You
wait ages for a bus to come along, and then two come along at once. Today’s
lectionary readings feel like that, big passages conveying big ideas. I want to
focus on Genesis 2 and Mark 10, and their related thoughts on
marriage and divorce. I need to say from the outset that both passages have been
badly translated and interpreted in the English language (among others), resulting
in a lot of damage. We will need to do some digging to unearth them and understand
them.
First,
then, Genesis 2. This is the second
of the two ‘creation stories’ with which the Bible opens. And in our English
translations, it reads like this: the male human being is alone, and this is not
good. He needs an assistant. Principally, he needs an assistant in the work of
being fruitful and multiplying (see chapter 1), someone to have babies, and
then raise them, while the man does something more, manly. God puts him to
sleep and removes a rib, a small and non-essential part, and from it makes the
female human being. She’ll do nicely.
But
the Hebrew reads somewhat differently. It does not begin with a male human
being at all, but with an undifferentiated creature made from the earth, or
earthling. God recognises that something is missing, and God’s conclusion is
that the earthling needs an ezer kenegedu.
The word ezer, usually translated ‘helper’
in English, is a word most often used about God, in relation to the people of
Israel. It carries the sense of being a warrior, one who comes to our aid, who
delivers us from our enemies. It carries the sense of surrounding and
cherishing and fighting for another. And here, God pairs ezer with kenegedu, a
word that carries the sense of ‘corresponding’, of standing side-by-side, like
the two banks of a river, or, sometimes, of stepping forward in front of
another. In other words, what the earthling needs is a corresponding warrior,
who will fight by its side against the elemental chaos that seeks to overwhelm
God’s creation; someone who will step forward for us, and us for them.
And
so, God rocks the earthling to sleep; takes it; breaks it in two; and in this
moment, in this action, male and female are created. This breaking in two
results in difference, and in recognition: recognising ourselves in someone
different-and-yet-the-same. There is a radical equality between the two
corresponding warriors, between the male and the female; and they each share in
the likeness of the ezer God (something
restored to men and women in Jesus, who restores our place as the reflection of
God’s glory and the imprint of God’s very being).
And
for this reason, we are told, a man leaves his father and his mother and clings
to his wife, and they become one flesh. Breaking, and uniting. It is a paradox
we affirm, a mystery we experience, in every Eucharist, at that moment when the
priest breaks the bread, saying, ‘We break this bread to share in the body of
Christ’ and we all respond, ‘Though we are many, we are one body, because we
all share in one bread’.
With
these things in mind, let us turn to Mark
10. And the first thing that I want to say is that this isn’t about divorce. It
is about a group of people trying to trap Jesus, and Jesus getting the better
of them. Divorce is permitted throughout the Bible, under particular conditions,
relating to failure to uphold marriage vows (see Exodus 21:10-11 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 7). Jewish
couples promised to feed, clothe, share conjugal love, and be faithful to each
other. The man agreed to provide food and cloth. The woman agreed to cook and
sew. They both agreed to share conjugal love. Either the man or the woman
could divorce the other for breaking these vows — which, as principle, or case
law, cover abuse or neglect — but only
the injured party could enact divorce. The injured party could choose to
forgive, or divorce: they held the power to attempt to save the marriage or to
release both parties from it. And with the certificate of divorce came the
right to remarry.
The
fourth grounds for divorce was failure to be faithful, or adultery. Because
polygamy was accepted by the ancient Israelites (albeit with legal protection
for the wives), only a husband and not a wife could enact divorce on the
grounds of adultery. But, as with the other grounds for divorce, he could only
do so if he were the wronged party. However, by the time of Jesus, things had
changed.
Around
a generation before Jesus, there were two famous rabbis, rivals to each other,
named Hillel and Shammai. Hillel claimed a linguistic loophole in Deuteronomy
24:1. The text speaks of divorce on the grounds of finding, after taking a
wife, erwat dabar ‘anything [dabar] of, or any cause of, sexual
immorality’ in her [or, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, άσχήμον πραγμα,
an ‘unpresentable matter, thing, or deed’]. Hillel argued that if this simply
meant ‘sexual immorality’ then the ‘any cause of’ [or the Greek ‘pragma’] was
superfluous, and so it should be interpreted as referring to two grounds for
divorce: adultery, and a catch-all ‘any other grounds’. Shammai disagreed:
however worded, the intent was plainly and simply ‘adultery’. End of.
By
the time of Jesus, men divorcing their wives for any (i.e. spurious) reason was
massively on the rise, with a corresponding fall in women being able to access
divorce on legitimate biblical grounds. The justice of divorce had been eroded.
So
that is the background. Some Pharisees came to trap Jesus and demanded an
unguarded comment from him. They asked, ‘is it lawful for a man to divorce his
wife?’ Well, yes: it is there in the law of Moses, and so by definition it is lawful. The law cannot be unlawful. Clearly,
they are asking about Deuteronomy 24:1,
the one grounds for divorce that only a man could enact, and not a wronged
wife. Matthew’s account of the same incident is even clearer recording the
question as, ‘is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ (Matthew 19:3). This is one of the
biggest and most divisive arguments of Jesus’ day. Like speaking out for Remain
or Brexit in the UK today, they are confident that however Jesus answers this
question, at best he will lose half of his support base. It is a trap. Nothing
more, nothing less.
Jesus
sidesteps the trap and lets them get caught in their own snare. He takes them
back to our first reading, to Genesis
2, where two become one flesh. And he adds, ‘therefore what God has joined
together, let no one separate’. Not, it cannot be separated; but, it ought not
to be separated. But nonetheless Jesus’ words are odd. He walks them into the
story of God breaking the man and the woman apart, and says, what God has
joined together, let no one separate. It is a paradox. It is an unresolvable
matter.
Jesus
goes on to affirm the principle that divorce on the grounds of Deuteronomy 24:1 should (as with those
grounds cited in Exodus 21:10-11) be available
to wives and not just to husbands; and that women who abuse Deuteronomy 24:1 by enacting it when
they are not the wronged party are as liable before God as the men who were
abusing it. Radical equality.
Marriage
and divorce are matters of debate as much in our day as in Jesus’ day, and both
inside and beyond the Church. Jesus, and later Paul, both affirm marriage; but
also affirm a vision of community where you do not have to be married in order
to be whole, to be cherished and fought for. Jesus, and later Paul, both uphold
divorce, as a necessary mechanism for justice for those who are wronged; while
taking a stand against the damage caused by easy, self-centred divorce. However
necessary, divorce is always a tragedy and never the first resort. In the Old
Testament, God even describes himself as a husband who, having taken-back his
serially-unfaithful wife, Israel, many times has finally written-out a
certificate of divorce, releasing her; and, therefore, cannot take her back. For
this reason, God ‘hates divorce’, not because it is categorically wrong but
because of the pain that relationship-breakdown causes.
We
speak of holy things. Of human beings and our longing not to be alone. Of
radical equality between the sexes, not always recognised, not always affirmed.
Of our need to be broken open, not by the harsh realities of the world but by an
ezer God who breaks us out of
ourselves in order that we might flourish. Not long after challenging the
Pharisees for their hardness of heart, Jesus had to challenge his disciples for
their own sternness. He did so by taking little children up in his arms, girls
and boys who would grow up to be women and men; and blessing them, before they
spilt back out, to populate the kingdom of God.
So,
come to the table, you who are married and you who are unmarried; you who long
to be married and you who long to be released from marriage; you who are
divorced, re-married, widowed, never-been-married. You who are separated from
your wife or husband by geography and global politics. You who have been hurt
and you who, having caused hurt, have repented. You who are brothers and
sisters of Jesus, children of God being brought through suffering to glory. You,
the Church, who are both the body of Christ and the bride of Christ. Come and
experience again the mystery of being broken and being made one. And what God
has joined together, let no one separate.
No comments:
Post a Comment