their Father and He wants His disciples to be as innocent as a child.

The Rich Young Man

‘As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.’ Mark 10:17-18

This event is recorded in Mark 10:17-31 / Luke 18:18-30 / Matthew 19:16-30, but it’s in Mark’s account we find the most detail concerning the event. Jesus and His disciples were leaving the region of Judea and heading towards Jerusalem when a young man ran up to Him and fell before Him, Mark 10:17.

The young man who addressed Jesus was rich, Mark 10:22 / Luke 18:23 / Matthew 19:22, he was doing well for himself, he was the kind of man everyone in society would look up to and strive to be like. We must remember that he was a ruler with some position in society, Luke 18:18. He was a young man with responsibilities and status, this is important to understand because these positions were what James and John sought, Mark 10:35-45 / Matthew 20:20-28. This is what this young ruler had but could not give up.

There must have been something about his religion which was lacking something, he knew something wasn’t right with his religion. Later, we see that he had been obedient to the law, Mark 10:20 / Luke 18:21 / Matthew 19:20, and he was a ‘good’ person but still something wasn’t missing from his life.

He was honest with himself and humble enough to call Jesus, a ‘good teacher’, Mark 10:17 / Luke 18:18, which was a sign of respect. We know He was concerned about his own spiritual welfare because he ran up to Jesus requesting information on how to receive eternal life, Mark 10:19 / Luke 18:18 / Matthew 19:16, he was honestly looking for answers.

Jesus Answers The Question Regarding Eternal Life

Marks and Luke’s accounts leave out something very important. In Matthew’s account notice the young man asked Jesus, which commandments? Matthew 19:17-18. This is very important to understand as we shall see in a moment. Before we get into the text, let’s address a question which is often raised.

If Jesus Was God, Then Why Did He Say, That ‘No One Is Good Except God Alone?’

The young man who addressed Jesus was rich, Mark 10:17-32 / Luke 18:23 / Matthew 19:16-30. However, we must also remember that he was a ruler with some position in society. The positions for which James and John sought in the following case of Mark 10:35-45, is what this young ruler had but could not give up.

The young man wanted to know how to receive eternal life, Mark 10:17 / Luke 18:18 / Matthew 19:16. In other words, he was asking, what must he do to be saved? Which is the question the disciples asked, Mark 10:26 / Luke 18:26 / Matthew 19:25.

He did everything right since he was a young man, including keeping the last six of the ten commandments, Exodus 20:12-17. However, he failed to keep the first and greatest of the commandments to, ‘love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength,’ Matthew 22:37-38.

The one thing he lacked was giving up his wealth, Mark 10:21 / Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:20-21. He loved money more than God, Colossians 3:5. His wealth had become his security, Mark 10:23-25 / Luke 18:24-25 / Matthew 19:23-25.

Everett, in his commentary, says the following.

‘Jesus wanted this man to understand that no one could achieve salvation through good works, not even a Jewish “teacher.” Thus, Jesus said that there was no one that was good except God, Isaiah 64:6’.

The question, if Jesus was God, then why did He say, that ‘no one is good except God alone’, is often used by people to try and disprove the deity of Christ. There are two possibilities on how to answer this question. Jesus could be saying, don’t call me good because He isn’t good or at least not as good as God the Father, or He means something a lot deeper than we think.

Notice that Jesus never says He is not good, but the rich ruler recognises He is. The rich ruler calls Jesus ‘good teacher’, Mark 10:17 / Luke 18:18. Jesus asks the rich ruler, ‘why do you call me good’, and then He says, ‘No one is good, except God alone’, Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19 / Matthew 17:19.

Jesus is saying either I am God and good or I am neither God nor good. Or put another way, Jesus was saying if you address me as a ‘good teacher’, then I can’t help you, for no man is good. Only as God can I do anything to help you, Mark 10:27 / Luke 18:27 / Matthew 19:26.

Jesus wanted the young man to acknowledge Him as God. He wanted the rich ruler to see Jesus as God, who is good, not a mere good teacher. Jesus’ question was designed not to deny His deity, but rather to draw the rich ruler to recognize Christ’s divine identity. It’s clear that Jesus was testing the young man when He said, ‘no one is good, except God alone’, Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19 / Matthew 17:19. Jesus wasn’t denying His deity, He wanted the man to acknowledge His deity.

If he genuinely believed Jesus is God, Hebrews 1:3, instead of walking away sad, he would have followed Him to secure his eternal inheritance, Mark 10:21-22 / Luke 18:22-23 / Matthew 19:21-22.

Smith, in his commentary, says the following.

‘What He is doing is trying to awaken the consciousness of this man to the fact that he has received a divine revelation. He is getting close. “Why did you call me good?” The reason why you called me good, is because you, though you don’t realize it, have recognized something about me.’

CONCLUSION

How can Jesus be God if no one is good except God alone? Think about it this way. Jesus claims only God is good, but the rich ruler and Jesus also claim that Jesus is good, and so, common sense tells us that Jesus is claiming to be God. If Jesus is good what does that make Him? It makes Him God, 1 Chronicles 16:34 / Psalm 25:8 / Psalm 119:68. Afterall, He is the Word, who became flesh and dwelt among us, John 1:1-3 / John 1:14 / Philippians 2:5-11. He said, ‘I AM the Good Shepherd’, John 10:11.

‘You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honour your father and mother,’ Mark 10:19

Notice at this point Jesus doesn’t answer his question regarding eternal life but what He does do is address the man’s comment about Jesus being ‘good’, Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19 / Matthew 19:17. We see that the real problem which people were facing was simply this, how can sinful people approach an all-good God? John 14:6 / Romans 7:24-25.

Erdman, in his commentary, says the folowing concerning Jesus’ response to the young man.

‘The perfect goodness of God was a universal doctrine of Judaism, and it is evident that the Lord was here building the young man’s thoughts toward the recognition of Jesus as God. It is the equivalent of our Lord’s saying, ‘Look, don’t you know that if I am good, as you say, then I am therefore God?’

Notice that Jesus only quoted the last five of the Ten Commandments, Mark 10:19 / Luke 18:20 / Matthew 19:18-19 / Exodus 20:12-16 / Deuteronomy 5:16-20. Why did He not quote the first five commandments? It’s clear that Jesus was trying to lead this young man into a deeper understanding of the truth, by not quoting, ‘love God with your heart, mind, soul and strength’,  Matthew 22:37-40 / Mark 12:30-31 / Luke 10:27 / Deuteronomy 6:4-7, implies that the young man wasn’t obedient to these commandments, but had no real problem keeping the others.

In other words, the young man won’t receive eternal life simply by keeping only part of the law, he couldn’t receive eternal life by law-keeping, and he couldn’t save himself, no matter how obedient to the law he was, James 2:10. What’s the point in keeping any of the law, if you don’t love God with everything you’ve got.

‘Teacher,’ he declared, ‘all these I have kept since I was a boy.’ Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’ Mark 10:20-21

Matthew gives us more information at this point, the young man asked Jesus a very important question. ‘What do I still lack?’ Matthew 19:20. If his question tells us anything, it tells us that he’s honest with himself and sincere regarding his question about eternal life.

Notice the young man ticked all the boxes, ‘yep Jesus, I haven’t broken any of the commandments you’ve quoted to me’, Mark 10:20 / Luke 18:21 / Matthew 19:20. I can imagine Jesus looking at this young man with a smile on His face, He loved him, He loved his honesty, and He loved his sincerity. What a refreshing change from those who were always trying to oppose Him.

One Thing Lacking

Jesus loved the young man enough to tell him the one thing he lacked in his life, Mark 10:21 / Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21. He still lacked one thing, Philippians 3:6-7, he was good, but he knew that he still lacked something, Acts 10:1-6 / Galatians 3:21. The problem with the young ruler wasn’t with his outward appearance of religiosity, but with his heart.

In order to come into a right relationship with God, this particular rich person had to relieve himself of that which emotionally kept him from dependence on God. He was self-sufficient in his riches and self-confident in his performance of law from youth. He, therefore, felt that he didn’t need to trust in the grace of God.

If he wanted to receive eternal life, he first needed to be right with God and for him to be able to do that, he had to give up the very things which he treasured most in his heart, his possessions, Mark 10:21 / Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21. He had to learn to depend on God rather than being self-sufficient and self-confident to receive eternal life.

Because Jesus tells him to ‘go and sell everything he has and give it to the poor’, Mark 10:21 / Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21, this tells us that Jesus saw in this man’s life the very thing which was lacking from this man’s life. It suggests that Jesus saw that this guy was greedy and all he cared about was himself and his wealth, Matthew 6:19-21.

He was to sell all that he owned, give the proceeds to the poor, and start following Him, Luke 12:33 / Acts 2:45 / Acts 4:34-35 / Acts 12:12 / Acts 21:8. He must be willing to sacrifice to follow Jesus, Mark 10:21 / Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21, in the same way the other disciples did, Mark 10:28 / Matthew 9:9.

Total Submission

Anyone who wants to be a follower of Christ must submit to God’s will to receive eternal life. For the young man, this would mean not only giving up his possessions but giving up his position as ruler, and as we read next, these sacrifices were just asking too much of him.

‘At this, the man’s face fell. He went away sad because he had great wealth.’ Mark 10:22

Jesus always knew what was in the hearts of people, He knew them better than they knew themselves and for this young man his problem was in his heart. Notice that he didn’t get angry with Jesus, he didn’t get all self-righteous with Jesus, he simply dropped his face and went away sad, Mark 10:22 / Luke 18:23 / Matthew 19:22.

Facing The Reality

I can imagine this young man coming to Jesus thinking he was right with God, thinking he had been obedient to God all his life, thinking that he only had to make a few small adjustments to his life to receive eternal life, only to come face to face with the reality of the condition of his own heart. The man really wanted eternal life but not at this great price.

Incidentally, this is the only account in the whole of the Gospels where Jesus commands someone to ‘follow Him’ and the command is rejected. Like so many people who come to Jesus for salvation, they long to be saved, but when Jesus points out the costs involved, they too leave sad because they just can’t bring themselves to sacrifice so much in order to follow Him, Mark 10:21 / Luke 18:22 / Matthew 19:21 / Luke 14:25-33.

The Disciple’s Reaction

‘Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!’ The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?’ Mark 10:23-26

Notice that Jesus didn’t say ‘it’s impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God’, He said it’s ‘hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God,’ Mark 10:23 / Luke 18:24 / Matthew 19:23. The reason it is hard is simply because of what has just happened with the rich young ruler. The rich had a tendency to trust in material possessions and not in God.

They believed that one’s wealth was a sign that God was working in one’s life, they were wrong. The earthly treasures are more important to them, and their wealth and position in society are just too much to sacrifice, Luke 18:24-25 / Matthew 6:20 / Matthew 13:22 / 1 Corinthians 1:26 / 1 Timothy 6:9-10.

Notice also He calls them ‘children’, Mark 10:24, and then gives them an illustration which even a child can understand the impossibility of it, a camel going through the eye of a needle, Mark 10:25 / Luke 18:25 / Matthew 19:24. No one is sure where this figurate phrase originated, but some do believe it may have been taken from a gate in the walls of Jerusalem that were so small that it was difficult for a camel to enter. Whatever the source of the metaphor, the principle is still the same, it’s difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.

The disciples ask Jesus a question, ‘who then can be saved?’ Mark 10:26 / Luke 18:26 / Matthew 19:25. It seems the disciples were in shock, not so much with the rich young ruler’s leaving but with Jesus’ teaching to the rich young ruler. Remember the Jews believed if someone was rich, then that meant that they were highly favoured by God, but they were even more highly favoured by God if they kept the commandments. The disciples must have looked at the rich young ruler and thought, ‘wow, God has richly blessed him, he must be a prime candidate for eternal life!’

They must have thought, as many of the Jews, if this young rich ruler couldn’t be saved, then who on earth can be saved? Now obviously the Jewish thinking was wrong, the disciple’s thinking was wrong because no one can be justified before God by keeping law, because all sin, Galatians 2:16.

It’s a sad fact that many people follow in the rich young ruler’s steps, they desire eternal life, as long as they don’t have to make too many sacrifices. Jesus referred to these people when He remarked about how difficult it is for those who are rich to enter heaven.

‘Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man, this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.’ Then Peter spoke up, ‘We have left everything to follow you!’ ‘Truly I tell you,’ Jesus replied, ‘no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.’ Mark 10:27-31

Jesus tells them that God and God alone, has the power to let people see the foolishness in trusting in their wealth instead of trusting in God, Mark 10:16 / Luke 18:27 / Matthew 19:26 / Romans 1:16. Even some of the Old Testament heroes who were abundantly rich had to trust God instead of their riches, Luke 13:28.

Peter also asked a question, ‘What then will there be for us?’ Matthew 19:27. Peter and the others indeed left everything to follow Jesus, Mark 10:28 / Luke 18:28 / Matthew 4:20 / Luke 5:11, but here Peter is wondering what he will receive for such a sacrifice as leaving everything behind to follow Jesus.

The shock of Jesus’ teaching really got Peter thinking about his and the disciple’s situation, they obviously didn’t understand what Jesus was teaching and so, Jesus answers him with three promises. They will be blessed with numerous earthly possessions, their families will multiply a hundredfold and they will receive the greatest reward of all, eternal life, Mark 10:29-31 / Luke 18:29-30 / Matthew 19:28-30.

Clarke, in his commentary, says the following concerning, the disciples sitting on thrones and becoming judges of the twelve tribes, Matthew 19:28.

‘From the parallel place, Luke 22:28-30, it is evident that sitting on thrones, and judging the twelve tribes, means simply obtaining eternal salvation, and the distinguishing privileges of the kingdom of glory, by those who continued faithful to Christ in his sufferings and death.’

Jesus says that those who leave these family relationships and possessions in order to follow Jesus will receive a hundredfold in this life, Mark 10:29-30 / Luke 18:29-30 / Matthew 19:29. Jesus says, ‘many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first’, Mark 10:31 / Luke 13:30 / Matthew 20:16 / Matthew 19:30.

This simply means just because you choose to follow Jesus before others, doesn’t mean you’ll stay faithful to Jesus to the end, others who come later may well remain faithful to the Lord. A good example of this is Judas who was one of the first among the apostles and Paul who was the last of the apostles. Judas didn’t remain faithful to the end, but Paul did and so in this example, we see that Judas actually ended up being last and Paul ended up being first.

Clarke, in his commentary, says the following, concerning the first and last, Mark 10:31 / Matthew 19:30.

‘The Jews, who have been the first and most distinguished people of God, will, in general, reject the Gospel of my grace, and be consequently rejected by me. The Gentiles, who have had no name among the living, shall be brought to the knowledge of the truth, and become the first, the chief, and most exalted people of God. That this prediction of our Lord has been literally fulfilled, the present state of the Christian and Jewish Churches sufficiently proves. To illustrate this fully, and to demonstrate that the Jews and Gentiles were now put on an equal footing by the Gospel, our Lord speaks the following parable, which has been unhappily divided from its connection by making it the beginning of a new chapter.’

Conclusion

As Jesus talked to the rich man, He observed that he lacked only one thing, he only needed to get rid of his possessions. It became obvious that Jesus had properly diagnosed the man’s need because the man was unwilling to do so, he indeed was valuing his possessions over the Lord.

To follow Jesus, we must give up anything in our life that is more important to us than He is. Interestingly, this man lacked only one thing. Some people have the idea that one sin is not all that bad, they think that while they may be failing in one area, at least they serve the Lord faithfully in all the others. This story shows clearly that even one thing can keep a person from being accepted by God.

I can only imagine what the rich young ruler must have thought if he had heard Jesus’ three promises to the disciples, maybe he would have thought twice, maybe he would have followed Jesus, sadly it was these three blessings he actually turned away from. He forfeited his soul for wealth and his position of power, Mark 8:36. Is there one thing in your life that’s stopping you from following Jesus?

Jesus Predicts His Death a Third Time

‘They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again, he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. ‘We are going up to Jerusalem,’ he said, ‘and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.’ Mark 10:32-34

For the third time, Jesus warned the disciples about what was going to happen when they got to Jerusalem. On the road to Jerusalem Jesus prepared the disciples for what was about to happen in all their lives, Mark 10:32 / Matthew 10:17 / Luke 18:31. He tells the disciples that in Jerusalem, He would be delivered over to the chief priests and teachers of the law, and it would be them who would condemn Him to death, Mark 10:33 / Isaiah 53 / Matthew 20:18-19 / Luke 18:32.

Jesus knows exactly what is going to happen to Him, Matthew 16:21 / Matthew 17:22-23. He knows that He will be handed over to Sanhedrin, Matthew 26:15, and He knows He would be handed over to the Gentiles, Mark 10:32-33 / Matthew 17:22-23 / Luke 18:32, that is, the Romans to be mocked, spat upon, flogged and crucified, Matthew 27:2 / Acts 2:23 / Acts 3:13-15 / Acts 4:27 / Acts 21:11.

Jesus knows He suffers all the humiliation of a common criminal. Flogging was means of a whip, which was made up of broken bones or sharp stones that were tied at the end of binding of numerous strips of leather. He talked here about His death and resurrection, Mark 10:33-34 / Matthew 20:18-19 / Luke 18:32. The good news is that Jesus also knows that He will rise again on the third day, Mark 10:34 / 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, despite His disciples being saddened by Jesus even speaking about His death, Matthew 16:21-28 / Luke 9:22 / Luke 18:31 / Luke 24:46. In Luke’s account, notice that the disciples didn’t understand what Jesus meant by His word because it was hidden from them, Luke 18:34.

Coffman, in his commentary, says the following.

‘It was not hidden in that Jesus did not want them to understand. It was hidden because of their reluctance to accept it.’

The Request of James and John

‘Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we want you to do for us whatever we ask.’ ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ he asked. They replied, ‘Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.’ ‘You don’t know what you are asking,’ Jesus said. ‘Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?’ ‘We can,’ they answered. Jesus said to them, ‘You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.’ When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, ‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 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.’ Mark 10:35-45

Jesus has just finished giving the disciples a detailed description of the suffering He would experience there in Jerusalem but meanwhile, James and John were imagining a different scenario. The future of the disciples still rested in their misunderstanding concerning the kingdom’s reign of Jesus. They were still thinking that the kingdom would be something of this world, Acts 1:6. And because they were thinking of the reestablishment of national Israel, their understanding of leadership in the kingdom was twisted.

The occasion sparked an opportunity for James and John to reveal what was in their hearts. Since Jesus spoke of His departure from this world, James and John realised that leadership must be assumed, Mark 9:33-34. They are seeking positions of power and influence in this physical kingdom, Luke 17:20-21 / John 18:36.

Who made the request?

It seems that their mother, Salome, Matthew 20:20 / Matthew 27:56 / Mark 15:40 / John 19:25, accompanied James and John and made the request as if were her own but in reality, it was from James and John because Jesus goes on to address his answer towards James and John and they, in turn, continue to demonstrate it was actually their request as we will see later, Mark 10:37.

Clarke, in his commentary, says the following, concerning the request mentioned in Mark 10:35.

‘Mark 10:35, says that James and John made the request but Matthew says, Matthew 20:20, the request was made by Salome their mother; the two places may be easily reconciled thus: The mother introduced them, and made the request as if from herself; Jesus knowing whence it had come, immediately addressed himself to James and John, who were standing by; and the mother is no farther concerned in the business, Matthew 20:20.’

Remember that James and John’s father was Zebedee, Matthew 20:20, who was a very influential man and the reason we know this is because when Jesus was going through His trials. John 18:15, tells us that John was known to the high priest and went with Jesus into the courtyard. Not everyone had access to the Jewish leadership but because John did have access this tells us that his family must have been influential in Jesus’ day.

The reason for mentioning Zebedee and his influence is simply to suggest that this may be the reason why James and John come to Jesus with the request in the first place. In their mind they know what it’s like to be influential, they know people in ‘high places’ so to speak, maybe they thought out of all the disciples they were the best two for the leadership role when this new kingdom is established.

Notice also that they’re wise enough to come to Jesus privately as they knew the other disciples wouldn’t be too happy about it, Mark 10:41. Jesus gave a detailed description of the suffering He would experience there in Jerusalem, Mark 10:32-34, but James and John were imagining a different scenario. They asked Jesus to agree to do whatever they would request, Mark 10:35.

The request is made, Mark 10:35, probably by their mother on their behalf, Matthew 20:20. James and Johns mother’s name is Salome, Mark 15:40 / Mark 16:1, she is the wife of Zebedee, Matthew 4:21 / Matthew 10:2. She came to approach, possibly on behalf of her sons, to ask Jesus about special positions of power in the kingdom, Matthew 20:20. They wanted to know if Jesus would agree to their request, Mark 10:31 / Matthew 20:21. Jesus asked what they wanted, Mark 10:36 / Matthew 20:21.

Jesus already knew what was on the two disciple’s minds, as He knows all things, John 2:25 / Matthew 9:4, but He asked them what He can do for them because their request is going to demonstrate to them what was going on in their own hearts. It was going to demonstrate that once again they didn’t understand the nature of Christ’s kingdom.

Jesus wasn’t going to sign a blank cheque by agreeing before they made the request. They replied that they wanted to sit on Jesus’ right and left hand, that is, they wanted the chief positions in His administration, Mark 10:37 / Matthew 20:21. The place of honour was the seat on the right and the place of second honour was the seat on the left, 1 Kings 2:19 / Psalm 110:1.

Coffman makes some important points here regarding the disciple’s request.

1. It showed a lack of faith in what Jesus had just said regarding his being raised ‘after three days.’

2. It was founded on human vanity and conceit.

3. It represented an effort on their part to gain ascendancy (power) over the other apostles.

4. It showed a fundamental misconception of what God’s kingdom would be.

5. It was a selfish manoeuvre prompted by the Lord’s repeated announcement of His forthcoming death and resurrection in which they appeared as desiring the chief places in the presumed absence of the Lord.

6. It was a request founded in ignorance, Mark 10:38.

Sadly, like so many men who are in leadership positions today within the church, it’s all about power and it’s all about them sitting down, whilst getting others to get up and do the work for them.

Too Hard On James And John!

I think it’s easy to come down too hard on James and John because we focus so much on their misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s kingdom. Let’s pause for a moment about what they are requesting in their minds. They are thinking of a physical kingdom, a physical kingdom which is going to get rid of these Roman dictators once and for all. For this to happen many people would have to die to fight for this freedom, James and John seem to be willing to do just that, Acts 12:1-2.

They were obviously ambitious, courageous and far from being weak men who couldn’t handle a leadership position, Mark 3:17. In other words, if they were going to help establish a physical kingdom, it wasn’t going to be easy, it was going to be full of struggles and they seem to be up for the task.

Notice that Jesus responds to their request with the spiritual kingdom in mind. Jesus responded by asking if they could drink the cup He was going to drink, or be baptised with His baptism, Mark 10:38 / Matthew 20:22 / Psalm 11:6 / Psalm 75:8 / Isaiah 51:17 / Jeremiah 25:15. Jesus was referring to His sufferings which were often spoken of as a cup of agony that He would have to drink, Mark 14:36, and as a baptism of pain, Mark 10:39 / Luke 12:50.

Jesus asked them these questions because He knew they were going to have to face even greater struggles in this spiritual kingdom than they would in a physical kingdom. They would need useful spiritual weapons, Ephesians 6:10-20, they would need to be courageous, they would need to be strong, they would need to be willing to die.

Christ went through immense pain and suffering and demonstrated what real sacrifice was all about, especially when He went to the cross to die. Jesus is basically asking them if they are willing to go through what He’s been going through and will go through at the hands of the Jews and the Romans.

They had no clue as to His real meaning, but they enthusiastically accepted the challenge, Mark 10:39 / Matthew 20:22. On the negative side, this shows their ignorance because they were still thinking of a physical kingdom but on the positive side it shows their courage and their strength. It shows their willingness to lead, and it shows their enthusiasm to lead if it costs them their lives.

These two simple Galilean fishermen have come a long way in their personal journey with Christ, Mark 3:17, despite their misunderstanding of Christ’s kingdom. They would suffer, John 15:18-19 / John 21:18-19. James would even be the first apostle to be killed for the faith, Acts 12:1-2, though John his younger brother would be the last to die, Revelation 1:9.

Interestingly, Jesus makes no attempt to clarify the nature of His kingdom to the disciples, this is possibly because He knew that they would need similar courage and strength to be leaders in this spiritual kingdom. They’ve just said, ‘we can’ and Jesus says, ‘oh you guys can just count on that, you will go through the pain and suffering that I’ve been going through and will go through,’ Mark 10:39 / Matthew 20:23. They will go through all the struggles that leaders have to go through when they go into battle, they will go through all the highs and lows involved in leadership.

Jesus then replied that He didn’t have the authority to grant their request because He wasn’t the One who assigned the positions of honour in the kingdom, Mark 10:40 / Matthew 20:23. Jesus couldn’t give such honours, except to them for whom they were prepared.

The ten weren’t simply unhappy with James and John, they were furious, the word, ‘indignant’ means greatly displeased, Mark 10:41 / Matthew 20:24 / Mark 9:34 / Mark 10:31 / Luke 22:24. The other disciples were indignant, why? It seems that James and John had jumped ahead of the game, it appears they wished to have the highest positions and resented the fact that the sons of Zebedee had requested them first. As a result of this, it seems another dispute broke out among them concerning who was the greatest and gets the positions of ‘power’, and Jesus has to once again step in to sort it out.

This is not the first time Jesus had to address this issue of greatness with His disciples, Luke 9:46, and it won’t be the last, Luke 22:24, and on all three occasions, Jesus has just been speaking to them about His upcoming death. This must have been so disheartening for Jesus, He’s speaking about His upcoming death and all the disciples could think about was who was going to take over when He leaves.

Jesus took some time to define what greatness in the kingdom really meant. He said that in human affairs, whether government or business, the greatest have the most authority, Mark 10:42-45 / Matthew 20:25-28. In other words, they weren’t to be like the Gentiles, who lord it over people and exercise authority over the people, Mark 10:42 / Matthew 20:25. In Christ’s kingdom, they need to be serving not lording it over people, Mark 10:43 / Matthew 20:26 / 1 Peter 5:3.

Jesus contrasts the leadership style of the world with that which would be among His disciples. The disciples need to learn, instead of ‘lording it over’ the people, they need to bear the burden of the needs of the people, they were to become slaves and be reminded that there is no authority among slaves.

There won’t be any ‘lords’ among the disciples, there won’t be any ‘high officials’ among His disciples. Leaders within the body of Christ must remember that Jesus has all authority, Matthew 28:18, and that He is the only Lord and Head, Ephesians 1:20-23 / Ephesians 4:4-6. Since Christ is all these things, then every other Christian must be servants.

He explained that in God’s kingdom it’s different, the greatest is the one who humbles himself most and serves most, Mark 10:44 / Matthew 20:27 / Matthew 18:1-4 / Matthew 23:11 / Mark 9:35 / Mark 10:43-45. He pointed to Himself as the model, Mark 10:45 / Matthew 20:28 / Matthew 26:28 / John 13:1-17. He hadn’t come to be served, but to serve and to offer Himself as a sacrifice for others, Isaiah 53:10-11 / Daniel 9:24-26 / John 11:51-52 / Romans 5:15 / Romans 5:19 / 1 Timothy 2:5-6 / Titus 2:14 / 1 Peter 1:19. He would lay down His life as a ransom, Exodus 21:30 / Numbers 3:49-51 / Numbers 35:31.

Lane, in his commentary, says the following.

‘The ransom metaphor sums up the purpose for which Jesus gave his life and defines the complete expression of his service. The prevailing notion behind the metaphor is that of deliverance by purchase, whether a prisoner of war, a slave, or a forfeited life is the object to be delivered. Because the idea of equivalence, or substitution, was proper to the concept of a ransom, it became an integral element in the vocabulary of redemption in the Old Testament. It speaks of a liberation which connotes a servitude or an imprisonment from which man cannot free himself.’

If anyone had the right to demand service and lord it over people, it was Jesus Himself but He didn’t exercise that right. He points to Himself as the model of servitude, He hadn’t come to be served, but to serve and to offer Himself as a sacrifice for others, Matthew 20:45 / John 10:17-18. To lead men to redemption, Jesus had to give Himself. He had to ransom Himself for the sake of buying us out of the bondage of sin because we couldn’t do it ourselves. He is the ultimate example of what spiritual leadership looks like, 1 Peter 2:21.

Jesus didn’t say it was wrong to desire to be great in His kingdom, but He did say we have to go about it the right way, with the right attitude. Leaders must lead by following Christ’s example of serving because there are way too many Christians who want to lead but aren’t willing to serve.

True Greatness

We still desperately need these lessons of Jesus. Many, even in religion, are seeking to be great by trying to gain honour, glory and power. Churches are infested with ‘politicians’ who want the limelight and who compete for positions of maximum control and authority. They should be ashamed.

Jesus was born in a stable outside a small town. He lived His life as a village carpenter and itinerant preacher. He accumulated neither riches nor worldly power. Yet today, many of His self-proclaimed followers seek and promise the very things He rejected, as they pursue higher and higher positions in churches. It is hard to imagine that Jesus would feel at home in their costly cathedrals and church buildings.

It is impossible to believe that He would preach the ‘gospels of health and wealth’ which is so popular today. Jesus said the way to true greatness was the road of service and suffering. Jesus said the way to true greatness was the road of service and suffering. As His followers, we must learn how to serve the Lord, we must learn how to serve each other, we must learn how to serve those around us, those who so desperately need to not only hear Jesus in our words but see Jesus in our actions.

Two Blind Men Receive Sight

Before we get into the text there are some people who suggest that the record of the two blind men in Matthew 9:27-31, is somehow related to the recording of the blind man Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46-52 / Matthew 20:29-34 / Luke 18:35-43. However, there is no evidence of this from the Scriptures and it also wouldn’t make any sense. Just because the blind men essentially say the same thing in both passages doesn’t mean they are the same event.

In Matthew 20:29-34, the healing of Bartimaeus takes place as Jesus the King is beginning to make His way to Jerusalem, Matthew 20:17. The Matthew 9:27-31, event took place as Jesus left the home of Jairus after raising the little girl and returned to the place He was staying, Matthew 9:18-26.

If it were the same event, this would imply that Jesus failed to heal these two men and somehow, He would have to heal them again later. Also, it would make no sense for Matthew to record the same blind healing event twice. I believe that these are two different blind men in two different places.

When Did This Happen?

According to Mark 10:46-52, and Matthew 20:29-34, the miracle took place when they were ‘leaving’ Jericho. According to Luke 18:35-43, it appears the miracle took place as the Lord was ‘approaching’ Jericho. At that time, there were two cities named Jericho, the city destroyed by Joshua, Joshua 6:24-26, which was rebuilt and destroyed several times, and one subsequently built a little further west by Herod the Great. The ruins of these are still evident. The curing of the blind men could have taken place after the Lord had passed through the toll of old Jericho and before he entered Herod’s Jericho.

Bible critics point out that the accounts of the healing of the blind men at Jericho as recorded by Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and Luke on the other, reveal ‘an apparent discrepancy’. The verses we should read are Mark 10:46 / Matthew 20:29, and Luke 18:35. This appears to be a very clear contradiction. Is it possible to reconcile the two accounts? Well, I suggest that if we spend a short time looking at Jericho’s history and geography, we shall find it easier to resolve the problem.

Old Jericho

Although this event is one of only two references to Jericho found in the Gospels, we must remember that it was a city that, by that time, had already existed for many centuries. This is a fact firmly established by archaeological research.

The first excavation of the Jericho site was carried out by a team of German archaeologists in the years 1907 to 1909, and their work was followed by an expedition by the British School of Archaeology led by Professor John Garstang, which lasted from 1929 to 1936, and which was followed in 1952 by that of the American archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon. The latest and I believe the last work on what is known as ‘The Garstang Trench’ was done in 1957, after which the political climate in Palestine virtually ended the archaeological work of foreign nationals.

Many Jericho’s

However, the most important result to emerge from this work was the discovery of the earliest stratified levels revealing human occupation, ever found at any archaeological site anywhere in the world. The mound at Ancient Jericho has revealed periods of human occupation down to a level of forty-five feet, and scholars now believe that the top, most evidence of human occupation of the site occurred about 1700 B.C., whilst the lowest remains, found on the bedrock of the trench, are thought to date from 7000 B.C.

Remember, that the current site of ancient Jericho is actually a mound that ‘grew’ through thousands of years. It ‘grew’ simply because when the original settlement built on the bedrock, was abandoned, those who later resettled the site did not clear it but merely built upon it.

In this way, the level of the occupied site was raised, strata upon strata, until it became the mound it is today. The various levels can be clearly seen on the sides of the 45-feet deep trench. This means that Jericho was an ancient Canaanite city long before it was destroyed by Joshua, Joshua 4:24 and there is evidence that, after its destruction by the Israelite army, in the course of its long history, the city was destroyed several times. After the city had been conquered, it was given to the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:21.

Later, during the time of the Judges, it was occupied by the Moabites, led by their King Eglon, at which time it was known as ‘The City of the Palms’, Judges 1:16 / Judges 3:13. Later still, we read in 1 Kings 16:34, that it was ‘rebuilt’ by Hiel of Bethel, in the time of King Ahab. And it was yet again destroyed at the time of the Babylonian Captivity, and later rebuilt once more.

Between The Testaments

It was during the Inter-Testamental Period that Jericho came under Roman control and was governed by a ‘Captain’, ‘Strategos’, in Latin, and during its time under the Romans, the city was given to Cleopatra, by Mark Anthony, and she ‘leased’ it to Herod the Great for two hundred talents.

King Herod then built a new city south of the old one, complete with a castle, an amphitheatre, a hippodrome, and beautiful gardens with various water features, and Jericho became his winter residence. In fact, this is where he died in 4 B.C. This city, known as ‘Herodian Jericho’, later suffered the fate of earlier cities. It was destroyed by the Emperor Vespasian, in 68 A.D. But the important fact is that this city, virtually adjoining the old site, was the city that Jesus knew.

We could continue to follow Jericho’s turbulent history through succeeding centuries, turbulent because it was destroyed and rebuilt several times. Muslims destroyed it in 638 A.D. Egyptian soldiers destroyed it in 1840. In 1871, it was destroyed by fire. And after each destruction, it was rebuilt.

Jesus And Jericho

Although it would be interesting to study this later history, what concerns us at the moment is the fact that the miraculous healing occurred when Jesus was making his way to Jerusalem for the last time, after leaving Galilee in the north, Matthew 19:1.

Jericho was the last halt for pilgrims when they travelled to The City of David from Galilee and Perea. They came by way of Jericho, to avoid passing through Samaria, and Jesus, descending from the north, would first enter and pass through what archaeologists call ‘Canaanite Jericho’ that is our ‘old Jericho’, where the ‘Garstang Trench’ has been excavated, and he would then enter ‘Herodian Jericho’.

In other words, there was a point at which he left the ruins of the ancient city and passed into the modern city built by Herod. When we take into consideration the geographical proximity of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ cities, it is not difficult to reconcile the statements made by the Gospel writers, He was ‘leaving’ Canaanite Jericho and ‘entering’ Herodian Jericho. The Gospel records, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, contain no contradictions when we take into consideration such matters as their geographical and historical setting.

How Many Blind Men Were There?

Matthew mentions that there were two blind men, Matthew 20:30. In Mark’s account of this healing, he mentions only the outspoken blind man of the two who approached Jesus, that is, Bartimaeus, Mark 10:46. Luke records that there was one blind man, Luke 18:35. I have no difficulty accepting that there were as Matthew states, two blind men healed, Matthew 20:30. This is stated so plainly that there can be no argument.

The reason why Mark specifically names just one of them, Bartimaeus, is that he was apparently well-known in the Jericho region. This is suggested by the fact that the Greek text of Mark 10:46, translates quite literally as ‘the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus the blind beggar’. The naming of the father in this way probably indicates that he was a man of some standing in Jericho.

Notice, also, the use of the definite article, ‘the blind beggar’, not ‘a blind beggar’. There would be little point in naming the father and son in this way if they were unknown in the community. This also suggests that the healing of Bartimaeus was given more prominence than that of his blind, anonymous companion because he was a familiar figure in Jericho.

It was quite common for beggars, whether blind or otherwise disabled, to become familiar figures in the towns and cities in which they lived. We have examples of this in John 9:1-41, which records the healing of another blind man, and also in the account of the curing of the lame man, mentioned in Acts 4:22-24, both were clearly very familiar figures. Again, it may even be that Bartimaeus was the more vociferous, more vocal, of the two blind men in clamouring for the attention of Jesus. This seems to be suggested in Mark’s account.

Blind Bartimaeus Receives His Sight

‘Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city, a blind man, Bartimaeus (which means ‘son of Timaeus’), was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Many rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Jesus stopped and said, ‘Call him.’ So, they called to the blind man, ‘Cheer up! On your feet! He’s calling you.’ Throwing his cloak aside, he jumped to his feet and came to Jesus. ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ Jesus asked him. The blind man said, ‘Rabbi, I want to see.’ ‘Go,’ said Jesus, ‘your faith has healed you.’ Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.’ Mark 10:46-52

Blindness

We know that blindness is a horrible disability today but in Bible times it must have been so much worse. There was no way you could work and no benefit system to help you, which meant you had no way to sustain yourself. There was no Braille available. A blind man in Bible times wasn’t permitted to approach the altar or give offerings to the Lord, which meant they could never become priests, Leviticus 21:18-23.

God however, instituted some measures so that the needs of a blind person could be met and ensured that no one would mistreat them or take advantage of them, Deuteronomy 27:18. It’s probable that these two blind men were beggars who looked for help from anyone who passed by.

Coffman, in his commentary, says the following, concerning being blind.

‘From various Old Testament passages, it is clear that blindness is a type of sin, Deuteronomy 28:29 / Isaiah 59:10 / Job 12:25 / Zephaniah 1:17 / Isaiah 29:8 / Ephesians 5:8 / Matthew 15:14. Several examples of Jesus’ restoring sight to the blind are recorded and were prophetically included as a positive mark of the Messiah’s power when he should be revealed. Isaiah said of the Messiah and his times, ‘then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,’ Isaiah 35:5.’

As Jesus and His disciples passed through Jericho, two blind men were begging by the side of the road, Mark specifically names one of them. A blind man named Bartimaeus, whose names means ‘son of Timaeus’, was sitting by the roadside begging, Mark 10:46 / Matthew 20:29-30 / Luke 18:35. When they heard it was Jesus of Nazareth, as opposed to any other Jesus, he begun to shout out, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Mark 10:47 / Matthew 20:30 / Luke 18:36-38.

The crowds tried to silence him, Mark 10:48 / Matthew 20:31 / Luke 18:39, thinking that the Lord should not be bothered with such unimportant people, but he shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Mark 10:47-48 / Matthew 20:31 / Luke 18:39. ‘Son of David’ was a common Jewish term that was used in reference to the Messiah, Luke 1:31-32.

He cried out his belief that Jesus was the Messiah. His outcry would be the work of all disciples after the events of Acts 2. Since Jesus fulfilled all prophecies concerning the Messiah, then He is the Messiah. Their plea would be that Israel accepts Him as the Messiah. On His way to the cross, Jesus received this proclamation of who He was. He was the Prophet, the Seed of the woman who was the fulfilment of all messianic prophecies, Genesis 3:15 / Luke 24:44.

It’s interesting to note that these blind men recognised who Jesus was, but the theologians of Jerusalem who claimed to know the Scriptures couldn’t understand what they clearly saw. They recognised that Jesus was the Son of David, the Messiah, Isaiah 9:7 / Matthew 6:7 / Matthew 6:11 / Matthew 6:20 / Matthew 6:28 / Matthew 6:24 / Revelation 22:16.

Clarke, in his commentary, says the following concerning the words, ‘Son of David.’

‘Son of David was the same as if they had called him Messiah. Two things here are worthy of remark: 1. That it was a generally received opinion at this time in Judea, that the Messiah should be son of David, John 7:42. 2. That Jesus Christ was generally and incontestably acknowledged as coming from this stock, Matthew 12:23.’

Jesus stopped and called for the blind men to come to Him, Mark 10:49 / Matthew 20:32 / Luke 18:40, understandably Bartimaeus was really excited about this as he throws his cloak to the side and runs to Jesus, Mark 10:50. Jesus asks them what they want, and their request was simple, they wanted to be able to see again, Mark 10:51 / Matthew 20:32-33 / Luke 18:41.

Jesus has compassion on them and tells them to go, their faith has healed them, and immediately they received their sight, Mark 10:52 / Matthew 20:34 / Luke 18:42-43. Notice also that they began to follow Him, Mark 10:52 / Matthew 20:34 / Luke 18:43. Few rich men followed the Lord, Mark 10:17-22, but many of the poor and downtrodden did. Its not surprising that the many people who witnessed the miracle praised God, Luke 18:43.

Life Changing

Imagine being transformed from a life of darkness to a life of light, Luke 4:18. Assuming they were blind from birth, imagine these blind men going home and seeing their families or children for the first time. Imagine seeing colour for the first time. Imagine them being eligible to become priests, approaching the altar and giving their offerings to the Lord, Leviticus 21:18-23.

I have a good friend who is physically blind and when I spoke to him about his disability, he said, ‘don’t feel sorry for me because I’m physically blind, feel sorry for those who are spiritually blind’. His words are very true, Jesus often spoke to the religious leaders of His day and called them blind, Matthew 15:14 / John 9:39.

We may not be able to miraculously heal people of blindness today, but we should continue to preach the Gospel to all people whose minds have been blinded by the evil one, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4. Jesus doesn’t want to just heal us of our sin, He wants to transform our lives, Romans 12:2 / 2 Corinthians 3:18 / 2 Corinthians 5:17.

Go To Mark 11