What are Today’s Family Values? —Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 20B (Mark 10:2-16)
Mark 10:2-16 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition
2 Some, testing him, 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 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 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.
**************************
In recent years we’ve heard much talk about family values. Often the people
talking about family values offer a rather narrow understanding of what family
looks like. We often hear about biblical teaching on marriage and family, but
too often proponents of biblical family values offer us something that looks a
lot like a 1950s nuclear family (and a white family at that). The truth is, the
way we envision family changes with each generation. It is affected by all
kinds of external forces and personal choices and realities. If we use 1950s
suburban values as our guide, the father would go to work, while the mother
stayed home and raised the family. As the TV show suggested Father Knox
Best. Things were never quite that black and white even in the 1950s.
Families have since the beginning of time taken on various forms depending on
the context. In our current context, while some resist, families are taking on
all kinds of different forms. We are seeing growing numbers of blended
families. There are more and more multi-ethnic and multi-religious families.
With the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, another layer
was added to the conversation. Some will point to the “sexual revolution” of
the 1960s (the age of the Baby Boomers—at least the early cohort) and the
advent of the "pill" in the 1950s, as the key to many of the changes
in our society. Thus, sex is no longer primarily related to procreation. You
can be a family and not have children. You might have two moms or two dads, and
behold, it all works out.
At the
same time—and this is nothing new—we live in a broken world where
relationships, even under the best of circumstances, can experience brokenness.
That is true of marriage. Divorce has always been part of the human experience.
We see rules laid out in ancient documents and legal codes, including the
Bible. In the ancient world, patriarchy was the guiding principle, such that
the rules generally favored the man (husband). For women, there was little
opportunity to leave a marriage, even one that was abusive. Things have changed
in recent decades, though there are forces that would like to reverse the
trends. Couples are less likely to stay together “because of the
children.” When it comes to children,
modern parents tend to be much more attentive and attached than was true in the
first century. When it comes to divorce, the legal system has made it both
easier to achieve and often more palatable. Couples may enter marriage with a
bit of realism, so they may choose to make sure that their economic interests
are protected through pre-nuptial agreements. This is especially true if this
is a second marriage. In other words, people are going into the relationship
assuming that things might go wrong, so they make sure their interests are
protected. Even if couples use traditional wording in their marriage vows, they
may assume that the idea that marriage is a life-long covenant relationship is
simply unrealistic. Of course, marriage today takes place much later than
before, and probably after a couple has lived together for some time before
getting married. They may wait until they decide to have children before
getting married. Both partners may have fallen in and out of love several
times, and that might occur sometime in the future. Yes, things are different
today than they were fifty years ago and two thousand years ago. We haven’t said
anything yet about children.
Our
reading from Mark 10:2-16 includes a discussion of Jesus’ view of divorce and
the blessing of children (whom the disciples wanted to keep away from Jesus).
The first part of the reading, the piece on divorce, has long been a point of
contention. What does Jesus mean and how should we interpret that meaning,
especially in light of contemporary realities?
We need
to start by acknowledging that the world of the Bible is much different from
our own. The cultural expectations and rules of the ancient world are quite different
from our own. Therefore, what we read in Scripture has its own socio-cultural
roots that are starkly different from our own. Yet, ironically, when people speak
of “biblical marriage,” there is a tendency to baptize relatively modern
institutions that bear little resemblance to first-century realities. Even if
monogamy was the dominant form in the first century, we have plenty of stories
from the Old Testament about polygamous marriages. In my view, it is best not
to speak of biblical marriage or biblical families. However, there is a message
to be found here that speaks to our time, if we’re attentive to it.
I think we can start with the
assumption that Christian marriage has always involved one man and one woman.
After all, isn’t that the message we hear in Genesis 1-2? Isn’t this the
message Jesus affirmed here in Mark 10? God created the first humans as male
and female (Gen. 1:27), told them to leave their parents, and join together as
husband and wife (Gen. 2:24). It’s right there in the text. As is often pointed
out, there’s nothing there about same-sex marriage. That is true, but Genesis
doesn’t say that this is the only way one can be family. Then there’s the presence
of polygamy in the Old Testament. Abraham had more than one wife, as did Jacob.
The same was true of David and Solomon. It was the way things worked. Of
course, there were, as we read, problems in these extended families, but every
family, whatever its format, can have problems.
When it comes to developing a
Christian vision of family life, some of us, a growing number in fact, have
been willing to expand the definition of marriage and family to include the
union of two women or two men in a monogamous lifetime partnership of equals.
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].
Our
reading focuses on the legality of divorce. In Mark’s version of the story (see
Matthew 19:1-9 for the other version of this conversation), a group of
Pharisees approach Jesus as he makes his way to Judea. They find him on the far
side of the Jordan. They want to know Jesus' opinion on whether it’s lawful for
a man to divorce his wife. Note that they want to know whether a man can
divorce his wife, which reflects the patriarchal nature of ancient society in
general and Jewish society in particular. Therefore, they don’t ask whether a
woman can divorce her husband. As the question was posed, there were two
primary positions on the subject. So, it’s likely they wanted to know which
party Jesus aligned with. Is it Hillel or Shammai? Jesus doesn’t take the bait.
Instead, as he often did, he puts the onus back on the questioners. He asked
them what Moses had to say. In other words, what does the Torah have to say on
the subject? The answer is that Moses allowed a husband to dismiss and divorce
his wife (Deut.
24:1-4). Jesus agrees that Moses did allow for divorce because of the
hardness of their hearts. However, that is not the ideal. The ideal, according
to Jesus, drawing on Genesis 1-2, is that God created humans as male and female
and they should leave their parents, and cling to each other, so that what was
once two might be one flesh. Whether that could include same-sex couples is a
matter of interpretation as noted above (I would answer yes). There is the
ideal and there is the reality. Some relationships just don’t work out. That
might be due to our hardness of heart, which I take to mean the brokenness that
we all experience as human beings that can disrupt our relationships.
After
Jesus has this conversation, he and his disciples enter a house. The disciples
want to know more about marriage and divorce. So, Jesus expands on what had
told the crowd. What he tells them can be interpreted as rather harsh. However,
he also expands on who, in his view, might pursue divorce. He tells the
disciples that if a man divorces his wife and remarries, he commits adultery.
The same is true for the wife. If she divorced her husband, which was unheard
of in the first century, and remarried, she committed adultery. That has been a
reference point for churches through the ages. However, Matthew has an
exception to that remarriage clause. If one of the parties divorced because of
the other’s unchastity, then it’s not adultery to remarry (Mt. 19:1-9). In
Matthew’s version of the story, when his disciples heard his interpretation,
they replied: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to
marry” (Mt. 19:10).
I
mentioned earlier the two reigning interpretations on the matter of divorce.
These would be the teachings of Hillel and Shammai. 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 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. Jesus
seems closer to Shammai, but at least in Mark 10, he doesn’t choose either of
these interpretations. While similar to Shammai’s teaching, Jesus goes far
beyond him in large part because he speaks of the wife pursuing divorce,
something Shammai didn’t speak to. While Matthew’s Jesus allows for infidelity,
Mark’s Jesus doesn’t. According to Mark’s
Jesus, not even the wife’s infidelity served as the grounds for divorce.
Mark’s perspective is rooted in his
apocalyptic worldview. In his view, divorce is a mark of the old realm, but if
you’re a follower of Jesus you live in the new realm of God. In that realm,
divorce isn’t permitted. Since most modern Christians don’t embrace an
apocalyptic worldview, we might miss Mark’s point. Ron Allen and Clark
Williamson point out that Mark’s Jesus sets aside the allowance for divorce
found in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4. Instead, Jesus 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 Blamingthe Jews, p. 156].
So, what if Mark’s apocalyptic
vision doesn’t fit well with current realities? What if the old realm still
wreaks havoc on our relationships? Jesus offers an ideal scenario, but we don’t
inhabit an ideal world. Therefore, Jesus' words of guidance can put a heavy
burden on a couple. If, as is sometimes the case, one spouse abuses the other,
should they stay together because Jesus doesn’t give room for divorce? What if
one spouse leaves, should the other not have the freedom to remarry without being
accused of sin? Is there no grace or healing here? While Jesus does call for
people to honor covenant promises, it seems too restrictive for the good of
all. So, maybe traditional Jewish views, updated, of course, might be wiser
than what Mark’s Jesus offers. Life may require a lot more grace than Mark can
deliver. Therefore, Williamson and Allen offer this word of wisdom that can 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!
Since I believe in the promise of a life-long covenant vision of marriage
(should it be entered into), I know that living out that covenant is not always
easy. The realm of God may be breaking into this world, but it is not
completely realized. So, we remain broken people, who live among broken people,
including spouses. Therefore, Mark’s Jesus might be just a bit too demanding
and insufficiently gracious. Thus, a bit more mercy would be helpful. (See
chapter 9 of my book 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. Unfortunately, not everyone was happy that parents were bringing their
children to have Jesus bless them. His disciples, who were trying to serve as
his handlers, tried to deter them. They still hadn’t learned that lesson of
inclusion that Jesus had spoken of earlier. As for Jesus, he might have been a
bit too harsh in his discussion of divorce, when it came to the children, he
was ready to receive them. So, he once
again rebuked his disciples for their attempts to control access to him. This is the third time in Mark that Jesus either
embraces children or warns against treating them inappropriately. So, Jesus'
message is that the children are to be welcomed.
When taken together, the word about
divorce, wherein Jesus treats husbands and wives equally, and Jesus’ embrace of
children, remind us that Jesus was concerned about both women and children, the
kind of people 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! If this is true, then might this be Jesus’ vision of true "family
values"?
Comments