Ever faithful to love

“…Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ (Mark 10:9))

Mark 10:2-16 (Year B: 19^th Sunday after Trinity, 7^th October, 2018)

Jesus doesn’t mince his words...

Every so often we run into a difficult passage in the gospel. This is one of them.

Divorce, remarriage and family fluidity is a marked feature of 21^st century societies. I guess that few, if any, among us do not know someone who has gone through marital separation. It could be a brother, a sister, one’s own parents, a work colleague, our next door neighbour. In some cases, we may be among those who have experienced separation. Here, in Ireland, there has been a marked increase in the extent of marital breakdown even though it has not reached anywhere near the same proportions found in other western societies – yet at any rate.

What are we to make of this passage of Mark? Mark reports a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus answers a question they put in clear, uncompromising and un-nuanced words as follows:

‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’ (verses 11-12):

No ifs, no buts, no qualifications.

Jesus was responding to a question posed by some Pharisees who came to him to question and test him.  The context was set by the ‘Hillelites’ and the ‘Shammaites’. The followers of Rabbi Hillel were 1^st century religious liberals who permitted divorce ‘for any cause’. The followers of Shammai permitted it only for adultery.  The latter were the 1^st century religious conservatives who took a narrower and possibly more literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The labels might be different but the broad nature of religious controversy has not changed in 2,000 years! 

Jesus’s response (to be found here in Mark as well as in the gospel of Matthew) came as a surprise to his hearers. He just rules out divorce altogether and goes back to the very beginning, in Genesis, to explain that lasting union was and still remains the plan of God whereby a man and a woman become one flesh or one body – with all that it entails spiritually, psychologically and physically. While the Jews of Jesus’ time held marriage in high regard, divorce was widespread and it wreaked havoc on women, in particular, given the absence of legal rights and legal initiative for them. This sets the social and cultural context in which Jesus takes a ‘hard line’ on divorce.

Any exceptions?...

The parallel reference in Matthew is a little more nuanced (Matthew 19:9)

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.

There are a variety of interpretations of the expression ‘except for unchastity’ in Matthew. It may be concluded that scholars differ on the exact meaning of the term. Some – especially Roman Catholic scholars - argue that it reflects a specifically Jewish context in which a man had the right to divorce a woman before a marriage was consummated if it emerges only after a marriage that the woman had not been a virgin (this might explain why Joseph the spouse of Mary had initially planned on ‘divorcing’ her when he learned that she was pregnant but then changed his mind after matters were clarified for him in a dream). If this is the case, it might explain the inclusion of ‘unchastity’ (the Greek word is ‘porneia’) in Matthew but not in Mark. According to this explanation Jesus would have used the word adultery if he meant it. Rather, he was referring, so it is claimed, to a specific exception where a marriage was not consummated and the marriage vows or contract was not, therefore, valid. Some Eastern Catholic churches (e.g. Greek) might allow divorce in cases of adultery – presumably on the grounds of the Matthean ‘unchastity’ clause to be found in Matthew 19:9 (see for example here). Among Protestant denominations, nowadays, divorce and remarriage are generally accepted (although in some cases more tolerated than accepted).

The mere fact that there was some type of exception, in Matthew, suggests that the early Christian community had to deal with the matter in a compassionate and rational way given the realities facing the emerging Christian community as families were split over the new religion and as a variety of mores and practices characterised the pagan world in which Judeo-Christians lived. Matthew’s account of what Jesus said differs from Mark in two ways:

• The exception clause is to be found in Matthew but not in Mark.
• The unique reference to a woman initiating a divorce, in Mark, which was unknown among Jews at that time.

Clearly, the audiences and the context in Matthew and Mark differ somewhat. Matthew was probably writing for a Jewish community while Mark had more a gentile audience in mind familiar with Roman laws and practices.

But, a compassionate Jesus ever and always...

Returning to Mark, we see an uncompromising stance by Jesus on divorce.  Divorce was, and still is today, a huge trauma for many. In the hugely different culture of Jesus’ time women were very much relegated to a vulnerable and insecure rank in society. It is still that way today in many parts of the world. In opposing divorce we see a compassionate Jesus who recognised the havoc that divorce can inflict on people – not least women and children. The choice of verses 13 to 16 about the blessing of children in today’s passage to follow the teaching on divorce may be no accident.  Jesus seems to go further than many of his peers by indicating a clear equality in marriage in that he balances the role of women and men in Mark 10:11-12.  This contrasts with the one-side question posed by the Pharisees where only the man could issue a divorce summons.  Women were in an inferior position in every way according to this view. That inequality is directly challenged in the response of Jesus.

Six possible responses…

How do we align the clear gospel teaching found in Mark with our own experience of living today? A number of responses are possible:

1. Ignore the gospels along with the Christian message entirely as irrelevant and pre-modern (typically the response of many in today’s world);
2. Locate some particular sayings of Jesus as belonging to a different cultural milieu and which are no longer relevant;
3. Use the tools of scholarly research and discourse to manoeuvre around ‘difficult passages’ (this might involve saying ‘this is how the evangelist reported it but Jesus didn’t quite mean it that way’ or ‘the Greek word for this or that term could mean different things’ or ‘the context is set by extraneous factors that blunt an isolated passage quotation’ and so on).
4. Take the passage pretty much at face value (notwithstanding scholarly caveats above) and say ‘that was then and now is now ….’ (in other words ignore it and preach a sermon on something else once a year when the topic comes up in Matthew, Mark or Luke).
5. Accept the passage as is stands but place it alongside other passages emphasising a wide range of values and considerations but always returning to the central value of compassion and mercy present in Jesus.
6. Take the passage as conforming to a literal, legalistic and absolute prohibition on divorce always, everywhere and no matter what because ‘the bible says so’ and/or ‘tradition says or and the Church has always taught so’. (This is like saying that according to section 9 subsection 4(a) of the Law, divorce is never allowed – never.)

There may be other solutions to the above! In my case, I tend towards response number 5, above.  I distrust absolutist and legalist approaches using isolated Gospel passages as ammunition to uphold particular stances. At the same time, I do not go along with the ultra-liberal approach of making the gospel fit whatever you want it to mean. In practice, we can read the scriptures with –

• The foundation of trust and faith in God-who-is-love.
• The common sense of people living in a messy world.
• The compassion of people who care deeply for others.
• The experience of living which teaches us.

Add to this benefits of good scholarly research and insights down the ages from others who read, digested and lived the Word.

A need for balance and clarity..

The point is that a relationship of intimacy, commitment and openness to life is the foundation of much human well-being and happiness. It is also a foundation rock for communities and societies. It is, typically, the milieu in which children can grow, develop and experience the warmth of love so that they too can live lives of meaning and love and give in turn. Whatever, disrupts this is bad for people and societies. Lack of love, communication, trust and faithfulness wreaks havoc on people and much unhappiness exists in the world because of this. I suggest that marriage break-up is a factor (interacting with other factors) in regards to mental ill-health and, in some cases, poverty, homelessness and addiction).

At the same time, it is a sad reality that for many reasons married relationships fail. Humans are not perfect and, yes, God asks us to be faithful and to embrace our cross, but, not at the price of destroying our own health and peace. In some cases, marital breakdown may involve systematic and repeated coercion, violence and abuse. In other cases, the causes may be less dramatic but no less significant in undermining the stability of a union. When this happens it is a tragedy – above all for the couple involved. But, it may signal circumstances outside the control of the couple as well as factors relevant to each one’s history, mental baggage, attitude and behaviour. And, then, there is just plain bad behaviour – systematic, repeated and calculating. However, we must not judge any one person or relationship. We never know the full story.

And what if, after many years of trying and recourse to help a relationship remains destructive? What then?

And if people find themselves in a new life-affirming committed relationship, what then?

And what if, as one writer put it: ‘What humans wrongly joined together, let God rightly separate?’ However, the same writer reminds us that: ‘committing adultery is not an abstract, moral sin. It is a real, hurtful action against one’s God-joined partner’ (Vitalis Hoffman).

(In recent years, the Roman Catholic Church has been heavily divided over some issues and questions raised in Amoris Laetitia concerning pastoral discretion in admitting divorced or remarried Catholics to Holy Communion.  That debate will run and run.)

The four pillars...

The lesson of Mark 1-16 as well as Matthew 19:1-12 is that the scriptures need to be read ‘on our knees’ so to speak and with an open heart and a discerning and learning mind.  Scripture is ‘over all’ and yet is must be received each time in the light of tradition, reason and experience. After all, tradition (oral and written), reason and experience were the soil in which the Word was sown and continues to be sown and to grow in our fields today. Scripture is sufficient. However, its full meaning gradually unfolds in the lived experience of Christians over the ages.

To conclude on a positive note: it would appear that most families and most lifelong commitments are happy for the most part – trials and tribulations notwithstanding along the way. This also seems to be true of those who, for one reason or another, find themselves in a second union.  After all, the starting point for Jesus’ positive affirmation of marriage is found in Genesis 2:18 where we are reminded that it is not good for one to be alone (unless by choice, calling or force of circumstances).

The wounds of life come with blessings and the blessings of life come with wounds. The wounds of broken relationships and broken trust remain even if healed of their sharpest impact over time. We may always confide in God whose mercy has no limits unlike that of others whom we have hurt or who have hurt us.

We must realise that, in the majority of situations and families, love prevails over all difficulties and there is a huge amount to be thankful for in the mystery of lifelong love ‘for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.’ This is what the author of Mark affirms so strongly in reporting the answer Jesus gave to the Pharisees of his time.

postscript: For a thoughtful and thought-provoking consideration of the matters discussed above, see a Blog by Rev Patrick Comerford here.