Why Were the Pharisees Really Asking About Divorce?

Last week, we began where Jesus began: with creation. When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about divorce, He pointed them back to Genesis—to male and female, covenant faithfulness, one flesh, and the declaration that God Himself joins husband and wife together.

Jesus did not begin with broken marriages. He began with God’s good design for marriage. But that raises another question:

Why were the Pharisees really asking about divorce?

Mark tells us plainly that their question was not innocent.

“Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’”—Mark 10:2

They were not simply looking for pastoral wisdom. They were testing Jesus, attempting to draw Him into a controversial religious debate—and perhaps into a dangerous political confrontation. To hear Jesus clearly, we need to understand the conversation into which He was speaking.

A Question with an Agenda

At first, the Pharisees’ question sounds straightforward:

“Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

But divorce was already practiced and regulated within Jewish society. The existence of divorce was not really in dispute. The larger debate concerned the acceptable grounds for divorce.

The Pharisees were essentially asking:

“Under what circumstances may a man dismiss his wife?”

That wording reveals something important about the world behind the question. This was not a discussion between two equal partners about the painful breakdown of their marriage. It was primarily a conversation about a husband’s legal right to send his wife away.

The question was framed around male permission. What may a man do? How much dissatisfaction is enough? When is he justified in ending the marriage?

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to enter that debate and declare which grounds He considered acceptable. Jesus refused to remain within the boundaries they had established.

The Political Danger Behind the Question

Mark says this conversation took place as Jesus entered the region of Judea and “beyond the Jordan” (Mark 10:1). That location may be significant. This was territory associated with Herod Antipas—the ruler who had imprisoned and executed John the Baptist. John had publicly challenged Herod’s marriage to Herodias, who had previously been married to Herod’s brother.

John had said:

“It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”—Mark 6:18

That confrontation cost John his life.

Now Jesus enters the region, and the Pharisees ask Him publicly:

“What do You think about divorce?”

Their question may have been more than an attempt to trap Jesus in a theological disagreement. They may have been inviting Him to make the same kind of politically dangerous statement that had led to John’s death. (Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, pp. 164–167.)

In effect, they may have been asking:

“Jesus, are You willing to say here what John said?”

The question sounds academic. The setting makes it potentially deadly.

What Did Moses Actually Say?

Jesus responds by asking:

“What did Moses command you?”—Mark 10:3

They answer:

“Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.”—Mark 10:4

Notice the difference. Jesus asks what Moses commanded. They answer with what Moses allowed. They are referring to Deuteronomy 24:1–4. But that passage is often misunderstood.

Deuteronomy 24 does not command divorce. It does not institute divorce as a good practice. It does not provide a comprehensive list of circumstances under which divorce should occur. It assumes that a husband has divorced his wife, that she has married another man, and that the second marriage has also ended. The primary command is that the first husband may not then reclaim her.

In other words, the passage is regulating an already-broken situation. It is not presenting divorce as God’s design.

A regulation for brokenness is not the same thing as a blueprint for wholeness.

Deuteronomy 24 is damage control in a fallen world. Genesis 1 and 2 remain the design.

The Debate over “Some Indecency”

Deuteronomy 24 says that a husband might divorce his wife because he had found “some indecency” in her. That phrase became the center of significant debate.

Jewish traditions associated with the school of Shammai interpreted the grounds more narrowly, generally connecting them to serious sexual misconduct. Traditions associated with the school of Hillel interpreted the language much more broadly. Almost anything that caused a wife to lose favor in her husband’s eyes could potentially be treated as grounds for divorce.

Later Jewish discussions included examples ranging from a wife ruining a meal to a husband finding another woman more attractive (Mishnah Gittin 9:10). The argument was not mainly over whether marriage was a sacred covenant. It was over how much displeasure was sufficient for a man to end it. One school asked for serious grounds. Another offered something closer to divorce for almost any cause.

The Pharisees wanted Jesus to take a side. Was He stricter? Was He more permissive? Where did He draw the line? But Jesus recognized that the debate itself was already beginning in the wrong place.

Who Held the Power?

In ancient Jewish society, divorce was generally initiated by the husband. A man could send his wife away. A wife did not possess the same legal power to divorce her husband.

That meant the consequences of easy divorce fell especially heavily upon women.

A divorced woman could lose:

• her home,

• her financial security,

• her social standing,

• and the protection of her household.

This does not mean women never acted wrongly or that every husband who sought a divorce had identical motives. It does mean that divorce operated within a system where men generally possessed far more legal and social power.

A discussion about divorce could therefore become a discussion about the extent to which a man was permitted to treat his wife as disposable. That is part of what makes Jesus’ response so significant. He does not merely tighten the rules. He confronts the heart and the unequal use of power behind the question.

Why the Certificate Mattered

Although Deuteronomy’s regulation did not eliminate the injustice of the system, the certificate of divorce provided the dismissed wife with some protection.

It served as legal evidence that:

• the marriage had ended,

• she was free from her former husband,

• and she could marry again without being accused of adultery.

  
  

It also prevented the former husband from continuing to treat her as though she still belonged to him. The certificate restrained his power (Elwell and Beitzel, “Divorce” and “Divorce, Certificate of,” pp. 635–637). But the existence of proper paperwork did not necessarily make his actions faithful. That is one of the central truths Jesus exposes.

A certificate could make the divorce legal; it could not make a hard heart faithful.

A person could follow the required procedure while still treating a covenant partner cruelly. The Pharisees focused on the document. Jesus focused on the heart.

The Real Problem: Hardness of Heart

Jesus tells them:

“Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.”—Mark 10:5

“Hardness of heart” is more than ordinary stubbornness. Throughout Scripture, a hard heart is resistant to God. It refuses His authority, resists repentance, and protects its own desires at the expense of covenant faithfulness.

A hard heart asks:

• What am I allowed to do?

• What can I get away with?

• How can I justify what I already want?

• What is the minimum obedience required of me?

• How can I use the law to protect myself without loving the person in front of me?

The legal act of divorce may happen at the end of a marriage’s breakdown, but covenant-breaking often begins much earlier.

It begins when:

• selfishness replaces service,

• contempt replaces honor,

• secrecy replaces honesty,

• control replaces love,

• betrayal replaces faithfulness,

• or another person is treated as disposable.

This does not mean that every divorce is equally caused by both spouses. Some people have been betrayed. Some have been abandoned. Some have experienced abuse, coercion, or danger. Some fought for a marriage the other person had already rejected.

Jesus is not flattening every painful story into the same category. He is exposing the fallen condition that makes covenant destruction possible at all. The paperwork may officially end a covenant, but covenant-breaking often begins much earlier in the heart.

The Prophets Had Already Seen the Problem

Jesus’ teaching did not appear out of nowhere. The Old Testament prophets regularly used marriage to describe God’s covenant relationship with His people. Jeremiah 3 describes Israel’s idolatry as marital unfaithfulness. God’s people had abandoned Him and pursued other gods, violating the covenant while still wanting the benefits of belonging to Him.

Malachi 2 confronts men who were dealing treacherously with “the wife of your youth.” They continued participating in worship while betraying their marriage covenants. The issue was not merely the existence of legal divorce. It was faithlessness.

They were treating covenant partners as disposable while assuming their religious practices remained acceptable to God. The prophets refused to separate worship from the way people treated their spouses. Jesus does the same. God is not impressed by religious arguments used to excuse covenant treachery.

Jesus Refuses Their Terms

The Pharisees want to remain in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus takes them back to Genesis.

“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’”—Mark 10:6

They ask about the minimum grounds for ending a marriage. Jesus speaks about the Creator’s purpose in establishing marriage. They ask what a man may legally do to his wife. Jesus speaks about what God has done in joining husband and wife together.

They ask where permission can be found. Jesus asks whether their hearts reflect the faithfulness of God. This does not mean Jesus was dismissing the law of Moses. He was placing the law within the larger story of Scripture.

Creation reveals God’s design.

The fall explains the damage.

Moses regulates the damage.

The prophets confront covenant betrayal.

Jesus calls His people back to God’s heart.

The law restrained the effects of human hardness.

It never declared hardness good.

More Than a Stricter Rule

It would be easy to read Jesus as simply taking the strictest position in the debate.

But He is doing more than that. Jesus is not merely saying:

“Your grounds for divorce are too broad.”

He is asking:

“Why are you looking for grounds to discard the person God called you to love faithfully?”

He moves the conversation from loopholes to love. From permission to purpose. From male privilege to covenant responsibility. From paperwork to the heart. The Pharisees asked how a marriage could be ended. Jesus asked why people had become willing to tear apart what God had joined.

A Word to Those Carrying Pain

Whenever the church discusses divorce, real people and real wounds are present. Some hear these words after decades of faithful marriage. Others hear them while grieving a marriage that ended. Some live with regret over decisions they made. Others carry wounds caused by someone else’s betrayal. Some have been forced to make difficult decisions in response to abandonment, abuse, or unrepentant unfaithfulness.

Jesus’ words must never be used by hard-hearted people as a weapon against the wounded.

His teaching confronts those who use power selfishly, manipulate Scripture, or treat covenant partners as disposable. Jesus is not defending appearances at all costs.

He is defending covenant faithfulness, the dignity of vulnerable people, and the good design of God.

There are still important questions to explore.

What about sexual immorality?

What about abandonment?

What does Paul mean when he says a believer is “not bound”?

Does a biblically legitimate divorce permit remarriage?

Why do Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul address the subject in somewhat different ways?

Those questions deserve careful attention, and we will turn to them next. For now, Mark 10 asks us to sit with Jesus’ response to the Pharisees. They came looking for a line. Jesus exposed their hearts. They came asking what Moses allowed. Jesus reminded them what God intended. They came wanting permission to send someone away.

Jesus called them back to covenant faithfulness.

The Question Beneath the Question

The Pharisees asked:

“Is it lawful?”

Jesus answered a deeper question:

“What does faithfulness to God look like?”

That question reaches far beyond divorce. Where do we look for loopholes rather than transformation? Where do we settle for what is technically permissible instead of pursuing what is loving, faithful, and good? Where do we use rules to justify the desires of a hard heart?

Jesus does not simply give us stricter regulations. He calls us back to the heart of God. And the heart of God is faithful.

Reflection Questions

• How can something be legally permissible while still being morally unfaithful?

• Why did Jesus respond to Deuteronomy 24 by returning to Genesis 1 and 2?

• Where are you tempted to ask, “What am I allowed to do?” instead of, “What does faithfulness require?”

• How should Jesus’ concern for vulnerable spouses shape the way churches discuss divorce?

Next in the Series:

What Does the New Testament Teach About Divorce and Remarriage?

We will look at the exception recorded in Matthew, Jesus’ words in Mark and Luke, Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7, and why faithful Christians have reached different conclusions about divorce and remarriage. Spoiler alert - they have.

Citations & Source Material

• The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Biblical passages considered include Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Deuteronomy 24:1–4; Jeremiah 3:1–10; Malachi 2:10–16; Matthew 5:31–32; 19:3–9; Mark 6:14–29; and Mark 10:1–12.

• 
  

• BibleProject Scholarship Team. “Divorce in the Bible: How Jesus Responded to the Debate.” BibleProject, April 29, 2024. This article was especially helpful for understanding the debate over the wording of Deuteronomy 24:1, the positions associated with Shammai, Hillel, and Rabbi Akiva, and the distinction between regulating divorce and presenting it as God’s ideal.

• 
  

• Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011, especially pp. 164–167. Hurtado’s commentary was especially helpful regarding the political setting involving Herod Antipas and John the Baptist, the legal vulnerability of divorced women, the purpose of the divorce certificate, and Jesus’ language about adultery being committed “against” the wife.

• 
  

• Watts, Rikk E. “Mark.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Nottingham, UK: Apollos, 2007, especially pp. 196–202. Watts was especially helpful regarding Jesus’ use of Genesis and Deuteronomy, hardness of heart as covenant resistance, and the relationship between Mosaic regulation and God’s creation intention.

• 
  

• Elwell, Walter A., and Barry J. Beitzel. “Divorce” and “Divorce, Certificate of.” In Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988, pp. 635–637. These entries were helpful for understanding divorce as a post-Fall practice, the protective function of the certificate of divorce, and the social and legal vulnerability of women in ancient Israel. The encyclopedia was published by Baker Book House in 1988.

• 
  

• Mishnah Gittin 9:10. This later Jewish text preserves the well-known dispute attributed to the schools of Shammai and Hillel and to Rabbi Akiva concerning permissible grounds for divorce. It includes the examples of sexual misconduct, spoiling a meal, and finding another woman more attractive.