Tagged: Job

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

The camel and the fat cat.

Signpost for Sunday 14 October 2018: Job 23:1-9, 16-17; Ps 22:1-15; Heb 4:12-16;

Mark 10:17-31.

I have no idea why YHWH lets Satan play games with Job. It makes no sense but as I wrote last week, this is a story in the genre of the ancient myths told by most civilisations at the time, notably the Greeks. It’s a very obvious moral tale, not a piece of actual Hebrew history.

The Job reading sets up a direct contrast to the gospel. Job is really blameless and upright (Job 23:1), whereas the rich man is only blameless and upright in his own eyes, and most of society’s, just because he’s rich. The contrasting point in this set of readings is that Job is prepared to sacrifice everything for God, the rich man is not prepared to give up anything.

There’s an odd bit in the reading, too. When Jesus quotes the commandments to tell the rich man what he must do, he slips in something that isn’t a commandment at all – You shall not defraud – why? It comes from in Leviticus 19:13.

Every time I’ve heard or read this in the past I’ve thought, like the disciples obviously do too, that the point of the story is that you have to give up everything to be a good Christian. But I don’t think that’s the point at all.

This guy is a fat cat, one of the one percent. In first century Palestine most common people knew that the rich and powerful had often acquired their possessions by deceit and chicanery.  Maybe Jesus is alluding to this to get the attention of his crowd of mainly dirt poor peasants.

What we actually end up with is not a picture of someone who can’t face giving everything away. That’s the mistake that Peter makes when he opines that the disciples have given up their livelihoods and homes to follow Jesus. Isn’t it more about the fact that this rich man thinks life is all about acquisition and recognition of his achievement. He says he’s done everything he can to gain the approval of those around him by keeping the ‘laws’ and now he wants the reward of eternal life in recognition for that.  He acquires possessions and status, he does not give anything to anyone.

There is an old story that there was a gate in ancient Jerusalem called “the eye of the needle”. Perhaps, this isn’t a metaphor. Maybe at one time a camel could actually get his nose under the gate and get through. Unfortunately, we now know that particular gate never existed, and it’s nothing more than a medieval legend.

So don’t bother selling your camel if you have one. Isn’t Jesus pointing out how hard it is not to care about at least some of your material possessions? More importantly, there’s no point keeping the commandments if you don’t keep the two most important ones – love your God, and love your neighbour (Mark 12:30-31).

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

 

Job done? Not really.

Signpost for Sunday 25 October, 2015: Job 42:1-6, 10-17; Ps 34:1-8,(19-22); Heb 7.23-28; Mark 10.46-52.

The proto-novel which is the Book of Job was needed in the fifth Century BC to combat the error that all good and evil was from God, and rather dependent on your morals. That part of Job still needs proclaiming from the roof-tops. The nearest we can come to an answer is undoubtedly in the first part of our reading today. But the second part of this is rather harder to hear; there is no simple answer to the problem of evil. The third part is that God is great, and that appeals to even the last suicide bomber today. The second half of the reading is so out of synch with the first, one wonders if someone even then was being sarcastic. But God as the food-basket provider is also a strong emphasis of our Psalm for today.

As one of the fairly early fathers wrote, “Who is the author of Hebrews, God only knows.” This author seeks to show how the problem of sin and punishment is solved by the Christ. He is still in the ‘do wrong and you can expect bad consequences’ frame of mind of Job’s comforters, and he provides support for what Brye once called, “the heresy of penal substitution still prevalent in many people’s theology.”

One continuing matter for puzzlement that I think of occasionally now that I worship mainly in Anglican services is the use of the name priest for the ordained Anglican.  As a Presbyterian I know about the priesthood of all believers, even if my church still hedges round the use of certain actions ‘for reasons of decency and good order’. So the Letter to the Hebrews builds on something that it claims to have been destroyed!

In Leviticus, the blind are excluded from the exercise of Aaronic priesthood; no blind thing can be an offering . . and so on. But the Lord opens the eyes of the blind (Psalm 146 etc). Mark’s contributors knew the Scripture. And they remembered a person claiming a miracle, since his family were part of the early church. But we are still bothered by this offering of an answer to a problem that has no answer!

The Lectionary also mentions the Maori Declaration of Independence 1835. Maybe we should all fly three flags in the immediate future; the present NZ flag, whatever is nominated by the first referendum and the Tino Rangatira flag. Is anyone celebrating this “feast” this Sunday?

Andrew