Mark 10:12

Verse 12. And if a woman shall put away her husband] From this it appears that in some cases, the wife assumed the very same right of divorcing her husband that the husband had of divorcing his wife; and yet this is not recorded any where in the Jewish laws, as far as I can find, that the women had such a right. Indeed, were the law which gives the permission all on one side, it would be unjust and oppressive; but where it is equally balanced, the right being the same on each side, it must serve as a mutual check, and prevent those evils it is intended to cure. Among the Jews there are several instances of the women having taken other men, even during the life of their own husbands. Nor do we find any law by which they were punished. Divorce never should be permitted but on this ground-"The parties are miserable together, and they are both perfectly willing to be separated." Then, if every thing else be proper, let them go different ways, that they may not ruin both themselves and their hapless offspring.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(12) And if a woman shall put away.—This also is peculiar to St. Mark, and it is noticeable, as being the only passage in our Lord’s teaching which distinctly states the case referred to, and passes sentence on the wife who divorces her husband and marries again, as well as on the husband who divorces his wife, and the wife who is so divorced. All three cases are dealt with on the same grounds: (1) that the marriage relationship ought to be indissoluble, and that one cause only justifies or permits its dissolution; and (2) that any further permission of divorce is but a concession to the hardness of men’s hearts for the avoidance of greater evils.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they brought young children to him,.... The parents, or friends, or nurses of the children in those parts, having heard of the fame of Jesus; and having entertained an high opinion of him, as a great prophet, and a holy, good man, brought their children in their arms, or hands,

that he should touch them; as he did when he healed diseased persons, as these might be, though not expressed:

and his disciples rebuked those that brought them; See Gill on Mat 19:13.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Ver. 12. And if a woman have put away] No such thing was permitted by Moses, but usurped by the women of those licentious times. Among Turks the woman may sue a divorce; but only then when her husband would abuse her against nature. (Blount’s Voyage.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

§ 103. — JESUS HAVING LEFT GALILEE, IN PEREA, DISCUSSES THE LAW OF MARRIAGE.

(See notes on Mat_19:1-12.)

12. If a woman — By the Mosaic law the woman seems to have had no legal right to divorce her husband. Yet several instances appear in Jewish history, of a woman’s abandoning her husband and marrying another during the first husband’s life; nor does there seem to have been any law to punish such wickedness. Jesus virtually puts both sexes on a level in the Christian dispensation. Neither has a right to divorce for other cause than unchasteness, and neither, so divorced, has a right to marry again.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This verse should be read thus: And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery kai ea apolusasa tosh allon moicatai ..

This reading is well supported. These words indicate that, according to our blessed Lord"s teaching, wives and husbands have equal rights in reference to divorce; and so the Greek, according to the best authorities, is (gamhsh ) "shall marry," not (gamhyh) "shall be married." Josephus, however, makes it evident that in his time husband and wife had by no means equal rights in these matters ("Antiq." 15:7, 10).

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. If a woman shall put away her husband. This was allowed by the Greek and Roman law (1 Cor. 7:13), but not by the Jewish. Christ applies his principles to either sex on the same footing.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

12. αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τ. ἄνδρα αὐτῆς ([2187][2188][2189][2190][2191]) rather than γυνὴ ἀπολύσῃ τ. ἄν. αὐτῆς καί ([2192][2193][2194][2195][2196]).

[2187] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2188] Codex Vaticanus. 4th cent., but perhaps a little later than א. In the Vatican Library almost since its foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest treasures. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1889.

[2189] Codex Ephraemi. 5th cent. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out, and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it; but a great deal of the original writing has been recovered; of Mark we have Mar 1:17 to Mar 6:31, Mar 8:5 to Mar 12:29, Mar 13:19 to Mar 16:20. In the National Library at Paris.

[2190] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[2191] Codex Sangallensis. 9th or 10th cent. Contains the Gospels nearly complete, with an interlinear Latin translation. The text of Mark is specially good, agreeing often with CL. At St Gall.

[2192] Codex Alexandrinus. 5th cent. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to King Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel. Photographic facsimile, 1879.

[2193] Codex Purpureus. 6th cent. Full text in Texts and Studies v. No. 4, 1899. Contains Mar 5:20 to Mar 7:4; Mar 7:20 to Mar 8:32; Mar 9:1 to Mar 10:43; Mar 11:7 to Mar 12:19; Mar 14:25 to Mar 15:23; Mar 15:33-42. See below on Ψ.

[2194] Codex Monacensis. 10th cent. Contains Mar 6:47 to Mar 16:20. Many verses in 14, 15, 16 are defective.

[2195] Codex Oxoniensis. 9th cent. Contains Mark, except Mar 3:35 to Mar 6:20.

[2196] Codex Petropolitanus. 9th cent. Gospels almost complete. Mar 16:18-20 is in a later hand.

12. This is probably added in order to make it quite clear that in this matter the sexes are equal; neither partner can dissolve the marriage. Jewish law made no provision for a wife to divorce her husband (Joseph. Ant. XV. vii. 10); so Mt. omits this verse and substitutes, if the words are genuine ([2426][2427][2428] etc. omit), “And he that marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery.” Probably to avoid this difficulty [2429] and some other authorities have here “If a woman depart from her husband and marry another.” It is rash to see here an accommodation to Roman marriage-law, and therefore evidence of the Roman origin of this Gospel. We need not doubt that Christ uttered the words; but if He did not, love of parallelism would sufficiently account for their being attributed to Him. There may be allusion to Herodias who had deserted her first husband just as Antipas had deserted his first wife.

[2426] Codex Sinaiticus. 4th cent. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the Monastery of St Katharine on Mount Sinai. Now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel, ending at Mar 16:8. Photographic facsimile, 1911.

[2427] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mar 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

[2428] Codex Regius. 8th cent. An important witness. At Paris. Contains Mar 1:1 to Mar 10:15; Mar 10:30 to Mar 15:1; Mar 15:20 to Mar 16:20, but the shorter ending is inserted between Mar 16:8 and Mar 16:9, showing that the scribe preferred it to the longer one.

[2429] Codex Bezae. 6th cent. Has a Latin translation (d) side by side with the Greek text, and the two do not quite always agree. Presented by Beza to the University Library of Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its frequent divergences from other texts. Contains Mark, except Mar 16:15-20, which has been added by a later hand. Photographic facsimile, 1899.

Neither Mk nor Lk. (Luk 16:18) represents Christ as having made any exception to this prohibition of divorce. Mt. twice inserts an exception, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας (Mat 5:32) and εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (Mat 19:9); an unfaithful wife has ruptured the marriage tie and may, or must, be divorced. It is doubtful whether Christ did make this exception. Mt. may have had independent authority for it; but it is at least as probable that he inserted it, because he felt sure that Christ would not prohibit what the Law allowed, and what perhaps the Church of Jerusalem allowed. These are possibilities. What is certain is that this exception is attributed to Christ in the Gospel which more than any other has influenced Christian thought and practice in this and other matters; and Christians who divorce an unfaithful wife and marry again can claim Scriptural authority for so doing. That Christ made the exception in accordance with Jewish practice, and that Mk and Lk., writing for Gentiles, omitted the exception as being Jewish, is an intelligible theory, but it is not probable. It is safer to point out that in no Gospel does Christ censure Moses for regulating divorce (and thereby sanctioning it) in a defective state of society. The inference is that in similar conditions of society a similar concession may be made. See Hastings’ D.B. and D.C.G. artt. “Divorce” and “Marriage”; also Allen on Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12.] This verse corresponds to ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται in Matt. ver. 9—but it is expressed as if the woman were the active party, and put away her husband, which was allowed by Greek and Roman law (see 1Co 7:13), but not by Jewish (see Deu 24:1: Jos. Antt. xv.7.10). This alteration in the verbal expression may have originated in the source whence Mark’s report was drawn. On μοιχᾶται, Grotius remarks, ‘Mulier, cum domina sui non sit, si, marito relicto, ad aliud matrimonium se conferat, omnino adulterium committit, non interpretatione aliqua, aut per consequentiam, sed directe: ideo non debuit hic addi, ἐπʼ αὐτόν.’

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

12. κ. ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τ. ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμὴσῃ ἄλλον—and if she, having put away her husband, marries another. Under the Jewish law, the wife could not put away her husband, and while Jesus goes outside of Jewish law and develops general principles in his teaching, he does not travel outside of Jewish custom in finding the occasion of that teaching. This is one of the things that point to the Gentile surroundings and destination of this Gospel. Though evidently written by a Jew, it grew up in Gentile soil, and there this appendix to Jesus’ own teaching became perfectly natural. The exception to this prohibition of divorce—except for the cause of adultery—stated in Mat 19:9 is really implied in our Lord’s statement of principles as recounted in our Gospel, because adultery is the real dissolution of the marriage tie, as distinguished from the formal divorce. Precisely as divorce does not break the marriage tie, adultery does break it. But the statement is not full and clear without this, and in this respect the account of Mt. is to be followed.

αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα, instead of γυνή ἀπολύσῃ … καὶ, a woman puts away … and, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCL Δ Memph. γαμήσῃ ἄλλον, instead of γαμηθῇ ἄλλῳ, is married to another, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC* DL Δ 1, 13, 28, 69, 124, 346, Latt. Memph.

LITTLE CHILDREN BLESSED

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.