Family Values - Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 19B (Mark 10)
2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
13 People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. 14 But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. 15 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.
*******
There is a lot of talk these days about family values. But what is a family? What does it look like in real life? We are seeing traditional definitions challenged and defended. When the Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage it simply added another layer to a discussion that has been going on for several decades. Perhaps it is the legacy of the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s (yes, the age of the Baby Boomers---at least the early cohort) and the advent of the "pill" in the 1950s, but sex is no longer equated simply with procreation. Therefore, marriage has taken on a much broader definition than in earlier decades. In fact, children may be part of marriage, but they needn’t go together. In fact, you can have two moms or two dads and it seems to work just fine!
Now, back in the day couples often stayed together “because of the children.” That view no longer holds true, so couples may deem it wiser to separate for the sake of both the couple and the children. The legal system has made divorce both easier and more palatable. Couples may enter marriage making sure that their economic interests are protected through pre-nuptial agreements, especially if this is a second marriage. In other words, people are going into the relationship assuming that things could go wrong, and interests need to be protected. Indeed, many people have concluded that the idea that marriage is a life-long covenant relationship is simply unrealistic. It's likely that since marriage is often delayed---if it is entered into---until the late twenties and even into one’s thirties, young adults will likely have entered into several intimate partnerships prior to marriage. If they have fallen in and out of love several times, why would this end with marriage? It’s not that marriage is entered into for convenience's sake, it’s just that everything has its time and place.
The world of the Bible is much different from our own. The cultural expectations and rules are different from our own. So, what read here in the Bile will reflect that time and place. The words we read there scripture are as culturally rooted as our own perspectives today. Ironically, when we speak of “biblical marriage,” there is a tendency to baptize relatively modern institutions that bear little resemblance to first-century realities. So, how do we bring the two into the conversation?
One of the assumptions that many bring to the conversation when speaking of family values and marriage is that marriage has been and always should be between one man and one woman. We may acknowledge that polygamy is present in the bible (consider David and Solomon), but doesn’t Genesis say that God created man and woman and put them together? Others, myself included, are willing to expand the definition and include the union of two women or two men in a monogamous lifetime partnership of equals to fit the overall scheme. Thus, whatever the gender of the partners, what God has put together, let no one put asunder! Covenants made with the blessing of God should not end, at least not in this life. For more on the question of "biblical marriage" see my book Marriage in Interesting Times, Energion, 2016).
So, what about divorce? What does the Bible say? What does Jesus say? Here in the Gospel of Mark, we read that a group of Pharisees come to Jesus and ask for his take on this question. Inquiring minds want to know: Is it appropriate to divorce one’s wife? It’s important to note here that the question doesn’t suggest that a woman can seek a divorce, only the man. The question that gets posed to Jesus needs to be understood within the context of his own day. Divorces were undertaken then as now. It’s nothing new. The question here concerns the basis on which a divorce can be instigated. In the first century, at least by the time that Mark is writing this gospel, there were at least two basic systems of thought on the topic within Judaism. These were interpretations of the biblical text, which Jesus acknowledges. Yes, Moses did provide for divorce, the reason being the hardness of the heart of the people. Sometimes relationships just don’t work out the way we’d hoped! So, because of their hardness of heart, Moses offers a solution (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), so the solution is biblical. However, Jesus isn’t satisfied with this ruling. Yes, sometimes hardness of heart requires mercy, but we need to attend to the root issues, don’t we?
So, how should we interpret the provision of a process of divorce, which a man could enter into? It does appear that the Pharisees wanted to know which school of rabbinic thought Jesus followed. In the first century, there were essentially two schools of rabbinic teaching—that of Shammai and that of Hillel. Shammai was more restrictive and Hillel more lenient. So where did Jesus land? Did he follow Shammai who permitted divorce only in cases of sexual infidelity? Or did he side with Hillel, who offered a broader range of reasons for divorce? Remember that at the time men could divorce their spouses, but women couldn’t respond in kind. Thus, according to Hillel a husband could divorce his wife if she couldn’t bear a child (if carrying on the family lineage is important, then if your wife can’t produce the heir then perhaps another could). Not only that but she could be divorced if she violated religious duties or failed to perform household tasks. Power, it appears, was truly in the hands of the husband. So, which version would you choose? Hillel is lenient, but his rules might not work out well for wives (and perhaps children as well). Or Shammai, who only gave one possibility, and again it benefited the husband not the wife.
At least in Mark 10, Jesus doesn’t choose either of these trajectories. Instead, he goes far beyond what is envisioned by Shammai. According to Jesus, not even infidelity (on the part of the woman) is grounds for divorce. Although Matthew will provide an exception clause (Matthew 19:1-9), Mark has none. In Mark’s apocalyptic world view, divorce is a mark of the old realm. If you’re a follower of Jesus you should be living in the new realm of God. In that realm divorce is impermissible. Ron Allen and Clark Williamson bring this element of the story to light, which we may miss since we probably do not bring the same apocalyptic world view to the question. They note that Mark’s Jesus sets aside the allowance for divorce found in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, and takes us back to the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2. They write:
Mark operates out of the apocalyptic worldview that the end-times (the realm of God) will be like the beginning time (existence as it was at the time of creation, in Eden). In the prefall world, divorce was not necessary because relationships manifested fully the characteristics that God intended. [Preaching the Gospels without Blaming the Jews, p. 156]
This is surely a difficult word. It honors the covenant, but it places a heavy burden on the couple. What if the relationship is deeply flawed? Is there no way out? At least here in Mark, it appears that even after divorce the couple remains married --- for to remarry is to commit adultery. This leads Allen and Williamson to conclude that Judaism might have been wiser here than Mark’s Jesus. The apocalyptic worldview failed to deliver. Life may require a lot more grace than Mark is able to deliver.
Williamson and Allen offer a word of wisdom that might help us deal with the sting of this passage (especially for those who have, for whatever reason, experienced divorce).
To be sure, divorce should never be simply a matter of convenience, and the dissolution of a once promising relationship that is beyond repair is cause for regret. Nonetheless, in the present world, people cannot always soften their hearts to learn to live together. Divorce may offer them renewed life. Fortunately, most Christian communities today live in this latter way (Preaching the Gospels, p. 156].
Grace is sufficient, even in matters such as this. That is true even if Mark’s Jesus isn’t as comforting as we would like!
As one who embraces the promise of a life-long covenant vision of marriage (should it be entered into), I recognize as well that we don’t yet live completely in the realm of God. We are broken people, living among broken people. Mark’s Jesus might be just a bit too demanding. A bit more mercy would be helpful. (See chapter 9 of Marriage in Interesting Times for more on this question).
As the reading from Mark 10 comes to a close we return to the little ones—to the children. When the people brought their children to Jesus, he blessed them. Of course, Jesus had to rebuke his disciples, who were operating as if they were his handlers. In their eyes, Jesus was too busy to be bothered with children. This is the third time that Jesus makes note of the children/little ones. Jesus' message is that the children are to be welcomed. Pope Francis seems to have gotten the message. A picture went viral of a young girl with Down's Syndrome, went up and sat in the papal throne while he spoke. Francis didn't sho her away. Instead, he held her hand as he spoke. So, the word of Jesus to us: Do not cause the children to stumble or prevent them from coming to Jesus to be blessed by him. Could it be that Jesus remains concerned about both women and children, the persons who were the most vulnerable in the ancient world since they stood at the bottom of the social ladder? To them belongs the realm of God! Could that be real "family values"?
Image attribution: Family, from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=54830 [retrieved September 27, 2021]. Original source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vitrail_Chartres_210209_12.jpg.
Comments