Mark 10 (Lesson 1) - Aaron Cozort - 10-22-2025

In this lesson, Aaron Cozort explores Mark chapter 10, focusing on the topic of divorce and marriage as presented in the Bible. He discusses the context of Jesus' teachings, the Pharisees' questioning, and the implications of Moses' law on marriage. The lesson emphasizes the authority of God in defining marriage and divorce, the cultural influences that distort biblical teachings, and the importance of adhering to God's standards in contemporary discussions about marriage.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction and Context of Mark Chapter 10
02:49 Understanding Divorce in the Context of the Law
05:46 Jesus' Response to the Pharisees
08:56 The Significance of Moses' Law
12:02 The Nature of Marriage and Divorce
15:11 God's Authority in Marriage
18:00 Cultural Influences on Marriage Laws
20:51 The Importance of God's Standards
24:09 Clarifying Misunderstandings of the Law
26:58 The Role of God in Marriage and Divorce
30:01 Final Thoughts on Marriage, Divorce, and Culture

Creators and Guests

Host

Aaron Cozort

What is Admonition Podcast?

The Admonition podcast brings you Bible lessons and sermons from the Collierville Church of Christ with host Aaron Cozort. Each episode focuses on interpreting Scripture in its original context, exploring the background of key passages, events, and teachings. Gain deeper insight into God’s Word as we study together, applying timeless truths to everyday life.

We will be in Mark chapter 10 this evening.

encourage you to take your Bibles and open them to Mark chapter 10.

And we'll begin with a word of prayer and then we'll get into our study.

Gracious Father in heaven, we bow before your throne, grateful for the blessings that you
grant to us.

We're grateful for the times and the seasons and the changes that we experienced
throughout the year and for all of the things that work together for the good that you

produce in them to bring forth life, to bring forth the ability to sustain life on this
planet.

But Lord, more than everything, we are grateful for your Son who came to bring true life,
to bring eternal life, that we might know you, the Father, and that we might be one with

you as you, Father, are with Him and He with us.

Lord, we pray that we might stand before you in holiness and in righteousness, that you
will forgive us when we sin and fall short of your glory.

In all of this, we pray and ask in Jesus' name, amen.

Mark chapter 10 begins, then he arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the
other side of the Jordan.

And multitudes gathered to him again, as he was accustomed, he taught them again.

The Pharisees came and asked him, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife, testing him?

Now in...

Matthew's record of the question that the Pharisees present, I don't believe Matthew
specifically or explicitly states that the question was a test, but it's clear from what

they're asking that this wasn't uh the Pharisees seeking Jesus's knowledge.

This is the Pharisees putting Jesus in the scenario of having to

disagree with somebody.

And so they ask him, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?

Well, if someone came up and asked you that,

What would be the first thought that comes to your mind?

Why are you asking me?

Second thought might follow right on that, whose law?

Right?

According to whose law?

Now, given that these are Jews and they're asking a religious teacher, whose law might we
assume is being discussed here?

Moses's law.

So what did Jesus answer?

He answered and said to them, what did Moses command you?

Jesus, when confronted by a question where it's clear that the intentions were not
justified, that the actions were illegitimate in their asking of the question, Jesus just

asked them in return.

Well, does he say?

They said Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and to dismiss her.

Jesus answered and said to them, because of the hardness of your heart, He wrote you this
precept.

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

They wanted to use what Moses wrote as a great big loophole that you could drive any
accusation through and get permission from the law and Moses to do whatever you wanted to

to your wife by way of putting her away.

What Jesus pointed out is

that their actions in the past were the cause for the instruction to begin with, but that
their standards had fallen from God's standards.

Jesus brings them back to the authority.

True or false?

Moses is the authority in religion.

Even for a Jew.

False.

Whose authority did Moses have?

God's.

So when Jesus establishes God's standard on the matter, then you can assume one of two
things.

You can assume that Moses is in disagreement with God, or you can assume that Moses is in
agreement with God.

Right?

But you only have one option or the other.

Either he's in agreement with God or he's not in agreement with God.

Right?

Okay.

There's a reason why we're going through it this way.

There's a reason why we're talking about it this way and it's because when people get to
the issue of marriage and divorce, they throw all standards of reasoning out the door

to argue for their position, which is the Jews did.

Either Moses agrees with God or Moses doesn't agree with God.

One of two options.

Now, when Moses gave the command to give a writing of divorcement, as he gives there in
Deuteronomy chapter 24, which is what they're referencing, it is already founded upon

God's standard for marriage.

and God's standard of marriage and God's law for marriage not only preceded Moses's giving
of this precept,

but it also was superior to Moses's precept.

and it also happened to be that which was not in disagreement with Moses's precept.

but they had manipulated Moses' precept because they had the same hard-hearted nature that
the Israelites did when Moses gave the precept.

Jesus in answering them, accuses them of mishandling the law.

of doing so in a hard-hearted way, of abusing what God had given them as an opportunity to
resolve a very negative situation.

in a very upright way.

and instead they had turned it into a way to abuse people who had no standing under the
law.

So notice, in Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy chapter 24.

Moses will make it clear that there must be some reason for the divorce.

And furthermore, that there has to be more than just a reason, there has to be an offense
that has occurred that justifies the action.

Deuteronomy chapter 24.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, verse 1, and it happens that she finds no favor
in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, there in verse 1, what does the

word uncleanness mean?

Anybody have a footnote or anything in regards to that word?

Okay?

That's quite an interpretation there.

All right, anybody else?

All right.

So the literal translation of this is nakedness of a thing.

All right?

Literally it means he has seen the awareness or the visibility of a secret action.

Something that had been covered up.

Something that had been hidden.

Okay?

When something's clothed, you can't see what's hidden.

When you see...

The person without the clothes, you see what was hidden.

It was laid bare, naked.

The idea behind the term is he has become aware of an action after having been married
that had been hidden beforehand.

As a result of this, now she finds no favor in his eyes because of what had been hidden.

But now he's aware of it.

Okay, now notice.

If he finds some uncleanness in her and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in
her hand, and sends her out of his house.

When she has departed from his house and goes and becomes another man's wife, if the
latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand,

and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,
then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife.

after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not
bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance." First

thing to ask yourself is, is the law and the precept here about situation one or situation
two?

Because there's two situations, aren't there?

If the law was just about situation one, then what's the discussion about situation two,
therefore?

Situation two was the reason for the loss.

because what Moses was dealing with in this law is someone who was putting away a spouse

And then after some time, taking them back.

As if nothing ever happened.

Moses says, no you don't.

the action that is involved here actually assumes a violation of the marriage covenant so
great that it would be unthinkable that the first husband would then take the wife back.

And yet, here were people doing it.

So there was a law that was made.

There was a precept that was given.

Now, what had the Jews in the first century done?

They had said, well, Moses didn't say why we could put one away so we can put one away for
any cause.

because the precept didn't have anything to do per se with giving the limits on why you
could put a spouse away.

Other than it said clearly there was a justification from it because of an action that was
hidden before the marriage.

There was some action that was hidden that had it been aware

They never would have entered into that marriage.

And yet now that the husband realizes the situation, he's put her away for divorce, or put
her away and given her a writing of divorcement.

Now some time passes by and you go, well, you know what, let's just forget the whole thing
and I'll take you back.

Moses says, no, don't.

because in doing so, you nullified the justification under the law for putting the spouse
away to begin with.

Okay.

Mo, uh, Deuteronomy 24.

Number one, assumes an action by the wife that was justification under the law for writing
of divorcement.

It assumes it.

It already has built within it the precept that this woman has done something under the
law which justified being put away.

And

that the action was hidden from the spouse.

It further necessitates that by this writing or certificate of divorce, all bonds and
separation between them has been nullified.

which means true or false, they're still married.

Once the writing of divorcement has occurred, true or false, they are still married.

No, no.

After the writing of divorcement, according to the law, are they still married?

No.

So can the husband take her back?

No.

Why?

He's not her wife, or she's not his wife.

Okay?

Separation has occurred.

The bonds of marriage are gone.

That man has no right to take her back.

If he does, he's committing an abomination.

He's committing adultery by taking her back as if nothing happened.

If she's put out by somebody else or if her spouse dies, you know, just come on back.

No, no, no, no.

You put an end to that.

You put an end to that relationship.

You can take her back.

All right?

So it's important to realize in Deuteronomy 24, a very specific situation is under
consideration.

Number one, one that assumes already a justification under the law for the divorce.

And number two, that says once that separation occurs under the law, you can't put it back
together.

You can't just act as if it never happened and have that husband take that former spouse
back because that would be an abomination under the law, okay?

Now, go back to Mark chapter 10.

in the question that was asked.

What was the question?

All right, is it lawful for a man to divorce or put away his wife?

Turn to Matthew chapter 19.

Matthew words it slightly differently, though the import is exactly the same.

Matthew chapter nineteen verse three the Pharisees also came to him testing him and saying
to him is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason

the New King James translators add the word just for just any reason.

eh So the import of the question is.

Can a husband put away his wife for whatever reason?

If you were to just take Mark's question, you would have, is there any justification for a
husband to divorce his wife?

Now, think about the question as it's formed and as it's given.

Is it lawful?

When you ask someone,

Do you want cheese on your burger or not?

What are the options that they've supplied you?

Yes or no?

And if you ordered a hot dog, do you think you would look at them and go,

Why did you ask me if I want cheese on my burger or not?

I ordered a hot dog.

This is what happens when someone supplies you with two possible options, a yes or a no.

in order to entrap you into answering a question where they can then accuse you for your
answer.

Jesus did not allow them to do that.

Rather, He required them to stipulate the law.

What did Moses tell you?

Because the moment they start interpreting Moses...

it's quite evident that they're interpreting Moses in a very particular way.

Okay, so notice their reply.

See if you can find this in Deuteronomy 24.

Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and dismiss her.

Did you find that in Deuteronomy 24?

Yeah.

Did they mention anything about the circumstance?

anything about the reason, anything about the qualification in Deuteronomy 24?

Nope, not a thing.

just that what Moses allowed it.

The law says this.

When someone is being dishonest with their question and you provide them more rope to hang
themselves with, you do yourself a great favor because the more you make them explain

their question, the more evident it is that their question is the wrong question.

Jesus corrected the question by going back to the standard that Moses's law already
assumes.

because Moses' law already assumed an action that met a standard.

So Jesus doesn't wanna talk about the law that Moses gave, he wants to talk about the
standard that God gave.

So notice what Jesus does.

Jesus answered and said, because of the hardness of your heart, he wrote you this precept.

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh, so they are no longer two but one flesh." Now, quick

question.

Where did Jesus just quote from?

Genesis.

Who was the penman of the book of Genesis?

They said, Moses allowed it in the law.

Jesus said, Moses recorded what God said.

Now you've got Moses arguing with Moses, not Moses arguing with Jesus.

Jesus goes back to the point that Deuteronomy 24 was never the first word on the subject.

Moses gave supplementary information in Deuteronomy 24, but you must first discuss the
first thing Moses said on the subject.

The first thing Moses said on the subject came out of the garden in Genesis chapters 1 and
2 where God said that I'm going to make them male and female.

and that for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his
wife." Moses' first word on the subject is, a man ought to be so devoted to his wife that

he will leave behind his parents

who gave birth to him, who nurtured him, who brought him into the world, who supplied his
existence and gave him everything that he has and also are the arbiters of inheritance.

He ought to leave them behind to be joined to his wife.

Here they are going, is it lawful to get rid of her?

And here's Moses going, this is how important this is that a man will leave everything
that he has had to this point to be joined to her.

Jesus points out you're talking about the wrong situation.

You're asking the wrong question.

You're dealing with the scenario backwards instead of the correct way.

Then he says, verse eight,

Not only is there significant verbiage from Moses saying, this is what marriage should be,

He then quotes verse eight and says, or quotes from verse eight to say, and the two shall
become one flesh.

Jesus points out...

that the very description of a man divorcing his wife would be like Moses's terminology, a
man cutting himself in half.

You ask the question, is it lawful or according to Moses for a man to cut himself in half?

Sound like a ridiculous question?

Sweet Cousin is.

According to what Moses said, God has taken these two people and He made them one.

Now notice the emphasis of where Jesus takes that to.

So then they are no longer two but one flesh.

Now, did Jesus say anything that Moses hadn't already said?

No!

Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Jesus has left.

The questioners.

No room to argue.

because what he has done is emphasized the standard.

And what they have wanted to do is take the standard and ignore it while creating
opportunity for the loophole.

They have devalued God's command and God's action in the whole thing to assume that
they're the ones, that is the husband and the wife, who have power over the situation.

They get to choose what happens.

Jesus is going to question them as to whether or not they have more power than God.

whether they have more authority than God, whether they have more influence in the
situation than God.

They want the situation to be about them.

He wants the situation to be about what God did.

And Jesus emphasizes to them that what God has joined together, man is incapable.

The idea of let not.

It involves here the incapacity of man to do what God doesn't allow.

There's four questions that I have always valued being taught back when we were in school,
more so four statements, but four statements concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

And they're fundamental where when you think about them, you go, yeah, well, that's kind
of a no-brainer.

But when you realize the force of the statements...

then you get the gist of why the questions are what they are.

True or false?

God.

Sorry, true or false?

Only God joins two people in marriage.

True.

Jesus makes it quite clear, God does the joining.

True or false?

God only joins two people in marriage in accordance with His marriage laws.

Well, yeah, I'm pretty sure God only does it His way.

There's not some law out there where God goes, well, my hands are tied.

Some bureaucrat wrote a law, so I guess I gotta do it their way.

No, God only joins two people in accordance with His marriage laws.

Okay, well if Jesus is implying the impossibility of a person to undo what God's done,

then who has the authority to disjoin two people in marriage?

God.

So, true or false, only God can disjoin two people in divorce.

True or false, God only disjoins people in accordance with His laws for divorce.

True.

You know, when you said those four questions, you've answered almost every single argument
about marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

because all you have to do is, okay, what did he say?

Done.

You've really got to mess something up to get past the question of, well, what did he say?

It's the reason why in a number of debates, one specifically, uh between an individual in
the Brotherhood who held a false position on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and

Brother Garland Elkins, they got up to

to have a debate they agreed upon the propositions.

Guy got up and spent, I don't know, 8, 10, 15 minutes talking and making his argument.

Brother Elkins got up and read Matthew chapter 19 verse 9 and sat out.

And the guy got up kind of fluttled because Brother Elkins had like 15 minutes.

Didn't use him.

He got up and he spoke for another 15 minutes.

Brother Elkins got up, read Matthew 19, sat out.

By this point, the guy was a little put out.

He got up and he spoke again.

And he said, I don't want you to just tell me what Matthew 19, 9 says.

Brother Elkin said, when you've dealt with the first passage, we'll go to the second one.

Because the fact of the matter is, God's laws on marriage, divorce, and remarriage aren't
hard.

They're not difficult.

They're not ambiguous.

Matter of fact.

Verse 10, in the house his disciples also asked him again about the same matter.

So he said to them, whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against
her.

And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Jesus said, here's two people that have been joined by God.

In order for adultery to occur, one party has to be bound to somebody else.

That's the definition of adultery.

When Israel committed adultery, spiritual adultery, by going after idols, had Israel not
been bound to God, it wouldn't have been adultery.

but because Israel was bound to God.

When they went and followed after idols, God says, you've committed adultery.

If this party over here is bound to no one, and this party over here is bound to no one,
can they commit adultery?

They can commit fornication, they can't commit adultery because it's no violation of a
marriage covenant.

And that is part of adultery, is a violation of a marriage covenant.

Well, Jesus has just said that if a husband divorces his wife and marries another, he's
committed adultery against the first wife.

Now how could he have committed adultery against a wife by marrying someone else if in the
act of divorcing her he was no longer married to her?

The answer is he couldn't.

But what Jesus is pointing out is there's man's laws and then there's God's laws.

And God only separates two people in accordance with his laws, not man's laws.

So here's a man who gives his wife a writing of divorce and says, I'm putting you away.

And then that same man goes and marries another.

Jesus says, he's committing adultery.

How do you figure, Jesus?

He gave her a writing of divorcement.

According to the law, she's gone.

The union's been separated.

Jesus said, no, it hasn't.

because God didn't separate them.

God didn't dis- join them.

Well then, that only applies to the men, right?

Because Moses only gave permission for the man to give a writing of divorcement.

So it doesn't apply to the woman, right?

No.

Jesus says, and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Here's a woman who says, you know what, I'm a Roman, and under Roman law, I'm divorced my
wife, or my husband, I'm divorced my husband.

So there you go, I'm gone.

I like that guy, marries him.

He said, nope, she's committing adultery.

Now,

Jesus does not spend the next 24 chapters going through every scenario in every
circumstance.

As a matter of fact, in Mark's record of the text, Jesus gives no exemption.

for the law.

And the law was what God joined together.

Man cannot separate.

And man's laws can't separate it either.

Now, over in Matthew chapter 19...

in Matthew's record of the discussion.

There's one more back and forth.

Verse 7, Matthew 19, they said to him, why then did Moses command to give a certificate of
divorce and to put her away?

He said to them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce
your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and marries
another,

commits adultery.

Now, if you pay close attention to Jesus' comments to the Jews about the law, this begins
way back in Matthew chapter five.

Let's go back and read that real quick just to get the emphasis of it.

In Matthew chapter five.

You read in verse 17, do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets, I did
not come to destroy but to fulfill.

For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot and one tittle will
by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

Then go to verse 21.

You have heard that it was said of old, you shall not murder, but whoever murders will be
in danger of the judgment.

But I say to you.

Then you go down to verse 27,

Verse 33, again you have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not swear
falsely but shall perform your oaths to the Lord, but I say to you.

Verse 38, you have heard that it was said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but
I tell you.

Verse 43, you have heard that it was said, you shall love your neighbor and hate your
enemy, but I say to you.

Jesus had a habit of correcting their understanding of the law and their abuses of the
law.

Their abuses that not only had they participated in, not only had they taught, but they
had turned into their doctrines and traditions from their elders.

over in Matthew chapter 15.

You find verse 3, he answered and said, why do you also transgress the commandment of God
because of your tradition?

For God commanded saying, honor your father and your mother, and he who curses father or
mother, let him be put to death.

But you say, whoever says to his father or mother, whatever profit you might have received
from me, it is a gift to God.

then he need not honor his father or mother.

Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition."

Jesus is pointing out not what the law said when he says you've heard of old, you have
heard that it was said, but rather how they have abused what the law said.

And when he says, I say unto you, what he's telling them is what they should have known
from what the law said.

Every time Jesus does that,

He's correcting their understanding of the law.

He's correcting them on what they should have been teaching instead of what they actually
taught.

So now go back to Matthew chapter 19.

He says, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your
wives, but from the beginning it was not so, and I say to you,

Whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits
adultery.

And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

Jesus said, here's what you should have known from what the law taught you.

that the committing of fornication was the only standard the law recognized for God
separating a husband and wife.

And there was no other standard.

There's only one.

And there had only ever been one.

Moses simply told them how to do what God allowed them to do based upon infidelity.

He said, you got to give her a legal document.

You can't just say, be gone.

You have to give her a legal writing of divorce.

but by the way, when you divorce that wife who's committed fornication against you, and
then she goes and marries someone else, which by the way, Jesus said, the law also

recognized that as adultery.

Now that she's committed adultery twice, you can't take her back.

No, God separated you and he's not rejoining you.

That would be an abomination.

You don't clean up a marriage by having an adulterous relationship.

That's not how it works.

And so when you find Mark's record, as we close, this whole scenario comes out of...

They wanted to entrap Jesus.

One of the most important lessons we need to get from this doesn't have anything
significantly to do with marriage, divorce, or remarriage.

It has to do with this.

Culture never has and never will dictate the laws of God.

not Jewish culture, not Jewish tradition, not a thousand years of traditions from the
elders, not the writing of volumes by rabbis for generations, and not the way people have

always done it.

None of that changes the law of God.

Jesus wiped every argument from everything that occurred from the time of Jesus to the
time of Moses away by saying, what did God say?

And now all the other equivocations, all the other quibbles, all the other statements
about, wait a minute, you know, in Africa, Jesus said, don't care.

But in this, don't care.

Well, but what about not interested?

What'd God say?

Because it's the only question that matters.

Why is it the only question that matters?

Because He's the only one who binds two people in marriage.

the disservice that individuals do, especially those within the body of Christ when they
ignore God's law on marriage, divorce and remarriage.

is that they have now opened an entire loophole for every other abomination the world
wants to commit in regards to marriage.

Because if you can't argue for God's standard for marriage for a man and a woman, you
certainly can't argue for it for a man and a man.

Or a woman and a woman.

Or a human and a dog.

Because once you get rid of the standard, you don't have anything else to argue.

The fact of the matter is, according to the Scriptures, there's only one individual who
joins two people in marriage.

It's God.

And there's also only one individual who disjoins them in divorce, and it's God.

If you toss that out, you don't have anything left, except whatever culture decides.

And that changes...

almost weekly.

So, thank you for your attention.