Mark 10:1-12 (see Matthew 19 as well) is a pronouncement story of divorce and adultery. It gives me an opportunity to focus our attention on the biblical context of discussions regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage. I will discuss the influence of this passage on the human sexuality debate. It also leads me to discuss ways to build stronger marriages.
2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him, describing their motivation, they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Their question involves the legality of an action, that of a man divorcing his wife. The issue specifically designed to test him now is the question posed by the authorities about the legality of divorce. In the gospel narrative, this tension between two biblical convictions provided the Pharisees an exceptionally difficult test for Jesus, perhaps a test not unlike one they might put to a young scholar anxious to study with them. Both of the convictions recur in Old Testament teachings that then informed the writers and communities that produced the New Testament writings. 3 He answered them, responding to their question of the legality of divorce, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” We find this account in Deuteronomy 24:1. Yet even this so‑called "Law of Moses" is not really a law, but a commentary on practices that were already taking place. Deuteronomy 24:1 assumes the right of the Jewish man to divorce his wife for any "objectionable" or shameful behavior, although the man must provide a written bill of divorce to the wife.[1] Divorce had long been legally permissible by Jewish law. This was a tiny safeguard for the divorced woman since she could offer such a bill as "proof" that she was legally free to remarry (although the man may not remarry the wife he divorced if she remarried and then was widowed or divorced again). This prohibition on remarriage is echoed in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but in the context of a passage which clearly assumes that divorce will occur in the normal course of the community’s life. Contrary to Genesis, there are prohibitions neither against divorce nor against subsequent remarriage. In fact, these verses provide the grounds for a husband divorcing his wife (“something objectionable about her,” v. 1) and the ritual for a divorce (“he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house,” v. 1). While all of these instances assume the husband has the initiative in the proceedings, in Exodus 21:10-11,[2] a female Hebrew slave, presumably purchased as a “bride,” has the right to leave servitude absolutely and without any payment to the master should the master fail to provide “food, clothing, or marital rights.”[3] Her rights to “divorce” are the most explicitly expansive in the Old Testament. The only continuing debate about divorce in first‑century Judaism existed between the followers of the more conservative Shammai school and the more liberal Hillel school. Shammai taught that the "objectionable" behavior that could give a husband just cause for divorcing his wife was adulterous behavior or the wife's extreme failure to observe Jewish law. Hillel, however, allowed that any behavior that caused the husband annoyance or embarrassment was legitimate grounds for giving the wife a bill of divorcement. The divorce law operating within Judaism required a Jewish man to write out a divorce certificate in front of witnesses, sign it, and deliver it, and deliver it to his wife in person announcing, “Here is your bill of divorce.”[4] So the rabbis debated: Was the “something objectionable” related to sexual indecency or simply anything objectionable? This seems to be the immediate context for the testing of Jesus.[5]
5 However, Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. Their hardness of heart led to relaxing the ideal of lifelong partnership. 6 But from the beginning of creation, as we find in Genesis 1:27, ‘God made them male and female.’ If marriage is only between two consenting people, regardless of gender difference, this passage is irrelevant. The reference to gender difference in Eden is superfluous and unnecessary for the point Jesus wants to make about divorce. I should say, it makes no difference if gender difference is irrelevant to the understanding Jesus had of marriage. Of course, some would argue that Jesus is simply assuming the normative nature of heterosexual marriages. Yet, if he and his audience assumed it, why explicitly mention it here? Why cite a passage that states explicitly gender difference in Eden? It seems more likely, in other words, that Jesus affirmed gender difference in marriage because he believed that gender difference—male and female—is part of what marriage is. Further, in Genesis 2:24, 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. In taking his listeners back to the beginning, marriage becomes a fulfillment of the realities suggested in the Garden of Eden. These realities include sexual differentiation and the unity of the male and the female prior to their turn away from the command of God. He urges a return to the pre-lapsarian ideal so that divorce is no longer necessary. Thus, marriage is the ordaining of our bisexuality for the marital relation. Our sexuality has an orientation to marriage as an inviolable life partnership, a statement of Christian anthropology that rests on what Jesus says about divorce here. Thus, the conclusion Jesus drew from Genesis 2:24, which is obviously something not achieved everywhere by nature. The statement is a set goal, like human nature itself, which for its achievement is referred to the tool of social and cultural life, but which for this very reason may never be fully reached. Only in the light of the eschatological message of Jesus can the inviolability of the marital relation to which Genesis posits can we understand the creation as a male and female as a pointer to our imperishable fellowship in the reign of God and the new covenant.[6] Jesus now offers an aphorism regarding marriage in the form of an antithetical couplet. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”[7] It undercuts social and religious convention. The saying is radical in rejecting the prudent Mosaic legislation, for Jesus embraces the radical notion that divorce is contrary to the purpose of God in creation, without exception. The saying also implies a more elevated status for women. From this point of view, divorce perpetuates adultery rather than halt it. The exchange suggests the Pharisees taking a more lenient view and Jesus the more strict view. Thus, Jesus refuses to give preference to either of these two schools. He cuts through the long‑established and prudent Mosaic tradition in order to bare the true roots from which spring the marriage bond. Instead of viewing marriage as a legal contract, a mere human contrivance, Jesus locates marriage in God's initial creative actions and intentions. Instead of taking the human resistance to God as his pattern for desired behavior, Jesus focuses on what God had originally intended for human beings at the time of creation. The statement in Genesis is certainly resistant to divorce. Marriage joins the male and female to complete God's unity of creation. Human beings freely and joyfully delight in joining with God in creativity and fruitfulness. Jesus refuses to relegate marriage to jurisdictions of legal debates and nit‑picking. For Jesus, marriage is part of the divine will for a completed, perfected creation. Because Jesus places marriage so wholly under God's authority, he declares it beyond the power of any human individual or human institution to separate that divinely intended unity. The saying also undercuts social convention. Jesus embraces the radical notion that divorce is contrary to God’s purpose in creation, without exception.
We need to pay close attention to Jesus’s statements about sexuality and marriage, in light of his own Jewish context. When we do, we will find good historical evidence that Jesus conforms to the uniform Jewish perspective on same-sex relation. Jesus never explicitly mentions same-sex relations. However, he does discuss other issues related to sexual ethics; namely marriage, divorce, remarriage, lust, fornication, and adultery. In every instance, Jesus takes a stricter—more Shammaite—view of sexual behavior. Even though Jesus never explicitly mentions same-sex relations, we see him taking a consistently stricter view of other laws related to sexual ethics. In light of the changing sexual views of today, we should ask whether Jesus held to a more lenient view of same-sex relations, in spite of the fact that his Jewish world uniformly condemned them and he himself endorsed an otherwise strict view of sexual ethics. The trajectory on which we find Jesus’s sexual ethics would suggest no. There is no historical evidence that Jesus was headed in a different, more progressive, ethical direction than the Hebrew Bible and his Jewish contemporaries. In fact, if we situate Jesus in his Jewish context, Judaism is remarkably uniform in its prohibition of same-gender relationships. Such prohibitions include a concern for pederasty, but one cannot limit the concern to that. After all, that culture considered teens young adults. It was common for 30 year old men to marry 15 year old girls. Lack of the possibility of procreation was only one concern among many concerning same-gender relations. Jewish thinking regarding sexual intercourse included the simple pleasure one receives. The appeal of Jesus to the creation account reminds us that homosexual union blurs distinctions between the role of man and woman in a way that Judaism could not embrace.[8]
However, I do believe that we find some blistering disagreement between Jesus and his Jewish brothers and sisters; namely, in how he related to and loved those who violated a Jewish sexual ethic. Unlike his contemporaries, Jesus embraced those who were shunned by the religious elite—those who did not conform to Jewish or biblical standards. And here, we find great continuity between the first-century context and our own. Understanding Jesus in light of his first-century context means we also understand and imitate his scandalous welcome and shocking embrace of those who were not living according to a Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. Jesus wants to dispose of the legalism of the Pharisees. Instead of asking, "Is it lawful," they should have asked, "How can we save a troubled marriage?" Nor does Jesus deal with the issue as a matter of law. He returned to God's ideal for the marriage relationship, an ideal expressed long before God introduced the law, God shared a vision of the marriage relationship. God intended marriage as a gift to bond two people together in a wonderful unity. God established the creation ideal before the human turn away from God. The grace of God has considered the sinful nature of humanity. If God treated human frailty so graciously under the law, how can some suggest a more legalistic standard under grace? The point of the phrase "no one else should separate" suggests that the Pharisees do not have the right to judge someone else's marriage. Note that in the Deuteronomy passage, the courts are not involved in the divorce. This was solely between the man and the woman. We can conclude that God does permit divorce and remarriage. God does this because of sinful human nature, and such issues are for the couple decide, not ecclesiastical courts. The Pharisees had so much concern for legalism that they treated divorce lightly. Jesus says that we must recognize any falling short of the divine standard as sin. Divorce involves sin, of course.[9] Yet, maintaining external conformity to the marriage while internally failing to fulfill the goal of the marriage bond is also a sin. God takes it all seriously, in part because God knows human desire is toward knowing another deeply and toward letting the other know you deeply.
10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”[10] Jesus understands that the bond of marriage is so strong that he forbids divorced couples to remarry. In a narrow case, Jeremiah ponders whether a man who divorces will return to the same woman, using it as an illustration that Israel has gone after many lovers.[11] It would be too incestuous. Jesus offers a statement of fact rather than a command. Jesus identifies divorce as another sign of human sinfulness, moving it from the realm of legal particulars to reveal it as evidence of human brokenness marring God's original vision of creation. The historical setting of Jesus (Mark 6:17f), in which Herodias separated from Philip in order to unite with Antipas, may have led Jesus to make this statement.[12] When these Pharisees, who had earlier joined forces with the "Herodians" (3:6), confront Jesus on this topic, the location is in Perea ‑‑ within the tetrarch's jurisdiction. Jesus' pronouncement is an obvious comment on the divorce and remarriage of these rulers. In Jewish law, a woman could not initiate a divorce, which was solely the husband's prerogative. However, in Greek and Roman law in the first century, a wife could divorce her husband. Herodias did when she sent a letter of separation to her husband Philip after deserting him for Antipas. Jesus' dictum places the responsibility for sinful behavior equally on the shoulders of both marriage partners. However, before Mark’s Gentile listeners, Jesus’ words are void of any gray areas. Indeed the only unchastity Jesus speaks of here is on the part of the divorcing partner who remarries. For the sake of his gentile listeners, however, Jesus here acknowledges that under Roman law a woman could divorce her husband and remarry.
Thus, Jesus seems clear: no divorce and no remarriage if you do divorce, unless you want to live in adultery! The statement assumes the indissolubility of marriage. Jesus proclaims the end of divorce because God’s kingdom is on the verge of breaking through and will soon be here. The eschatological orientation makes sense of the teaching on marriage, for now people will be able to fulfill their vows perfectly, in large part because marriage itself will soon come to an end. Jesus does not offer conservative Jewish teaching, but radical teaching, intended to promote sexual asceticism, a form of “self-control in imminent expectation of the kingdom of God.” Jesus’ teaching on divorce is far more stringent than that of the rabbis, in which divorce was possible in most, even trivial, situations.[13] The implication of this for some interpreters seems to be that the eschatological background of this teaching may invalidate what Jesus said, since, obviously, Jesus was wrong about the imminent end of the world and thus offers a teaching irrelevant for today. However, one might just as well move another direction. Jesus expects people to remain married, but not because the eschaton will soon put an end to their marital life. Rather, Jesus himself is God with us, from his birth as Emmanuel, through the time of the Church when he is present where two or three are gathered (which certainly includes husbands, wives, and children!), to the time of the end of the age. Jesus is with us always (Matt. 28:20), empowering us to do the radical things he commands, now, in our lives, in history. Jesus’ teaching is grace, not legalism.[14]
Yet, while this section seems to have a clear, definitive answer on divorce, the biblical witness on divorce is far from unitary. Describing the situation, one scholar summarized the biblical teaching on divorce as “two convictions which form a pastoral dialectic.” The first is a readiness to resist divorce as an evil, as an action opposed to God’s reign. The second, however, proceeds more slowly, chary of solutions that fail to accommodate concrete and difficult cases.[15]
Given the diverse teachings in the Old Testament, the varied practices among other Mediterranean peoples and the importance of the question, one finds it not surprising that the early New Testament writers also developed somewhat different standards. Writing to the Corinthians about a decade before Mark (I Corinthians 7:10-15), Paul shares both convictions. Testifying to the Lord’s command, Paul affirms the indissolubility of the marriage bond (vv. 10-11). Then, Paul goes on to permit believers, on his own authority, to remarry if “unbelieving” spouses, either husbands or wives, separate from the family. It is of note that in I Corinthians, Paul advocates the principle of the equality of husbands and wives in marriage. While the Old Testament directives limit the right to divorce to the husband, Paul offers to wives and husbands the same advice on maintaining the marriage bond as well as the same directives on separating from an “unbeliever.” Earlier in the same chapter, Paul teaches that wives and husbands have equal conjugal rights (1 Corinthians 7:4). This particular note of gender equality is not fully reflected in the gospels.
Such considerations lead me to suggest the following. Jesus accepted the union of a man and a woman as the only context for marriage. He affirmed the divine intention disclosed in the Genesis account that that this union be a lifelong partnership between a man and a woman. Yet, what if human beings, as they often do, fall short of the divine intention? What if one partner commits adultery? That seems like a valid exception. What if the unbelieving spouse deserts the Christian spouse? That seems like a valid exception. Thus, the New Testament opens a difficult conversation concerning hard cases in which the reality of human beings missing the mark of the intention of God in creation faces followers of Jesus. What if one partner is abusive to the spouse or to the children? Most would agree that is a valid exception. What if one partner denies sexual fulfillment to the other and they live together as roommates? It might work for some, but others may find it impossible. When it comes to remarriage, Paul recognizes the power of human desire toward sexual fulfillment. I would expand this to the desire for another human being to know us truly and for us to know the other. This orientation toward the other is so powerful that if the Christian community legalistically denies remarriage, it opens the door for sin in multiple ways. My point is that married Christians ought to approach such matters prayerfully and with discernment rather than trying to follow a rule. Respect for what God intended in creation for marriage, acknowledging the reality that human beings miss the mark, and acknowledging the need for forgiveness and compassion in such situations, are proper guidelines by which most of us can live. I do not offer them as rules, but as a context within which Christians can pray.
One of the most important things to understand about Jesus' words on divorce is this: They were just as "hard," just as uncomfortable, just as socially awkward for first‑century Christians as they are for 21st‑century Christians. The yawning gap between divine intentions and human realities in marriage was no less gaping in Jesus' day than in our own. Jesus' words had particular prickliness for the Pharisees, who were "testing" Jesus (v.2) on this issue. Not only do the gospels disagree as to the conditions for divorce and remarriage — not to mention ignoring the Pauline exception — the textual history of these passages is exceptionally complicated with most of the variants occurring within 100 years of the gospels’ “original” publication.[16] All of these variations in the Bible’s teaching on divorce are a mark of the seriousness of the subject and the difficult pastoral issues which invariably arise. Realizing that, one finds the variations on the teaching among contemporary Christian traditions all the more plausible.
Barth discusses this passage in light of his theological ethics that relates to creation, focusing on the freedom in fellowship that creation ordains between man and woman. He says that when we see marriage in the light of the divine command, marriage is a lasting life-partnership. Marriage is the full union of a man and a woman for the whole time that still lies before them. To enter upon marriage is to renounce the possibility of leaving it. If this were not so, the love that has brought them and keeps them together would not be love under the divine command. It would not be marriage. Love and marriage under the divine command apply to the totality. What they reflect is the faithfulness of God to the human covenant partners. Love and marriage reflect the overriding fidelity in which the Lord is always inclined toward humanity from their youth and through all the vicissitudes of their history. Love and marriage reflect the fidelity with which Jesus does not the people of God as orphans and constantly comes to them even where two or three gather in the name of God. Love and marriage reflect the indestructibility of the people of God. Love and marriage reflect the fidelity in which God as creator co-exists with the whole world. In light of all this, marriage is a lasting life-partnership. The permanence of marriage is the content of the divine command. Without this focus on permanence, marriage would become the playing at love, a non-binding experimentation that dispenses with all real discipline that exempts itself from exertion. Regardless of the problematic and chequered relationship between man and woman, its mark is permanence. It contains the implication of a mutual co-ordination that one is not to modify by the vicissitudes of time. Barth argues against the notion of a temporary or trial marriage, suggesting that love and marriage suggest permanence. What God has joined together is life-partnership in marriage rooted in a choice of love made under and according to the divine command. Barth will then say of such marriage that one cannot know if the particular marriage is under the command of God. One may think it is or is not, but neither can be sure. The notion of the permanence of marriage points us back to faith and the Word of God that gladdens and strengthens the positive indications and alarms when one experiences the negative indications. Yet, this joining together is the calling and gift of God, and is always the divine secret. The hope and prayer of marriage recognizes that one may receive fulfillment in only a provisional and relative way. One may receive a measure of help and comfort, but not the real thing at which one aims. He acknowledges that the marriage of the believer lives under the shadow of the question that it might not exist under the divine command. One will always need faith and the Word of God to continue under this shadow. One needs to recognize that God may not have constituted a particular marriage. It may well rest on human caprice and error. It becomes dissoluble because in the judgment of God it never had proper divine establishment. One can make this judgment as well only through faith and the Word of God. Regarding the legal dissolution of marriage, Barth will say that the community knows how great a matter is a marriage made by God and lived under the divine command. It knows such a thing is possible only based on the mercy of God and in faith. However, it knows also that has the appearance of marriage may not be a real marriage and it may stand under the judgment of God.[17]
When we face a passage that becomes troublesome for us, we often zero in on the problem we see in it. When we come upon passages regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage, we easily slip into the notion of focusing upon rules. We start thinking about the conditions in which divorce is right, the conditions for remarriage, and many other questions that seem appropriate to being a biblical Christian. We focus narrowly upon divorce in the sayings of Jesus and the teaching of Paul I Corinthians 7. Such a focus reminds me of the little novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter.We give people who have struggled with their marriages to the point of divorce the impression of a scarlet “D” upon their chest. We forget the sinfulness of the human condition, demonstrated in the human habit of breaking all the rules. We forget the need for grace and forgiveness. Like the declining physical health of the minister who committed adultery in the novel, we often deny to divorced persons, at precisely the time they need it most, the grace, forgiveness, and wisdom of the church.
Further, our fear of dealing with such “problems,” leads us to miss the beauty of the biblical view of marriage. The distinction between male and female descends from creation. Marriage is part of the covenant of God with humanity at creation. As they leave their parents, they start a new family. They become “one flesh.” Yet, such oneness does not occur over night. Such oneness is a daily discovery, uncovering layer upon layer of what we have withheld from this new intimacy we have created.
Instead of focusing upon how marriage fails, maybe we need to focus upon how it succeeds. One study[18] offers some good advice.
First, couples need to be supportive of each other. Here is some ancient wisdom.
Pleasant words are like a honeycomb,
sweetness to the soul and health to the body. (Proverbs 16:24)
Second, develop the ability to hit the brakes. Here is some ancient wisdom.
Those with good sense are slow to anger,
and it is their glory to overlook an offense. (Proverbs 19:11)
A soft answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)
All couples argue, fight, fuss, fume -- but why do some end up in the emergency room while others end up in the bedroom? Healthy marriages know one reaches a threshold in an argument over which one ought not to cross. We know each other well enough to know how to hurt the each other. We choose not to do so. If you do it once, it becomes easier to do it again.
Third, take time to play together. Here is some ancient wisdom.
A cheerful heart is a good medicine,
but a downcast spirit dries up the bones. (Proverbs 17:22)
Play is one of the most important repair mechanisms in any relationship. Of course, play includes expressing our sexuality, but it also includes so much more. An enduring couple can milk more loving memories from one afternoon cocooning together over old movies and popcorn on the couch than a less successful couple can from a whole week in the Caribbean. The play in playtime should emphasize the joy, the spontaneity, the simple expectations and delights that characterize this time together.
Fourth, learn to make time for spiritual development together. Here is one last bit of ancient wisdom.
The fear of the Lord is instruction in wisdom,
and humility goes before honor. (Proverbs 15:33)
By spiritual development, I mean prayer and devotional time. Such time cultivates intimacy. In a society obsessed with sex, we think of intimacy in this limited way. We need to expand it, so that intimacy includes our spirituality. Of course, this includes worship and spiritual retreat as well.
Marriage is a gift from God. It is such a sacred bond that Scripture even uses it to describe the relationship between Jesus and the church. Therefore, if we are married now — whether or not it is a first marriage — God has called us to value that marriage and to do everything in our power to preserve its bonds.
I imagine most of us have heard some cute little sayings that remind us of the difficulty of marriage.
• When a man marries a woman, they become one; but the trouble starts when they try to decide which one.
• Some marriages are made in heaven, but they ALL have to be maintained on earth.
• Too many husbands and wives will act rationally only after all other possibilities have been exhausted.
Ogden Nash once said, “To keep your marriage brimming with love in the loving cup, when you’re wrong, admit it. When you’re right, shut up.”
Samuel Taylor Coleridge once said, “The most happy marriage I can picture … would be the union of a deaf man to a blind woman.”
I have also across some quite sad statements.
Gloria Steinem once said, “The surest way to be alone is to get married.”
An article in Maxim, a popular men’s magazine made the following comment. “Monogamy is man's greatest challenge. It takes unshakable commitment, immense emotional maturity, a will of steel in the face of overwhelming temptation. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.”
Consistent with this view, I recently saw a newspaper cartoon of a mother reading a bedtime story to her little, curly-haired daughter. The book was called Grim Reality Fairy Tales. The text read, "and the prince kissed her and they fell in love, dated a while and moved in together, broke up, got back together, got married, got a baby, got separated, got back together again, broke up, got divorced, spent time alone rediscovering themselves, met someone new, fell in love and repeated the pattern habitually ever after."
How sad that so many Americans have gotten themselves into this situation. We see it on Facebook as well. It's Complicated is also one of the multiple-choice answers Facebook users choose from as they are filling out their online profiles: Single, Married, Divorced, In a Relationship, It's Complicated. Facebook leaves it to its users to define for themselves what "It's Complicated" means. That is certainly true of a great many human relationships. They are complicated. Figuring them out can be the work of a lifetime.
You know, I think such sentiments, while expressing some realism, express an incredibly shallow notion of human relationships. Love means choosing, selecting this man or this woman, and no other. Don Juan has become a metaphor of “free love.” His story has some excitement to it, of course, and the story is persistent in literature and philosophy. However, Don Juan is no hero. In the sphere of love, moving from one sexual experience to another, he is a weakling. He represents those who might like to view such relationships as temporary. For such a person, every relationship has a “trial period” to it. Don Juan plays at love, rather than actually loving.[19]
To keep a vow means not to keep from breaking it, but to devote the rest of one’s life to discovering what the vow means and be willing to change and grow accordingly. Every time we attend a wedding and hear marriage vows, it reminds us of the vows that we made to our own spouses. Anyone who is honest about marriage will tell you that holding those vows takes effort. Selflessness. Choice. Growth. Compromise. This is what two lives becoming one flesh means.[20]
Sadly, many Christians find themselves woefully unprepared when caught in the jaws of a struggling marriage. We hold "fairy-tale conceptions of marriage" that render us incapable of dealing with marriage's problems. We become dogmatic about right and wrong, but then do not have the flexibility to adjust to a less than perfect marriage. With such high expectations of marriage, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. If we do not begin to take care of business, we are soon going to have a marriage that is a balloon looking for a pin.
Men and women need to listen to each other with generous hearts, “always ready to learn something new, to turn the corner and see something better.” Yes, we are riddles to each other. Therefore, we need to learn to listen to the question that the other puts to us. The relationship between man and woman is a practical puzzle worth figuring out. Yes, man unsettles woman, and woman unsettles man. Men and women are responsible to each other for living out their humanity.[21]
Do we have a fairy-tale conception of marriage that results in a crash when the reality does not match the fantasy? Are we marriage partners unprepared for the worst-case scenario, or at least the less-than-I-bargained-for scenario? Conflict is certain to visit a marriage, and it is entirely possible that we do not know how to survive an attack on the marriage, whether extending from infidelity, to the loss of a job, to unexpected financial difficulties, the evaporation of a dream, or the loss of a child.
Marriage is not one bond, but many. In time, a strong marriage grows to become a veritable web of relationships. Love fashions the web. Such love begins with romantic love and matures into a slow-growing devotion. In both, we will find companionship. Such love involves loyalty, interdependence, and shared experience. Such a web of love weaves in memories of meetings and conflicts, triumphs and disappointments. Such a web consists of communication, a common language, and the acceptance of lack of the lack of language to express what we think and feel. The web consists of knowledge of our likes and dislikes, our physical and mental habits and reactions. The web of love involves are instincts and intuitions, as well as known and unknown exchanges. The web of love that makes up a marriage consists of close affiliation, living side by side day to day, looking and working in the same direction. We weave the web in space and in time out of the substance of life itself.[22] Marriage requires a large commitment for the couple. In involves a lifetime commitment. They say publically that they will spend the rest of their lives with the other person. They will spend the rest of their lives discovering more about the other person. Such a commitment says much about the mystery that is human nature, the delight we receive in discovering deeply the gift of the other, and that it may well take a lifetime to discover it.[23]
Helmut Thielicke, in his book How the World Began, made this observation.
I once knew a very old married couple who radiated a tremendous happiness. The wife especially, who was almost unable to move because of old age and illness and in whose kind old face the joys and sufferings of many years had etched a hundred lines, was filled with such a gratitude for life that I was touched to the heart. Involuntarily, I asked myself what could possibly be the source of this kindly person’s radiance. In every other respect they were common people, and their room indicated only the most modest comfort. But suddenly I knew where it all came from, for I saw those two speaking to each other, and their eyes hanging upon each other. All at once it became clear to me that this woman was dearly loved. It was not because she was a cheerful and pleasant person that she was loved by her husband all those years. It was the other way around. Because she was so loved she became the person I saw before me.
In the 2004 film, Shall We Dance?, starring Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon, we find a well-known and powerful statement. Mrs. Clark, played by Susan Sarandon, is talking to the private investigator Mr. Devine, played by Richard Jenkins. She hired him because she thought her husband, Richard Gere, was having an affair. When she finds out that he is not having an affair — he is only taking dance lessons — she dismisses the P.I. Before they part, a conversation ensues:
Mrs. Clark: “All these promises that we make and we break. Why is it, do you think, that people get married?”
Devine: “Passion.”
Clark: “No.”
Devine: “That’s interesting, because I would have taken you for a romantic. Why then?”
Clark: “Because we need a witness to our lives. There are a billion people on the planet. I mean, what does any one life really mean? But in a marriage you’re promising to care about everything: The good things, the bad things, the terrible things, the mundane things. All of it, all the time, every day. You’re saying, ‘Your life will not go unnoticed because I will notice it. Your life will not go un-witnessed because I will be your witness.’”
The bottom line is this: Do not give up. Our society places plenty of danger to our marriages at our doorstep, whether we find materialism, sexuality, or any other temptation dear to us. That is why we have to keep fighting for each other and for the marriage. Do not take your marriage into this culture defenseless. When you married, you may have thought you married an ideal person. Instead, you married a real person. Focus, not upon the worst-case scenario, but the best-case scenario. Defend the gift God has brought into your life.
Michael Hargrove tells about a scene at an airport that literally changed his life. He was picking up a friend. He noticed a man coming toward him carrying two light bags. The man stopped right next to Hargrove to greet his family. The man motioned to his youngest son (maybe six years old) as he laid down his bags. They hugged and Hargrove heard the father say, “It’s so good to see you, son. I missed you so much!” “Me, too, Dad!” said the son. The oldest son (maybe nine or ten) was next. “You’re already quite the young man. I love you very much, Zach!” Then he turned to their little girl (perhaps one or one-and-a-half). He kissed her and held her close. He handed his daughter to his oldest son and declared, “I’ve saved the best for last!” and proceded to give his wife a long, passionate kiss. “I love you so much!” He said to his wife softly. Hargrove interrupted this idyllic scene to ask, “Wow! How long have you two been married?” “Been together fourteen years total, married twelve of those,” the man replied, as he gazed into his wife’s face. “Well then, how long have you been away?” The man turned around and said, “Two whole days!” Hargrove was stunned. “I hope my marriage is still that passionate after twelve years!” The man stopped smiling and said, “Don’t hope, friend . . . decide!”
Mark 10:13-16 is pronouncement story of Jesus concerning children.
Although Jesus is apparently still at the house (verse 10), 13 People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch or bless them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. The disciples’ reaction to this interruption is typical of the self-centeredness and denseness that characterized Jesus’ chosen followers in Mark. However, some think that they might have wanted to protect Jesus from an embarrassing situation. 14 However, when Jesus saw this, making the reaction of Jesus to the disciples explicit, he was indignant and at the way the disciples treated the parents and children gathering around their home. Jesus said to them, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. Jesus makes clear the status of children in the rule of God. Jesus dramatically reverses the child’s traditional status in ancient societies as a silent non-participant. This perspective agrees with Jesus’ sympathy for those who were marginal to society or outcasts. The story is the only time Mark ascribes indignation to Jesus, and it is because of their rebuke of children. The rule of God belongs to them because they receive it as a gift. The children are not symbols. We see here the social complexity of human beings in the helplessness and openness of the situation of children. Jesus saw here an openness to the nearness of the rule of God that he proclaimed.[24] 15 Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”[25] Jesus now turns his attention to the rite of initiation into the rule of God. The saying advocates entering a new world, incorporating a vision of an alternative reality directly ruled by God. It shows how Jesus took eschatological conceptions and presented them as a gift now. Jesus likely refers to a present rule rather than the future rule of God. To find access to the rule of God is of the very essence of salvation, in that the rule of God belongs to one who comes as a little child and receives it as a little child.[26]Being children of God is the essence of the Christian life.[27] We find children portrayed here in a positive, hopeful, and special way. As a new creation, the Christian life begins as one who is quite different, who starts again from the very first, who is in fact a little child in this sense.[28] In creation, the emerging independence of human beings as creatures of God was important if the relation of the Son to the Father was to find manifestation in it. Yet, the emphasis of this verse on receiving the rule of God as little children seems to contradict the emphasis upon growing independence of human beings. However, Jesus addressed the saying to adult disciples. The point is that as creatures who have ripened to independence that we are to relate to God as children who expect and receive all things from the Father.[29] 16 And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them. The blessing of the children here simply shows adults that regeneration is essential.[30]Along the lines discussed, church tradition has appealed with some justice for a biblical basis for infant baptism. Of course, the passage does not refer explicitly to baptism. With the baptism of the children of Christian parents, will and judgment have not developed in the child. However, we have to reckon with a positive readiness for unlimited trust whose real object is the true God revealed in Jesus.[31]
[1] “Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man's wife.”
[2] 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
[3] John I. Durham, “Exodus.” Word Biblical Commentary vol. 3 Waco: Word Books, 1987, 321-22.
[4] See Jacob Neusner, “Gittin.”
[5] (David Instone-Brewster, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context [Grand Rapids, Mich., and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 2002], 111.)
[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 361-2.
[7] The Jesus Seminar demonstrates the scholarly division on the matter of whether Jesus actually said what we find in verses 5-9. The difference involves interpretation of the saying. Against authenticity are that there are variations suggesting a struggle to adapt some teaching to its own context, and the appeal to scripture is not typical of Jesus, and the familiarity with Roman custom, indicating a later, gentile context. Finally, the disagreement in the sources, at Mark, Q, and Paul, suggest some confusion about what Jesus actually said.
[8] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/11/jesus-was-a-jew-understanding-jesus-and-same-sex-marriages-in-his-1st-century-jewish-not-our-21st-century-western-context/ retrieved November 20, 2015 - Preston Sprinkle offers a discussion of Jesus and same gender sexual relations in his Jewish context. He begins by asking why Jewish writers condemn same gender relations. Some argue that all such relations were exploitative, such as older men with younger boys. They understandably condemn pederasty. However, in that context, it was not unusual for a 30 year old man to marry a 15 year old. Teens were young adults rather than older children. Some argue that such relations where not consensual. Yet, many marriages were not consensual, since most were arranged marriages. He points out that some streams of Jewish thinking thought of sex as pleasurable rather than only for procreation. It does not appear that the authors of Jubilees or Joseph and Asenath would not have much of a problem with a non-procreative marriage relationship. The point here is that they would exclude homosexual unions if the only reason for sex was procreation. However, the Jewish view did not limit itself in that way. As is well-known, Josephus and Philo condemn same gender relations due to the lack of their procreative potential. One can see in Philo, Laws, 3.37-39.
[9] Larry Richards, in Divorce and Remarriage, 1990,
[10] Jesus not only forbids adultery, but also says that lust is on par with adultery (Matt 5). While many Jews were lenient on divorce, Jesus ruled it out except in cases of sexual immorality.
Moreover, Jesus’s use of the word porneia to refer to sexual misconduct in general would probably include all forms of same-gender relations. Now, there is a good deal of dispute about the meaning of porneia. It is certainly an umbrella term for sexual sin, but how far that umbrella extends is debated. But I don’t think we need a very large umbrella to conclude that porneia encompassed same-sex relations. After all, as we have seen, every single Jew in Jesus’s world believed that same-sex relations were sin. It was not one of the disputed matters of sexual misconduct. Every Jew would have considered same-sex relations to be sexual misconduct; therefore, on what basis could we say that the umbrella term porneia, which refers to sexual misconduct in general, would not have included same-sex relations?
[11] Jeremiah 3:1-5, 1 If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not such a land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the LORD. 2 Look up to the bare heights, and see! Where have you not been lain with? By the waysides you have sat waiting for lovers, like a nomad in the wilderness. You have polluted the land with your whoring and wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come; yet you have the forehead of a whore, you refuse to be ashamed. 4 Have you not just now called to me, "My Father, you are the friend of my youth-- 5 will he be angry forever, will he be indignant to the end?" This is how you have spoken, but you have done all the evil that you could.
[12] Verses 11-12 seem to reflect Roman marriage law, which permits either wife or husband to initiate a divorce. Only the husband had that right in Israelite law. Thus, according to the Jesus Seminar, they reflect the situation of the community rather than Jesus’ original audience.
[13] John W. Martens, “Jesus’ Teaching on Marriage and Divorce,” The National Catholic Review, November 6, 2015.
[14] Leroy Huizenga, “Marriage and Matthean Jesus: A First Response to John Martens,” Catholic World Report, November 8, 2015.
[15] Robert W. Wall, “Divorce,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 2 New York: Doubleday, 1992, 217-19, here 219).
[16] (D. C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997], 88).
[17] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.4 [54.1], 203-213.
[18] See "A Lens on Matrimony," U. S. News & World Report, Feb 21, 1994, 66.
[19] Karl Barth, in Church Dogmatics (54.1).
[20] In The Mystery of Marriage, Mike Mason
[21] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 54.1.
[22] Anne Morrow Lindbergh in A Gift From the Sea
[23] Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, reflecting on the royal wedding of Prince William and Catherine, April 21, 2011, archbishopofcanterbury.org. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
[24] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 263.
[25] It circulated independently during the oral period. Thomas 22:2 is another version of the saying.
[26] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 398.
[27] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 212.
[28] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.4, 180.
[29] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 139.
[30] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 264.
[31] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 263-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment