“Some hard sayings, indeed”

By Rev. Michael Stonhouse

Meditation – Sunday, October 6, 2024

Mark 10: 2-16 (Forward, p. 69) CEV p. 1040

There are probably few passages of Scripture that have sparked such debate and dissention as this one, and for good reason. The question of divorce and remarriage was a matter of hot and spirited debate and discussion even at the time of Christ. Basically, there were two extremes. On the one extreme, there were those who were very permissive, who basically allowed remarriage and divorce for virtually any reason. And, as you might guess, there were those on the other extreme, that ruled out divorce and remarriage totally, period, no debate. And so, the Pharisees came to Jesus to test Him on this matter, to see where He stood.

Now, before I proceed, let me put one matter to rest. According to John Stott’s little pamphlet on this topic, permission to remarry after divorce was a given at the time of Jesus. So, that wasn’t the issue. The issue was over the permissiveness of divorce in the first place.

So, Jesus begins with one simple, unequivocal statement, namely that divorce was not God’s original intent. The lifelong marriage of a man and a woman was the way He designed it at the beginning. It was God who joined them together, so it wasn’t something that we humans should undo.

What then, about divorce? Jesus is asked by the Pharisees, “Is it ever right that a man to divorce his wife?” He replies by asking them what the Law of Moses says. They reply that Moses allowed a man to write out divorce papers and send his wife away. And, in terms of how this was sometimes applied, this could be for virtually any reason, a man might divorce his wife even for things as trivial as burning his toast or speaking too loudly in public—or because the husband had found someone younger and more attractive. This, basically, was the very permissive end of the spectrum. Jesus tells them that this was not at all God’s purpose or will, that Moses ‘allowed’ this because they were so ‘heartless’, had such hardened hearts, were so hard to teach. And it may well be that Moses’ regulation was meant as ‘kind of time out’, a means to create or allow for a kind of breathing space where the husband had to actually take the time to spell things out and put it into writing. And so, it might well have been a way to protect the rights and well-beings of women over against the heartless desires and machinations of uncaring and unsympathetic husbands.

Up until now, Jesus has been addressing what might have been a mixed crowd, Gentiles as well as Jews, seeing as they were on the other side of the Jordan, in Gentile territory. But then Jesus moves to a private dwelling to be alone with just His disciples and begins to explain things to them. “A man who divorces his wife and marries again is committing adultery, and the same goes for his wife if she does the same.” Presumably, this is because in the eyes of God they are still married to their original partners. (Note here: Jesus’ reply may well reflect His Gentile surroundings, given that Jewish women were not allowed to divorce their husbands). But what about John Stott’s allegation that divorce back then automatically implied a permission to remarry?

However, here is where it gets ‘interesting’. In the parallel version of this story, found in Matthew’s Gospel (Matthew 19: 3-9)—set in an identical situation and setting, Jesus adds a ‘exceptive’ clause. He says that remarriage after divorce is adultery, unless…, unless it is for unfaithfulness, unchastity, or some serious sexual sin. (The word in the Greek is pornea, and scholars aren’t quite sure what exactly it entails.). But obviously, it is something very serious, something that has the potential to break the marriage bond. So, how do we reconcile the inclusion of this exception when Mark says nothing of it? Afterall, both are accounted to be inspired, that is, the word of God, with Mark generally being regarded as the earlier source. Few explanations really ‘work well’, but one is does make sense is that Matthew had other sources than Mark, sources that included this exceptive clause, such that Matthew felt it crucial to include. Maybe, perhaps the exceptive clause was taken for granted by Mark’s audience and needed to be spelled out for Matthew’s.

Having said that, however, even here the divorce is not something that is necessary or is required. And here we see something that was very close to Jesus’ heart, very close to His own situation. His foster father, His adoptive father Joseph, could have divorced Mary when she was ‘found to be with child’, but he did not, even though he was well within his rights.

This, however, isn’t the end of the conversation about divorce and remarriage in the New Testament, as this question arose in other situations as well. What, Paul was asked, about an interfaith marriage, where one partner has become a Christian and the other has not. He replied that if the unbeliever is content to stay, then so be it, the children will be blessed thereby. But if the unbeliever decides to leave, then let him or her. The believing partner is no longer bound by his or her marriage vows. And what about those situations where the husband no longer cares for his wife as ‘Christ loved the church’ (see Ephesians 5: 28,33), where the marriage had basically died? Or actually abuses her? Some good questions which do not readily have answers, or at least, not from a Biblical perspective.

So, what can we today ‘take away’ from this passage? I would suggest two things. Firstly, that God cares intensely about our relationships and about our health and well-being as individuals within those relationships. And secondly, that God’s advice and directives—like those of a good and understanding parents--aren’t cookie-cutter, one size fits all, but are tailor-made for each of us, our needs, and our situations. Thanks be to God.

Forward notes: “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them, for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs” (verse 14b).

“One Sunday morning, our musician texted me, saying that he was sick and couldn’t make it to church. I thought we had everything covered, but I forgot about music during the eucharist. Before inviting people forward to receive communion, I told them about the lack of music. One of the children in the congregation, who was five years old, asked if she and her brother could sing. They started with ‘Jesus Loves Me.’ Then, her two-year-old brother started singing ‘Baby Shark.’

“While some of you might be horrified, I felt it was a holy moment. The boy offered his talents to the worship celebration. It all depends on how you view worship. If worship is a performance, then we should keep children silent and distractions at a minimum.

“But if we truly view worship as a communal celebration of God, our community, and the things that God is doing in us, with us, and through us, then let us make a joyful noise to the Lord, baby shark and all.”

Moving Forward: “What changes could you help make to honour and celebrate the gifts of everyone in the congregation?”