Genesis 2:16-24
Psalm 8
Hebrews 1:1-4, 2:5-12
Mark 10:1-16
Contrary to what many people think, Jesus did not come into the world to be social reformer. His mission was not that of an ethicist or moral engineer. Unlike the great rabbis of his time, he did not bequeath to his disciples a systematic interpretation of the Law of Moses; it was not his intention to establish a great rabbinical school in the name of Rabbi Jesus. Yet when pressed to render his judgment on issues that exercised the greatest legal and ethical minds of his time, particularly on social matters, he did not pull any punches. So profound were his insights, so radical was his perspective on things, so transforming his ethic, that common folk could not help but sit up and take notice. On many occasions the crowds were amazed that he spoke as “one with authority,” and not as the scribes and teachers of the law. It is for this reason that Jesus was pressed throughout his ministry, particularly by his opponents, to weigh in on the controversial matters of his day.
And what issue could be more controversial than marriage and divorce (a subject that still creates controversy in our day). Not surprisingly, the two main rabbinical schools of Jesus’ day differed on this issue. Rabbi Hillel had taught that a husband could divorce his wife for any reason that displeased him, like burning the evening meal. Rabbi Shimei on the other hand taught that a man could only divorce his wife on account of sexual impurity. So which side would Rabbi Jesus take in this debate? The Pharisees ask him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (Mark 10:2). In typical custom, Jesus responds with a question of his own, “What did Moses command you?” They answer, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and divorce her” (vv. 3, 4).
Now here is where the dialogue gets very interesting, but I caution you to remember what I said earlier: Jesus did not come into this world to be a social reformer or moral engineer. The only reason we know anything about Jesus’ views on marriage and divorce is because the Pharisees were attempting here to test him. It just so happens that his answer was so radical for its time that it was remembered and recorded for posterity sake in the gospel accounts (so radical in fact that the gospel writer Matthew felt compelled to soften the impact of his teaching by including an adultery exception like that of Rabbi Shimei.) But as far as we know, Jesus never ever preached a sermon on marriage and divorce (which is ironic since his followers cannot seem to preach enough on the matter!).
But as I said, here’s where the dialogue gets very interesting, because Jesus and his detractors are both able to appeal to Moses. Naturally, the Pharisees argue for the legality of divorce from the provision for divorce in the Mosaic Code. Jesus, however, appeals to the beginning – to the creation account of Eve in the Book of Genesis, which as part of the Torah was believed to have been written by Moses. Jesus infers from the creation account of Eve that God never intended for a man to divorce his wife.
So then is there a contradiction in the Law? Not at all, for Jesus goes on to explain: “Because of your hardness of heart [Moses] wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (vv. 5-9). Later on, when asked privately by his disciples (who were no doubt baffled by his earlier statement), Jesus will be even more direct and blunt: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (vv. 10-12). Now, mind you, there is no indication that Jesus ever offered this judgment outside of the goading of others. The account reads almost like the classic “Jack Nicholson” moment in the film A Few Good Men: “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
Now, my friends, that is God’s standard. That’s the ideal. That’s the way God intended things since creation. And Jesus is not about to qualify this teaching, or water down the text, or suggest loopholes – not for them, and not for us. But, on the other hand, he’s not going to deny the reality of human sin either – i.e., the hardness of the human heart. Nor do I think it was Jesus’ intention here to abolish the divorce laws of the Mosaic Code. Rather, as on other occasions, his intention is to put the Law into perspective, i.e., to show that at most the Law is intended to curb sin, for it is powerless to prevent it! And it is certainly not intended to promote sin! After the creation of humankind on the sixth day, "God saw all that he created and it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). However, in a world broken by sin, divorce may be permissible, but it is never good.
Obviously there has never been a time in human history – not then and certainly not now – when we humans have ever been able to live up to this standard. In fact, all have fallen short of God’s standard, whether we’ve been married to the same person for fifty years or have been divorced three times. NONE of us has been able to live according to the standard of fidelity and mutuality that the Genesis creation account invokes. There are periods of brokenness in every relationship, no matter how outwardly strong they appear to be. And societies have always found it necessary to navigate and negotiate the course of human relationships. That’s not going to change.
But here’s the point. While the world around us may not change, while there may always be a need in society for the legal and ethical redressing of areas affected by the Fall (e.g. the legal recourse of divorce), we, the People of God, can be changed, we can be transformed, we can be renewed. And that is the beauty of Jesus’ teaching, for the appeal to the Genesis account of our creation is an appeal to what is authentically human about us. In and of ourselves, this may be impossible, but in Christ all things are possible for he is the “authentic Human Being.” We may not be able to go back and fix the past, and I’m not suggesting that we even try, but we can begin to work on the present – to be authentically human to each other – where we are now in the relationships we have now with each other. And when we fail (as we are bound to do from time to time) we must remember that in Christ is always the hope of redemption and of resurrection - for ourselves and in our relationships: in our marriages, in our friendships, in our families, with our parents, with our children, with our brothers and sisters; yes, even in the Church.
No comments:
Post a Comment