Tagged: divorce

As Groucho Marx, said, “Marriage is the chief cause of divorce.”

Signpost for Sunday 3 October 2021: Job 1:1;2:1-10; Psalm 26; Heb 1:1-4; 2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16. 

I doubt whether Job’s story would make for the most binge-worthy series on Netflix. I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again (to save you looking it up): Job 1:1, 2:1-10 reads like a Greek myth. It’s full of ‘the gods’ looking down on humans and wagering among themselves. Why? Because 5000 years ago, that’s the way most people on earth understood their concept of God; even, it seems, the Jewish people who introduced monotheism into the world could not get away from the idea that God was up on a hill somewhere or in the heavens and looking down upon us. This week’s reading does nothing to dispel the fact that this is an ancient myth. And then, all the characters are cardboard, even God, and Job, really. You can almost imagine this being badly acted out as a medieval morality play.

I’m guessing that the really contentious passage for most people this week though is Mark 10:2-16. For the best part of the 20th century these verses were often quoted in the argument about whether Christian churches should welcome divorced people into their congregations or not. These days, the church is grappling with the concept of marriage itself – can it only be between a man and woman, as the passage suggests on first reading? More of that later.

I also think it’s still hard not to read or hear Mark 10:2-16 without concluding that Yeshua condemns divorce as being an act of adultery. But can that be all there is to it?

And, why is this passage an essential part of the gospel of Mark? Well, the context in particular makes me think it’s not there mainly to teach a moral lesson. If we follow the events so far, then it appears that these Pharisees are out to trick Yeshua into the same predicament that John the Baptist had found himself in earlier (Mark 6:17-28 ). Their stated purpose is to test him (Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Mark 10:2). The passage even uses exactly the same phrase John used when he declared Herod Antipas’s divorce and subsequent marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias was “not lawful”. Add to that the fact that if the Lectionary had started at verse 1 instead of verse 2, then we’d know that Yeshua is at this moment in Perea, deep inside Herod Antipas’s ‘kingdom’. And Mark has already told his readers and listeners that the Pharisees are colluding with the Herodians (Mark 3:6). So if these Pharisees can get Yeshua to say something that amounts to an outright criticism of Herod Antipas’s divorce, then surely Yeshua would deserve the same fatal punishment as John. A head would have to roll.

That’s the dramatic relevance of the passage, but what else might context reveal to a 21st century reader or listener like you and me?

First off, there’s the fact that in first century Palestine only the man could get a divorce (from his wife), and only the woman could be found guilty of adultery (against her husband). So, although verse 11 sounds very harsh to our ears (“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”), in a first century context Yeshua would be seen as saying that men and women actually have equal status in the marriage. Take that further and apply it to the present day question about the concept of marriage itself. Might the Yeshua who behaves so radically in the gospels be inclined to say that both partners in any marriage have equal rights – be that a marriage between a man and a woman or between two men or between two women?

Whatever answer you come up with, it seems clear that Yeshua doesn’t think divorce is a good thing. Could that be because he’s worked out that if it’s a question of adultery it’s the usually the ‘faithful’ partner that suffers most when his or her spouse divorces in order to marry someone else. Is that what this means: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery”? I’d like to think so. I’s also like to think it might apply to any committed relationship, whether that’s a legally recognised marriage or not.

But does Yeshua condemn adultery full stop? One possible answer to that question might be found in John 8:3-11:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus… said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” … At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there… Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.

Paul

Who makes the rules?

Signpost for Sunday 29 August: Song of Solomon 2:8-13 Ps 45:1-2, 6-9 James 1:17-27 Mark 7:1-8,14-15,21-23.

Oh dear, how many of us are going to feel guilty (or worse, superior) when they read or hear these words this week: it is…out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly” (Mark 7:21-22)?

Or how many of us are going instead to focus on the fact that Yeshua In one single stroke (verse 15) gets rid of the Jewish “purity law” relating to food. What you eat doesn’t matter, and it never did, he says.

Personally, I think the most interesting bit is when Mark/Yeshua quotes Isaiah 29:13 and he talks about the fact that organised religion (The Church of whatever faith) often seems to mistakenly emphasise “teachings [that are] are merely human rules”. For me that’s what this passage is most importantly about. Just think, for example, about the teachings that are still imposed by Christian organised religion of whichever denomination and that “are merely human rules”:

Priests cannot marry

Priests must be celibate

Women cannot be priests

Women cannot be bishops

Divorced people cannot marry in church

Gay people cannot marry in church

I could write a much longer list than that, but I think we all get the point. It’s not my point, though, it’s ultimately both Yeshua and Isaiah’s point, surely.

Paul

What have you heard?

Signpost for Sunday 16 February 2020: Deut 30:15-20 or Sirach 15:15-20; Ps 119:1-8; 1 Cor 3:1-9; Matt 5:21-37.

Let’s be honest. What concerns most of us as we hear or read this week’s reading is adultery and divorce. If you’re divorced or one of your friends or relatives is divorced and married again Yeshua’s words could make life difficult for you and them. If you’re a heterosexual man who’s ever ogled an attractive woman to whom you’re not married, it’s time to poke your eye out. Except, of course, that neither Yeshua nor the author of Matthew is saying anything of the kind really.

But let’s think about the whole passage for a moment. What is being addressed are four things that made life very difficult in the first century. And two out of four haven’t really changed much since then, but those two are not adultery and divorce.

Anger still causes many problems in life today. It leads to violence, envy, family feuds, thoughtlessness, cruelty and all manner of other behaviours most of us have experienced or even carried out.

Honesty is what the oaths section is all about. And again, don’t we all recognize times when either we haven’t been completely honest with someone or they haven’t been honest with us? That’s without even thinking about Exxon and the tobacco companies.

But verses 27 to 32 are the ones we misunderstand utterly because they are all about the way women were (and sometimes still are) treated in society.

In 80AD, when the author of Matthew was writing, the only people who ever files for divorce were men, and it had been that way for hundreds of years. A woman couldn’t divorce her husband. But a man could divorce his wife for apparent inappropriate sexual activity (“some indecency,” Deut. 24:1). With a bit of luck the husband wouldn’t just make something up because he’d spotted a good-looking virgin in the market place. Or your hubby could divorce you for any old reason, and he didn’t even have to spell it out (“she finds no favour in his eyes,” Deut. 24:1). You could be biffed out just because the rat bag was bored with you. Matthew is pointing out how the followers of The Way didn’t follow those entrenched Jewish practices. That’s the importance of Yeshua’s words, “You have heard it said…but I say to you…”

Equally, Yeshua is not having a go at men who marry divorced women, he was trying to shame the husbands who divorced them. And here it gets very first century because Yeshua is saying something like, “If you won’t care about your wife, you better at least realise that you will be insulting your fellow man by forcing someone else in your community to marry a divorced woman.” A very un-PC argument, but it’s meant to prevent a woman being kicked out of her marriage simply because a man was fed up with her. Which apparently was not uncommon.

Sadly the Church later chose to interpret this week’s reading literally, which led to hundreds of years of injustice and bigotry. Time for us all to take a leaf out of Yeshua’s book: “You have heard it said…but I say to you…”

Paul

Divorce and the kids.

Signpost for Sunday 7 October 2018: Job 1:1;2:1-10; Ps 26; Heb 1:1-4; 2:5-12; Mark 10:2-16.

It’s so often the kids that suffer when the subject of divorce comes up, isn’t it. And if you are reading the King James version of the bible you’ll actually have those famous and misunderstood words on the page (Mark 10:2:14): ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me.”

Worse, there are bound to be divorced people who read or hear this passage and feel it’s against them. But I think that would be a misunderstanding.

The thing is that almost all of this week’s reading could be misunderstood if we take it at all literally. Think about that for a minute. Why do the Pharisees even raise the subject of divorce now? Yes, it’s part of a series of attempts to catch Jesus out, but why divorce and why now?

The answer has to be geography. Which we won’t be aware of because the lectionary misses out verse 1 of chapter 10. That first verse tells us that Jesus is “in the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.” That means he is slap bang in the land ‘ruled’ Herod Antipas.

These sneaky Pharisees are trying to trick Jesus into the same predicament that John the Baptist had found himself in earlier (Mark 6:17-28 ). This question about divorce puts Jesus in the same position that had led to John the Baptist’s execution.

And, Mark has already told his readers and listeners that the pharisees are in cahoots with the Herodians (Mark 3:6).  So if the pharisees can get Jesus to say something that amounts to a criticism Herod Antipas’s own divorce, then surely Jesus would deserve the same punishment as John.

But Jesus is, as usual, too smart for them, and surprisingly for us he’s not about to condemn divorce as such. Look carefully. He does not actually say divorce should be prohibited. His reply is more radical and, for us, more positive than that.

He doesn’t directly challenge the Mosaic law, which invented divorce for the Jewish people. Instead Jesus makes the case for the fundamental equality of men and women in the marital relationship.

Jesus is going against the common view held by almost all Jews in the first century. A Jewish man simply could not commit adultery against his wife. Adultery was defined as only ever taking place between a married woman with a man who was not her husband.  And a man who had sex with a married woman who was not his wife was deemed to be committing adultery against that woman’s husband, not against his own wife.

The scholar, John Petty says this: “Jesus invokes God’s intention in creation which is that relationships be equal and unbroken.  He subverts the dominant patriarchal worldview that only men could get divorces, and only women could commit adultery against her spouse.  His teaching recognizes the profoundly wrenching experience of divorce, as anyone who has been through it can attest, and also recognizes the reality of divorce and the importance of maintaining justice in its application.”

But what about the kids? The famous passage that follows the divorce discussion is often taken by people to mean something like, we should all have unquestioning trust and the “simple faith” of an innocent child.

The King James version seems apt here. Suffer the little children seems to reference the fact that children are the most vulnerable members of any society, and they need special protection, nurture and love. Is Jesus saying that we adults need that protection, nurture and love too, but arrogantly, often we can’t admit it? I think he me might be.

Finally, if you’re wondering about this week’s the gnarly Old Testament reading, here’s the way I see it. Job 1:1, 2:1-10 reads like a Greek myth. It’s full of ‘the gods’ looking down on humans and wagering among themselves. Why? Because 5000 years ago, that’s the way most people on earth understood their concept of God; even, it seems, the Jewish people who introduced monotheism into the world could not get away from the idea that God was up on a hill somewhere or in the heavens somewhere and looking down upon us. This week’s reading does nothing to dispel the fact that this is an ancient myth. So we’ll have to wait for the next few week’s readings to find out if it’s still has any relevance and truth for us in the 21st century.

Paul