Swallowsrest

Pentecost 20 – 2024

Mark 10:2-16

Marian Free

In the name of God, Earth-maker, Pain-bearer, Life-giver. Amen.

“Till death us do part.” “What God has joined together let no one separate.” These daunting words from today’s gospel formed a part of the marriage vows until the revision of the Book of Common prayer in 1978, which means that those of my age and older will have made this promise (and heard this threat) at their wedding. Two of my close friends, both of whom found themselves in unhappy (and in one case violent) marriages, felt bound to stay in their marriages because of the  weighty commitment they had made before God.  

The Prayer Book that was approved in 1995 has softened the language somewhat, but the sentiment “as long as we both shall live” remains in the vows and the blessing over the couple retains the words: “What God has joined together let no one separate”. No matter what the circumstances, how unsatisfactory, how violent the marriage, the church, using the language of the gospels, adds an incredible burden to individuals who find themselves in what are impossible circumstances. 

Many of us will remember with some sorrow and regret a time in the church’s recent history when these phrases coupled with Jesus’ apparent prohibition against divorce meant that those whose marriages had ended in divorce were refused remarriage in the church. Some faithful, divorced people felt so ashamed, or so excluded by the church’s attitude that they stopped coming to church altogether. 

We now understand that there are many reasons why marriages end – domestic violence, coercive control, incompatibility, a growing apart, the loss of a child. All are a form of death – the death of trust, the death of a sense of self, the death of companionship, the death of communication. In the church (and in the wider community) we still hope that those who love each other enough to commit to marriage will be able to nurture and sustain that love, but now we also understand that that is not always possible. That marriages end for all kinds of reasons is understood and divorcees can remarry in church if that is their desire.

This still leaves us with Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in today’s gospel and our interpretation that Jesus is condemning both divorce and remarriage.

I suggest that centuries of misinterpretation, ignorance and cultural biases have led to a misrepresentation of what is happening here. Let me make a couple of points. Firstly, it is important to recognise that this is not Jesus’ teaching per se but is his response to a question – a question from the Pharisees that is designed to test him – to make him unpopular with the Romans, or with the Jews. It is even possible that this was a live issue at the time – after all John the Baptist lost his head for challenging the remarriage of Herodias. Secondly there are two parts to the discussion: Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees and Jesus’ response to a question from the disciples.

Jesus is no doubt exercising some caution with his answer, trying not to be too confrontational and toeing the party line. His listeners however would have heard the sting behind his seemingly benign words.  In Jesus’ time and culture, it was possible for a man to divorce a woman on almost any pretext putting her to shame and forcing her to depend on the family of her birth. A woman on the other hand had no such escape, no matter the provocation. Seen in this light, Jesus’ teaching is radical and gives women the security they might not otherwise have had– that is that they could not be summarily dismissed, forced to endure the shame of divorce or find themselves in a financially precarious situation. Jesus is doing what he is doing best – turning the law on its head to protect the vulnerable.

Interestingly, Jesus also makes his response personal. Whereas the Pharisees ask: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Jesus’ response is to turn the question on them: “What did Moses say to you?” This raises the question whether the Pharisees, with their obsession with the law, are the ones who are seeking to justify divorce. Certainly, this makes sense of Jesus’ comment: “Because of your hardness of heart” which could be directed at the Pharisees rather than the audience in general. Jesus reinforces his point by quoting from Genesis, the creation story – as Adam and Eve were once one body, so in marriage they become one flesh (Gen 2:24). It is Jesus adds the interpretation: ‘Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The question of remarriage is raised by the disciples in a later discussion. This no doubt relates to Jesus’ reference to the law (Deut 24:1-4). The passage to which Jesus directs the Pharisees has more to do with remarriage than divorce and this is important with regard to the church’s teaching on remarriage. What is prohibited in not remarriage in general – otherwise a divorced woman would have no possibility of any sort of life if her husband had divorced her.  What is prohibited is remarriage in its true sense – remarriage to the original wife after she has married someone else.

Given the context of the original discussion and the Old Testament passages that are quoted, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus envisaged his words restricting and even harming generations so far removed from his own.

When we approach the New Testament, we have to remember a) that it is culturally based, b) that many laws have a use-by date and c) that Jesus was a lawbreaker. When Jesus could see that a law caused harm instead of protecting from harm, he was quite happy to break it – think healing on the Sabbath, not washing before meals, eating with tax collectors, prostitutes and sinners. Jesus responds to the question about divorce by redefining the law by which the Pharisees sought to live. That there came a time when in turn that “law” became harmful was surely not Jesus’ intention. 

I don’t imagine that for one minute that Jesus expected the church to condemn people to violent or loveless marriages for the sake of maintaining a harmful and outdated “law”, a comment that he offered in response to a question that was designed to trap him.

We do not live in a static world. In the last century women have made gains that could not have been envisaged in the first century. They are no longer dependent on men for social standing or financial support. Science has helped us understand much that Jesus’ contemporaries could not explain except through the supernatural. Psychology and sociology have thrown light on the behaviour of individuals and groups. What Jesus said and taught addressed a particular time and place. Our task is to investigate Jesus’ underlying principles of compassion, inclusion and his desire to act in ways that led to good not harm, so that we can understand what to keep and what to revise rather than slavishly holding “beliefs” that condemn others to lives of exclusion and pain.