"For Better, For Worse"

25 October 2009

Readings: Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Mark 10:1-12 TNIV

 

Sometimes you hear people speaking about 'the good 'ole days' as though they would love to be back there. Although there were many positive things about those times, there are other things that make us glad that we have moved on from there. For example, in the 1500s baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children! Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

 

Back at that time most people got married in June, because they took their yearly bath in May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, because even by that time they were beginning to smell, brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odour; hence the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.

 

We are nearing the end of our series on the Gospel According to Mark. This Sunday and the next two Sundays will bring us up to where the Easter story begins which we looked at earlier. Next Sunday, two of those who did the Preaching Workshop through June and July will share some of their thoughts on Mark 10:17-31, and then on the 8 November we will consider the story of the healing of Blind Bartimaeus.

 

The passage we are looking at this morning provides an insight into the teaching of Jesus about marriage as he responds to the question raised with him by the Pharisees. It comes at the time when Jesus is making his final journey to Jerusalem. The previous episode was in Capernaum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee where Jesus began his public ministry after his baptism. He and those with him have now crossed the Jordan and are making their way south towards Jericho. This incident comes in the midst of a further time of teaching the crowds. Jesus took every opportunity to speak God's truth and to demonstrate the powerful presence of God's kingdom in their midst through healings, which Matthew makes mention of in his account of this event.

As we have seen throughout Jesus' earthly ministry, the Pharisees shadowed Jesus wherever he went. They were never far from sight and were constantly looking for opportunities to trap him on some point of his teaching, which would give them grounds of charging him with heresy. Mark makes it very clear that this was their reason for asking this question.

 

It was a subject that was likely to come up at some time or other as divorce was a hot topic in Jesus' day. Jewish people held the sanctity of the marriage relationship in the highest regard. Chastity was enjoined upon both husband and wife. However, just like today, the gap between the ideal and real was very wide. This was in large part due to the low status of woman at that time. Women were regarded as 'things' rather than as persons, with no legal rights. You will have noticed in our reading from Deuteronomy that it only makes reference to the man in the marriage relationship. The woman had very few rights in the matter. She could ask her husband to divorce her. The only other grounds on which she could divorce her husband were if her husband became a leper, or if he was a tanner, or if he had taken advantage of a virgin, or if he falsely accused her of not being a virgin when he married her. Mark alone among the Gospels, envisages in verse 12 a wife divorcing her husband and vice versa. While this was impossible in Jewish law it was allowed in Roman law, and Mark, if he were writing from Rome, may have included this logical extension of the principle for the sake of those around him.

The Certificate of Divorce had become quite an elaborate document in New Testament times. It required a skilled rabbi (like a lawyer today) to compose it. It had then to be proved before a court of three rabbis after which it was lodged with the Sanhedrin. However it was a relatively simple matter to have this done, and it remained entirely at the discretion of the husband. At that time no one questioned that divorce was permissible. After all, Moses had given specific instructions to that affect.

 

However, the reason for it being a hot topic at that time was that the Pharisees took issue with one word. The question was: What did the law mean when it said that a woman could be divorced if her husband found something "indecent" about her. The debate raged over what the word "indecent" was referring to? There were basically two schools of thought on this. The more conservative view held by the school of Shammai was that "indecency" meant unfaithfulness on the part of the wife. This school taught that the only grounds on which a husband could divorce his wife was if she had committed adultery.

 

In contrast to this the school of Hillel interpreted the word "indecent" much more liberally. They taught that divorce could be granted on virtually any grounds, and cited such things as burning the dinner, talking disrespectfully of her husband's relatives, speaking to a stranger on the street, if she was not pretty enough, or if her voice was too loud. For example if a wife's voice could be heard in the neighbour's house the wife was called a 'brawling woman' and the husband could divorce her for that.

 

This, was the view that prevailed in Jesus' day with the outcome that divorce was granted for the most trivial of reasons, and at times for no reason at all, with tragic consequences. From Matthew's account of this incident, it seems that this is the school of thought that the Pharisees were seeking Jesus' response to, because Matthew's wording of their question states, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason."[1] When you fast wind forward it does not look much different to what happens today. Because of its insecurity, many Jewish women in the first century were hesitant about getting married.

 

Jesus' response to the Pharisees question is to direct them back to God's original intention for marriage, and in doing so takes up the cause of women who were the victims of this lax attitude. Note the Pharisees use of the words "lawful" and "permitted" whereas Jesus speaks about what was commanded.[2] This shows Jesus concern for what God purposed for marriage, whereas his adversaries, while sharing his concern, were more focused on how much they could get away with.

 

Jesus takes them right back to the beginning of creation. Marriage is a creation ordinance, given long before there was any Jewish nation or law. God created humankind male and female so that each would find fulfillment in other through marriage. Quoting from Genesis 2:24 Jesus says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Here in Mark Jesus spells out what the words "one flesh" mean when he says, "So they are no longer two, but one." The union of a man and a woman is the entering into a new and exclusive union in place of their previous parental links. Marriage, in other words, is not just a contract for mutual convenience ( and therefore able to be terminated when it ceases to suit the parties), but the creation of a new, permanent and indivisible unit of man and woman as 'one flesh.'

 

 

If that is how God intended marriage to be, it is not something for human beings to tamper with. Jesus gives no hint of any basis for divorce. Divorce is, quite simply, against the will of God. In Matthew's version there is an escape clause, but in Mark and Luke[3] it is entirely unqualified. It is important that we do not seek to evade the uncompromising call to lifelong fidelity in marriage. The moment we begin to think about exceptions and concessions, this simple clarity is lost, and we are in danger of treating as normal what is in fact the betrayal of God's plan for marriage. Jesus insists that we go back to the way God meant it to be, and draw our standard from there.

 

Jesus then says, "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."[4] The word "join" here is the word 'yoke,' so translated literally the verse reads, "what God has yoked together, let no one separate."

 

Because farming in New Zealand is highly mechanized, yokes are seldom seen, but they are very common in the Middle East and in many other places of the world where only the very wealthy can afford a tractor. But we are familiar enough with this picture for it to provide us with an insight into how God views the marriage relationship. The image is that of teamwork, pulling towards the same end, equally sharing the load and equally involved in all that marriage and family life entails. It speaks of faithfulness, commitment and responsibility, all of which are essential to a happy home.

 

And note that the 'yoking together' is done by God. Jesus said, "what God has joined together..." Gender differences are part of how God made the world to be, and to fudge those differences is to distort the Creator's intention for humankind. Another way of expressing it is to say that the unity and one-ness of the marriage relationship is sacred, and is therefore to be respected and protected from abuse and misuse.

 

Other passages of Scripture bear this out. Paul in his letter to the Christians in Corinth has a number of things to say about marriage. Sexual immorality was rife in the pagan religious festivals observed at Corinth, and Paul had to spell out what involvement in those meant for these new believers. In his first letter he reminds them that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit "bought at a price." Therefore they were to "honour God with (their) bodies."[5] Paul also affirms what Jesus taught here in his instructions concerning married life in 1 Corinthians 7.

It is clear from Jesus' teaching here in Mark that marriage is the permanent and indissoluble uniting of two people into one, and that nothing should break the bond between husband and wife. Therefore, divorce is not an option, and his prohibition on remarriage is absolute. The amazed reaction of Jesus disciples in Mt 19:10 - "If this is the situation between a husband and a wife, it is better not to marry." - shows how Jesus' strong views surprised them. These disciples regarded such a high standard of marital faithfulness as so impossible that they despaired of marriage. If the bond is indissoluble, better not to marry at all, they said. This is an interesting commentary on the married life of the disciples, of which we know so little.

However, the gap between the ideal and the real was, and still is, very wide. It has been so for a long time, as even Moses was forced to make provision for it in Israel's laws. Jesus says that that provision was made because of their hard heartedness, or, it could be translated, because of their stubbornness and unwillingness to learn and submit to one another and to God's will for faithfulness in marriage. It was a concession to human weakness, not a statement of the way things ought to have been.

The main value of this passage in an age of sexual permissiveness is its affirming that permanent heterosexual union is God's purposeful intention for humankind, and has been so since creation. That such unions are to be heterosexual is presupposed and implicit in the Scripture Jesus refers to from Genesis 1. That it is to be permanent is very clear in Jesus' answer to the Pharisees. This understanding of marriage is needed today as it holds up the standard of how God meant marriage to be, in a time when nearly anything goes.

 

This passage also affirms that faithfulness in marriage is God's gracious plan and is to be our goal. Jesus calls us back from focusing on the complexities of human relationships to what was given in creation. True one-ness is found in the faithful union to one mate in a life-long relationship of love and trust. Although all involved in this story - the Pharisees, the disciples and Jesus, as well as we ourselves - are conscious of how God's ideal is thwarted by our human failures, by focusing on God's plan rather than our problems, it safeguards the values we each must aspire to. This passage stresses the seriousness of marriage, that it is not to be entered upon lightly or inadvisedly as the marriage service states, but thoughtfully and reverently with due consideration of the reasons for which it was ordained. It also assures God's blessing on all those who, with varying degrees of success or failure and against whatever odds, work at building and maintaining their marriage.

 

This passage also has encouragement for those who because of its high goals are afraid to marry. It assures such that the natural order itself is on the side of marriage of men and women, and the passage that follows offers a word that is just as applicable to marriage as well: "...all things are possible with God."[6]

 

One thing that is significant about Mark's account of this incident is that it is set in the context of Jesus on his way to Jerusalem. It is bracketed in between Jesus' teaching about the way of the cross. Jesus in his own person and by his teaching offers to Christians the model of dying in order to live. Nowhere is that model more applicable or more necessary than in the intimate, long-term relationship in which two persons become one.

 

The other significant thing about the context of the incident in that it is immediately preceded and followed by Jesus' teaching about children. It raises the issue of not only what divorce does to an abandoned partner, but also what it does to the children whom God gives to a couple and whom Jesus loves and blesses.

Is there any common ground between God's ideal and the reality of human frailty that leads to divorce?

 

There is a way between these two extremes, but it is a difficult one to define and to practice without inconsistency. It is to insist both that God's standard is absolute and that divorce can never be good, and also that in a world which is characterized by human weakness and failure it must be possible to find ways of coping with a broken marriage. In that case divorce and remarriage, while it can never be good, may be the least bad of the options available. It may be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but can never cease to be a cause for regret and sorrow that God's standard for marriage has been violated. Perhaps it is this reluctant recognition of the realities of human failure which led Matthew to include his clause allowing divorce in the case of 'unchastity.'

 

 

But, if reluctantly, we come to this conclusion, it is a very different matter from accepting the verdict of society that divorce is 'OK,' and assuming that Jesus' words are an unworkable ideal. They are not. They are the way God expects marriage to be, and woe betide the church and society once that clear standard is allowed to fade into an unreachable ideal. Divorce and remarriage can never be more than the outworking of human weakness, a recognition of failure.

 

Prayer

Forgive us, Lord, for our eagerness to find the easy way out, and our fear of facing up to your full demand. Restore to us and to our society the vision of marriage as you meant it to be.[7]