Note: You can watch this teaching on CrossWalk’s YouTube channel.
In 1982, the world received a gift from Steven Spielberg, E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial. It became the highest grossing film of the 1980’s and is an enduring classic. Take a second and think about the film. What do you remember about it? What lines have stuck with culture? What image captures the film in our memory?
Given that the film features an alien from another planet, it is easy to put the movie onto the Sci-Fi shelf in our brains. As interesting as ET was, however, it was about much more than a visitor from outer space. Ten-year-old Elliott Taylor was the fortunate boy who discovered and eventually befriended the alien and helped him get back home. Elliott’s parents had divorced, and he felt like he was all alone in another world. E.T. the alien, and E.T., the boy, were both in need of friendship and support as they figured out how to get back home. The movie is really about that, which also happens to be about an alien from another planet who really did come in peace. To focus too much time on the Sci-Fi aspect of the film would be a massive exercise in missing the point of the film. This was a film about being lost, finding friendship, and finding one’s way home.
Sometimes we do the same thing with scripture. We read a text and it seems so obvious to us what it is about that we just go one our merry way. Sometimes, however, what seems like the point of a text after a casual glance isn’t really accurate. While we could keep on walking and stick with our assumptions, we may be missing the whole intent of a particular text. This week provides a great example for us to consider: one scene about divorce and another about children. Both need contextualizing in order to be fully appreciated and relevantly applied.
The divorce exchange was a test posed by the Jewish religious leaders in an attempt to get Jesus in trouble. The word “should” is a huge giveaway on that. The Pharisees already knew that there was legal precedent that allowed for divorce dating back to very early legal codes with ancient Judaism. They weren’t really concerned about answering the legal question that had already been settled and was well known. They were wanting him to say out loud, in public, that people shouldn’t get divorced. They likely already knew that that was his interpretation because of his close association with John the Baptist. They were probably hoping that Jesus would suffer a similar fate as Jesus. The governor of the region in which Jesus did his ministry was Herod Antipas, who found himself in a public scandal when he married his brother’s ex-wife. His new wife became available by divorcing from his brother. The only reason she divorced his brother was to marry Herod. When John the Baptist openly challenged it – voicing the opinion of most of the people under his rule – he found himself eventually arrested and killed. Perhaps if Jesus took the same stance in public, he would be out of the picture, too. It wasn’t just Herod, though, who seemed to ruffle the feathers of ordinary Jewish folks. Religious leaders themselves had gained the reputation for doing the same thing, divorcing their wives, trading them in for a newer model. Both Herod and the Pharisees were trying to get away with what they could given the legal options afforded them. Their casual, callous actions were an afront to a much deeper concern that Jesus addressed that is still relevant today.
Instead of engaging in a legal debate, Jesus focused the attention on the original idea of marriage as a covenant of union, a picture of what the God-human relationship was supposed to look like: two persons choosing to commit to each other, to love one another, serve one another, look out for one another, sacrifice for one another, submit to one another, through thick and thin for the rest of their lives. In reminding the disciples of what the original intent was supposed to be, those who had violated that intent were easily recognized. The more accurate way to frame the question Jesus was handling would be something like this: should someone treat their covenant casually, to the point that they abandon the hard work required of true union in favor of an easy out? To that, Jesus would say “no”.
God hates divorce, of course, just like everyone on the planet. It represents dashed dreams, brokenness, severed union, and generally a lot of pain and suffering. Yet divorce was allowed in the Jewish legal code because it really, really needed to be there – and was “endorsed” by God. Why? Because humanity. Things don’t always go perfectly in myriad ways, from people choosing to grow apart rather than closer together, to one partner not engaging as much as the other, to substance abuse, domestic violence, and more. Divorce needs to be available because “humanity”. God hates all that it means, yet God – I am certain – favors it over marriages that really need to be dissolved. However, I don’t believe God is in favor of entering into marriage or divorce lightly, which is really the issue Jesus was addressing. Jesus is drawing attention to a higher view of life and living – according to the Way of God and not the ways of the world.
Unfortunately, this passage has been weaponized against divorced people, and particularly against women who were not equal players in the ancient world. Women were, for the most part, deeply dependent on their fathers or husbands for their wellbeing. Getting remarried after divorce was very difficult. For those Jewish leaders to cast their wives by the side of the road with divorce was tantamount to them sentencing their ex’s to extreme poverty. That was an injustice and still is. Even today, women fare much worse than men on the whole in terms of financial security when divorce hits. This is due in part to the fact that there is still a wage gap between men and women, and in cases where kids are involved, women more often than men in various ways choose to tap the brakes on their careers to raise their kids. That’s many years of not-as-focused career development, which results in lower income and less benefits. This passage, therefore, while it is about choosing the higher Way of God is also about protecting those who were most likely to be victimized by choosing the lesser way: vulnerable women and children.
Mark’s Gospel then has Jesus in a teaching environment, interrupted by kids. The disciples, in true ways-of-the-world fashion, shooed them away, which ticked Jesus off. This may have surprised the disciples who thought they were honoring Jesus and his audience by protecting his capacity to teach well. What’s happening here? Picture the scene. If kids are present while he is teaching and being with people, who else is likely present? Their mothers. While Jesus is okay with the presence of kids – more than okay as you’ll soon realize – their being there meant their moms were, too – which was not usually afforded to women in that time.
The greater concern that Jesus raised, however, has to do with our determining who is worthy of being in the room and who is not. We have reason to believe that the romantic notions we have about children and their “welcome everywhere” were not as prevalent then as now. In fact, children, in terms of social mores, were not welcome in such places and seen as undeserving to be in the room. They didn’t deserve to be there. That’s the major point Jesus wanted to drive home here. The disciples were steeped in meritocracy, where we earn the right to be in the room, especially if that room was God’s. That’s not how God sees it. God welcomes everyone, especially those who do not feel worthy. Does this mean God favors some more than others? No, it means that people who feel unworthy need to hear that how they feel about themselves, or how the world feels about them, is not how God feels. That’s why paying attention to individuals and people groups that are treated as second class citizens is key to ushering in the Kingdom of God and being faithful Jesus followers: we are announcing and embodying a different Way that is opposed to the tit-for-tat culture that reigns supreme.
To welcome the child is counter-cultural and unnerving to all involved. Identifying as children before God, for the disciples, would be a decision to embrace the truly radical truth that we are loved and accepted not because of anything we have done, but because the nature of God is loving acceptance. A better example in our culture may be a homeless person or a refugee who is utterly dependent on others for survival. Our culture celebrates independence as the sure sign of success, and attributes failure to those who are less so. Jesus is saying that in our understanding of our standing with God, we need to embrace the image of being a dependent of God. Because we are.
Steven Spielberg was doing more than creating a lovely film – he was telling his own story. He himself had grown up in a suburb with parents who divorced, which left him reeling. He was in many ways sharing key understanding from his own journey – a message that needed to be heard because it resonates with so many. A message hidden in plain view. So it is with the scriptures. So much wisdom from the Spirit of God worked out through the remembered stories, all wanting us to hear truly Good News: there is another way which is rooted in the Source of all that is. That Way leads us home if we will recognize it and choose it. A Way that is deeper than the worlds’ ways, and a Way that keeps our tendency to elevate ourselves over others in check. It is a Way of truly loving our neighbor as well as ourselves. May it be so for all of us.
Questions...
How is the core teaching of these two scenes different than what you may have initially thought? What was your experience like of that discovery?
In your own words, what do you think Jesus was trying to communicate to his audience(s) originally? How do you think Jesus might apply his teaching today? What might be the subjects he would address in our time and culture?
Where in your life do you feel the tension between the ways of the world and the Way of the Spirit of God? What is the issue? How would you describe the contrast between the way of the world and the Way of Jesus? What do you sense God inviting you toward? What makes it tough? What about it is compelling? What might the outcomes be depending on which way you choose?
Given that the Way of the Spirit of God is different from the ways of the world, courage is always required on some level. Remember that there exists a great cloud of witnesses cheering you on, whispering in your ear, “Take the risk! The Spirit is all there really is – you have nothing to lose and everything to gain!”
Commentary from SaltProject.org
Nineteenth Week after Pentecost (Year B): Mark 10:2-16
Big Picture:
1) This is the sixth week of a twelve-week chronological walk through several chapters in the Gospel of Mark.
2) Jesus has been teaching his disciples about being “servants of all,” including children (despite their lack of power or status) and religious outsiders (despite their apparent threat as “competitors”). In both cases, Jesus turns the conventional notion of “service” on its head: a servant typically works for someone more powerful than she is, and what’s more, her service is typically reserved for those within the fold, not external rivals. For Jesus, however, being a “servant of all” means caring not only for “insiders,” but also — and especially — for relatively powerless outsiders, the left out and left behind. And in this week’s passage, Jesus continues to develop this theme of serving the vulnerable, this time in the context of marriage and divorce.
3) It’s crucially important to start here: In first century Palestine, marriage and divorce were profoundly patriarchal institutions in which women and children were technically considered the property of men. By contrast, in ancient Roman society, both husbands and wives could initiate divorce, and there’s evidence that at least some Jewish wives could, too — but in the main, Jewish law traditionally gave that power to husbands, as Deuteronomy 24:1-4 makes clear. The proper grounds for divorce, however, were a matter of considerable dispute in Jesus’ day. Some taught that only adultery could trigger divorce (Jesus himself takes this view in Matthew 19:9); others followed Deuteronomy’s broader standard that anything “objectionable about her” — that is, objectionable to the husband — could suffice (Deut 24:1). Moreover, women and their children were highly dependent on marriage for their livelihood and wellbeing, and this dependence, combined with their husbands’ ability to initiate divorce, put women and children in an acutely vulnerable position. To understand Jesus’ teaching on divorce, we have to bear this first-century Near Eastern context in mind. Who is vulnerable in this picture? Women and children.
4) Though Jesus seems to issue a straightforward, blanket prohibition against divorce in this passage, once we start to dig in, important complexities emerge. First, as we have seen along the way in Mark, Jesus often speaks in striking, hyperbolic terms in order to provoke his listeners, and to convey his ideas in bold brush strokes. (This is a rabbi who’s just said, “If your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out” — not someone to take too literally! (Mark 9:47)) Second, since our twenty-first-century context is so different than his first-century one, we’re wise to focus less on statutory details and more on underlying principles. Third, it’s worth noting that many of the earliest Christian communities didn’t take a categorical view of divorce. Matthew (likely writing shortly after Mark) includes an adultery exception (Matthew 19:9); Paul (writing shortly after Jesus’ death) also permits divorce in certain circumstances (1 Cor 7:15). Fourth, Jesus’ teaching — in this passage and elsewhere — often showcases a relatively supple, principle-oriented understanding of how the law works in practice. In this story, for example, he substantively reframes Deuteronomy 24:1-4, thereby casting the law as adaptable; and he explains that Moses permits divorce “because of your hardness of heart,” thereby casting the law as sensitive to human weakness (Mark 10:5). Indeed, one of Jesus’ signature ideas is that, in difficult cases, the law should be flexibly interpreted for the sake of human flourishing: the law was made for humanity, not humanity for the law (see, e.g., Mark 2:27). And fifth, as we’ll see below, a close reading of this passage reveals that Jesus isn’t actually interested in categorically prohibiting divorce, but rather in positioning it as a last resort.
Scripture:
1) Some Pharisees ask Jesus if divorce is lawful, in order “to test him” — but why would this be a test? Perhaps because the issue was divisive enough that any answer Jesus gives will be unpopular. Or perhaps they have another kind of trap in mind: the only other (implicit) reference to divorce in the Gospel of Mark is the story of Herod and Herodias, in which John the Baptizer criticizes their marriage as “not lawful” — no doubt at least partly because Herodias had to divorce Herod’s brother first (Mark 6:18). In other words, the question may be a “test” because of its potential to lure Jesus into criticizing Herod — a move that didn’t turn out too well for John!
2) Turning the tables, Jesus has his questioners answer their own question — and they reply, Yes, divorce is lawful, citing Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Now, the central point of that ancient text is to prohibit people from remarrying each other for a second time, after the wife’s been married to someone else in the interim. But along the way, the passage conjures up a world of common and capricious divorce, with men simply deciding that “she does not please him,” or finding “something objectionable about her,” and then ending the marriage (Deut 24:1). To this patriarchal ethos of divorce on-(male)-demand, Jesus objects. He reframes Deuteronomy’s permission as an accommodation to human “hardness of heart” (Mark 10:5). God’s original vision for marriage, Jesus insists, is that two people are inseparably joined and become “one flesh” (Mark 10:8; Gen 2:24). Likewise, privately with his disciples, Jesus equates remarriage with adultery — strikingly phrasing his teaching in egalitarian terms, as though both men and women have equal agency: “...divorces his wife...divorces her husband…” (Mark 10:11-12).
3) Is this a categorical prohibition of divorce? On one level, Jesus is clearly critical of divorce in this passage, contrasting it with the divine ideal of becoming “one flesh.” But on the other hand, it’s striking that he draws this contrast without declaring Deuteronomy’s permission null and void. He doesn’t say, Moses was mistaken. Nor does he say, The divorce described in Deuteronomy is no longer valid. Rather, he effectively says, What Moses says about divorce is well and good, but don’t forget: it’s an accommodation to human weakness, not an expression of the divine ideal. On the contrary, God’s ideal vision for marriage is that it entails becoming “one flesh,” two people who care for each other to such an intimate, life-giving degree that they become one, and they cannot be torn asunder. Don’t take that vision lightly. Strive toward it as best you can, and reserve divorce as a last resort. And to men, in particular, who might be tempted to take advantage of Moses’ words, “she does not please him” or “something objectionable about her” — think again! God calls you not to be selfish, entitled, and cavalier, but rather to be humble, to serve your spouse, and to serve your children.
4) As it turns out, then, Jesus’ view isn’t a categorical prohibition of divorce, but rather a prohibition of cavalier, contemptuous forms of divorce and tearing asunder. Deuteronomy’s permission still stands — though it’s properly understood, Jesus contends, in light of the divine ideal outlined “from the beginning of creation” (Mark 10:6). That ideal is this: two married people becoming “bone of each other’s bone, and flesh of each other’s flesh,” caring for each other as though they are caring for themselves. It’s how many people picture an ideal partnership — and it’s what many couples aspire to, even when it doesn’t come to pass. What’s more, lifting up this ideal is perfectly consistent with the notion that a marriage sadly falling far short of it, a marriage that creates more harm than good, is indeed rightly ended. But Jesus wants to ensure that our default position is to strive for the “one flesh” ideal — with divorce reserved as a last resort, to be used not when, say, “she does not please him,” but rather when the partnership becomes injurious to one or both partners.
5) Why does Jesus insist upon striving for the “bone of my bone,” “one flesh” ideal? Marriage isn’t for everyone, but for many people, a lifelong intimate partnership can be a key source of growth and happiness. And just as important, in the ancient world marriages could create sanctuaries of livelihood and wellbeing for women and children — and conversely, divorces could put women and children out into harm’s way. Here lies the deep kinship between Jesus’ teaching on divorce and his practice of welcoming children: Jesus is always specially concerned with protecting and advocating for the most vulnerable. And not only because they are exposed to harm! Children, he says, can be open-minded, open-hearted, and therefore receptive to God’s blessings in exemplary ways. The rest of us should follow their lead: “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it” (Mark 10:15).
Takeaways:
1) For many, the good news of the Gospel in this passage is that Jesus does not condemn divorce categorically, but rather positions it as a last resort. This may be received as good news both by many whose lives have been affected by divorce, and at the same time, by many who value marital commitment as something to strive to preserve.
2) The challenge of the Gospel in this passage is that God’s ideal vision for marriage — and by extension, any lifelong partnership — is of an intimate, inseparable bond, a union in which two people become “one flesh,” caring for each other as if caring for themselves, and thereby a sacramental training ground for caring for the wider world. This ideal vision can be an inspiring, daunting challenge. What does it look and feel like to be “one flesh”? What practical wisdom, what best practices might help along the way? Imagine hearing testimony and advice from people in longstanding partnerships, from various generations, about this important subject...
3) And finally, for married and unmarried people alike, the good news of the Gospel in this passage is that God cares especially for the most vulnerable, and calls us to do the same. Jesus evaluates social institutions (like marriage and divorce) through this lens, and he sees social groups (like children or outsiders) through it, too. Such groups deserve respect and protection, of course, but it’s also true that their wisdom and perspective deserve attention — not least because of what they can teach the wider community about faith, love, and “receiving the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:15).