Twenty-seventh Sunday In Ordinary Time
Mark’s instruction on the permanence of marriage takes the form of the following story. The Pharisees approached Jesus with a question, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” Mark notes that they were testing him. These Pharisees are probably the Torah scholars usually known as “scribes” or “skilled in the Law (of Moses),” or simply “lawyers.” Human society has to deal with the permanence or non-permanence of marriage. Christian society was no exception. Should Christians follow the practice of the Judaism out of which Christianity originated and of Roman civil society? Roman society and Judaism allowed divorce. There was much debate among the scribes of Jesus’ time about what might be sufficient grounds for divorce. The quest-ion of the scribes goes back beyond the causes to ask whether divorce was lawful at all. This must have been a burning question in Mark’s Christian community.
Jesus responds to their question in the accepted practice of a counter-question, “What did Moses command you?” The name “Moses” was frequently used as a synonym for “Torah,” because Moses was thought to have been the author of the whole Torah – the first five books of the Old Testament. Jesus’ questioners respond, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and thus put away his wife.” They were referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, “When a man marries a woman, if she finds no favor in his eyes because of some indecency he found in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce….” The context of this law was to forbid a man to marry his former wife after he had divorced her, and she had married another man who also divorced her. There-fore the law referred to this specific situation.
Like our own laws, so also laws of ancient times could be expanded, diverted, restructured and interpreted. The scribes, learned Torah scholars, were called upon for interpretation of the laws of Moses in the Torah. Such interpretation could sometimes find loopholes in the law to let a client jump through. Such was the case with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The stricter interpretation of the time of Jesus was that divorce was allowed. Even remarriage was allowed after divorce in case the breakup of the marriage was caused by adultery of one of the spouses. This ground for divorce was known as a “heavy” cause. Adultery broke the marriage bond. The marriage no longer existed. The more lenient interpretation not only allowed divorce for almost any imagin-able reason, but also remarriage after divorce. Among the “light” causes for divorce: if the wife was a poor cook; if the husband found a more beautiful woman.
The major rabbinical schools of thought on this matter are named after their leaders. Shammai would today be called a conservative, while Hillel would be known as a liberal. In a collection of rabbinical opinions dating from second century B.C. to early third century A.D. we read the fol-lowing, “The School of Shammai says ‘A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found un-chastity in her….’” “The School of Hillel says, ‘(He may divorce her) even if she spoiled a dish for him….’” Both rest their opinion on Deuteronomy 24:1, “…because he has found indecency in her in anything.” A later noted scribe, Akiba, is quoted as saying, “Even if he found another more beautiful than she,” and bases it on another part of Deuteronomy 24:1, “…if she find no favor in his eyes….” The object of “testing” Jesus on this point would have been to find out which of the two major schools of thought he favored. As it turns out, at least in the Gospel of Mark, he favored neither.
Jesus’ response was not as creative as the scribal opinions. First he states the reason why Moses permitted divorce, “Because of the hardness of your hearts…, but from the beginning of creation it was not so.” Then he quotes Genesis 3:24, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh, no longer two but one flesh.” Mark adds Jesus’ own command, “What God has yoked together, let man not separate!” This was tough on Jesus’ disciples. Divorce was not uncommon in Jewish society. So they questioned him. The Marcan Jesus’ answer is absolute, not about divorce, but about remarriage after div-orce. He has a name for it – adultery. St. Paul upholds this teaching in 1 Cor 7:12-16, then pro-ceeds in 7:12-16 to find a loophole called “the Pauline Privilege.” Matthew 5:32 & 19:9 also allow an exception. Matthew continues in 19:11, attributing to Jesus this statement, “Not all can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” Like the Marcan Jesus, the Church states the ideal. Then following Paul and the Matthean Jesus, she acts mercifully in difficult situations in which a marriage is mortally wounded.
Speaking of marriage reminds Mark about children and their role in the Church. Were they of any importance? Mark answers with a brief story. People were bringing their children to Jesus for a blessing. The protective disciples try to shoo them away. Indignant at his would be mana-gers, Jesus says, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Then Jesus embraced the children and blessed them. The Church from ancient times on has rightfully used this passage to justify the baptism of children. Even adults are urged by Jesus to “receive the kingdom of God like a child,” that is, with the unquestioning openness of a child receiving a gift.
