Is any old reason good enough?

Mark 10:1-12

Context
Social context is sometimes of crucial importance to a text. Imagine, for example, trying to read a political cartoon without knowing who the characters were or what was going on at the time.
The Jewish law on divorce is entirely sourced from one passage: Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Rabbis were arguing in Jesus' day on what were sufficient grounds for divorce, some saying that only adultery was sufficient, while the other extreme argued that any cause was sufficient. Extreme examples would legalize prostitution by marrying, having sex, and then issuing a certificate of divorce.

Listening to the writer
The Pharisees are “testing” Jesus (v. 2). They are interested in the law: is this behavior legal? The teaching they refer to is in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Read the passage and answer Jesus’ question: what did Moses command them?

In the context of the Rabbinic argument on divorce, Jesus’ words in verses 11 and 12 might simply be saying that making prostitution legal by going through the ritual of divorce and remarriage didn’t change the moral fact of adultery. Or, they may be a blanket prohibition on divorce. People continue to argue the point - which do you think the original writer was saying?

Listening to God
Jesus distinguishes between Moses’ commands (which are in the Bible) and God’s plans. Do you assume that every command in the Bible is from God? Are there times when a command might be a concession to human will, rather than God’s best desire?

Regardless of your interpretation of verses 11 and 12, presumably God desires marriages to be healthy and to last. How can you encourage life-long marriages? How can you help people who have been through the pain of divorce?

Miscellaneous Meanderings
The church changes its views on all kinds of things (famous examples: whether the earth goes around the sun or vice-versa; whether slavery is sinful; whether women can preach). At one time, divorce was almost universally condemned as a sin by the American church. Today, it is “common sense” that divorce is a sad but acceptable outcome of marriage. Is this an example of the church “growing up,” or of conforming to the world?

I was in a Sunday School class years ago that was discussing this passage, and I stated that I thought Jesus' words were a blanket prohibition against divorce.* One of the class members left the room crying, and the rest of the class looked at me like I was the Devil incarnate. It turned out that she had been through a divorce and felt that I was accusing her of great evil.

I was stunned (and a bit naive) - not that she was divorced, but that someone who had committed what I thought was a sin would be traumatized by my belief. Certainly the pain of her divorce played a big part of this particular circumstance - and I am usually much more careful now to prefix my statements on sin! - but I grew up knowing that I was a sinner, that everyone I met was a sinner, and that "sin" was simply part of our human condition. I might weep at recollections of particular pains, but not at being accused of a sinner. After all, we sang Amazing Grace all the time, which save a wretch like me!

I long for the day when we can get over the fact that we sin, and can have discussions about particular behaviors without it being a judgment on those who have or have not taken part in the behavior. Pastors should be good at this - we frequently have to preach on sins that we have committed! Jesus clearly calls us not to judge people. Jesus clearly calls us to make decisions about behavior. Both are important.

*I've since changed my mind, in large part due to learning of the context listed at the start of this post. Before that time I suggested separation but not divorce in cases where staying together was causing harm. I still think many couples who divorce could save a good marriage if they would separate and regroup early enough. But - that's just an anecdotal opinion. If your marriage is in trouble, get professional advice.

Dig Deeper at Textweek.