Divorce & More in Mark 10

Mark 10:2-12

And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Some backdrop to this passage: Jewish law did not permit women to divorce their husbands but husbands were permitted to divorce their wives. Not only this but men could divorce their wives for anything they wanted in some Rabbi's teachings. The Roman law of the time allowed women to divorce their husbands. So when the Pharisees ask this question to Jesus it's very possible that they are not merely asking if it is morally permissible to divorce, for the answer was obviously "yes" since if he said no he'd be denying the Mosaic law, but rather asking if only men are allowed to initiate divorce. In other words, does Jesus side with the liberal and unbiblical Roman law of Herod or the Jewish law and Moses? Does Jesus permit men to divorce like the great prophet Moses or does he agree with the great oppressor of the Jews and say women may also divorce their husbands?

This is the context of the test given by the Pharisees (and make no mistake, it is indeed a test. It is a trap). Jesus answers that man and woman, being two, are made one in marriage according to Genesis (which precedes the Mosaic Law). While the Pharisees are concerned with Moses as their validation, a way to say "This is what scripture teaches, this is the what Yahweh's team looks like", Jesus points to something even earlier in scripture. He points to the beginning of mankind and marriage in Genesis. By doing this he shows the Pharisees that 1) their elitist foundation is faulty and 2) they don't even understand the issue of marriage and divorce. In this response of "they are no longer two but one flesh" Jesus is basically asking what difference it makes who is initiating the divorce since the two are one (no longer divided but one working unit). Since God has made them one it would be wrong foreither to initiate divorce. The issue of whether or not women can divorce their spouse as men do is irrelevant because neither party is separate from the other and should not seek to be separated from the other. This is a big part of why marrying another would be adultery.

Jesus informs us here that the Mosaic law, or at least this part of the law concerning divorce, was given merely because men (be it actually males or mankind) had hard hearts which were unable to accept the way of God. This way of life that the Pharisees have clung to is not God's ideal or even what he originally intended for man. What he originally intended for mankind is spelled out by Jesus here in the passage when he references Genesis. Now that God has come to us in the incarnate Jesus we are able to see this truth. The question is now what type of hearts we will have. Will we have hard hearts that ask for and live by a law which causes squabbles, division, and a lack of searching for the ideal of God or will we have soft hearts that are willing to live in the ideal for humanity held by God. A soft heart does not need a law because it is in tune with the big picture of God because it is pure and it is understand of God's will. A soft heart is a vulnerable heart and vulnerable hearts exist only in trusting relationships.

Jesus challenges us to think biblically. Sometimes we think we're being biblical but we're not. We may be using scripture but we're not being used by God. Instead of being ruled by scripture we rule by means of scripture and abuse the words of God. We ask questions about right and wrong and in answering He asks us "What have I already said to you?" He brings us back to the big picture and the desire of God. He is constantly calling us to return to the Way of God, to be under the Reign of God. He is not giving a law but calling us back to a right understanding and right relationship with God and man. He's asking us to not be hard hearted people but to be soft hearted, living in his ideal, understanding what the work of God is and honoring it.

A Few Did-You-Knows About the Bible #2

Did you know . . .

• Some early stories in scripture are myth? Myth doesn't always mean fictional or false story. It's a type of literary genre. The Creation and Flood accounts in the Bible fall under this category. There were many other creation and flood stories permeating the world before the Hebrew versions that we now know. Gilgamesh's flood story predates the Bible's. It's true. The uniqueness of the myths in scripture is their differences from these other nonbiblical myths. These myths were often told to not so much give an account for the past like a historical record might but instead to give a picture of life itself and what existence is like. At the same time, there is absolutely a sense of saying "this is where we come from." The idea of origin is a big part but that doesn't mean it's a literal historical record. The beauty of this is that while we read these myths and acknowledge their literary genre and the fact that they aren't completely original we recognize they have originality and to them in many ways and because they stand out from the similar stories of the time and believe they are God-breathed we claim them as truth. How does this change the way you approach the Creation and Flood accounts? Does this bother you? Does it encourage you to know God took already-existing stories and showed the world where they were missing the point by giving his own?

• Parables don't always mean fictional short stories? A lot of the time we think of parables as the stories Jesus told and nothing beyond that. Perhaps you've heard that a parable is an "earthly story of a spiritual truth." While that's a fun and simple way to remember what some parables are it isn't completely true of all parables. Many things beyond short illustrative stories can fit into the category of parable. Under the parable umbrella category are things such as clever sayings, illustrations (especially used for comparisons), riddles, epigrams, proverbs, or even symbols (like in Hebrews 9). How does this change the way you approach parables? Does this make the term feel more relevant to your daily life?

• Numbers in scripture often had more to do with quality than quantity? It sounds strange to us now but a lot of the time in scripture we see an intentional use of numbers not just for mathematical reasons for emphasis in a story. Where some western thinkers read 7 days in the creation account as data entry the original Eastern audience would have heard 7 days as the idea of completion and perfect. The number was a message other than mere number, it had an idea or notion wrapped around it. The number 7 had the idea of completion or perfection wrapped around it. Look for the numbers 6, 7, 12, 40 in scripture and you'll find patterns, messages. The measurements surrounding Goliath speak not of size but of evil. Of course not all numbers are used in this way but it is not at all rare in the scriptures. How does this change the way you read scripture? Do you see numbers used this way in your life?

A Few Did-You-Knows About the Bible

Did you know . . .

• The writings of scripture were not compiled until recently in history and so the practice of encountering scripture was communal? People gathered together, had one person read from a scroll (be it large or small due to it being a "book" or letter) and the rest of the community of believers would listen? The authors of scripture didn't anticipate individual reading of scripture but communal reading of scripture. Before that, all mankind had was oral tradition so many of the stories were passed on from one generation to the next through memorization. That's a lot of repetition, which means a lot of communal gatherings to hear of God.How does this change how you approach scripture?

• Jesus was a Hebrew? Jesus was Jewish. Sometimes people call him a Christian but the fact is clear from scripture that he was actually a devout Jewish man. He held to many Jewish practices, commented and taught about the Jewish Law while also observing Jewish holidays and feasts. While Jesus was showing the Jewish people how they were meant to live under the reign of God he did not come to create a new sect per se but to call everyone back into right standing with the Father. Also a part of this little fact is that Christians were originally known as a Jewish sect and not a different religion. They met in the same synagogues as their Jewish siblings for quite some time. How does this change the way you see Jesus, Jewish people, and Christianity?

• When it is written in 2 Timothy 3 that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" it is referring (primarily) to the Old Testament? The New Testament had not yet formally been put together and many believers were tempted to move away from the Old Testament and look solely to the testimony of Christ for guidance. This is why, in the verse previous, it is said that the reader and listeners of the letter have known the Holy Scriptures from infancy. Even now, after Christ, our old stories, poems, proverbs, and parables are of God and of great benefit to us who wish to be righteous! How does this change your approach to the Old and/or New Testament?

God Comes Down

Tonight I walked around one of my sacred spaces and smoked my [tobacco] pipe. As I stood there, surrounded by the evergreen trees my home state derives it's second name from I couldn't help but meet God. When I first arrived in this place there were clouds in the sky. At the same time, I was able to see a vast array of stars in the cold night's canopy shining brightly though they were far from my eyes. As I walked, smoked, and prayed time slowly passed. However, it didn't seem long until I looked up and noticed the clouds had left the sky and made their way to the trees. A little while later the trees were swallowed up completely by the clouds which had come down low. The clouds came so low that they met the grass of the field in which I stood. The world around me, for all I could see, was consumed with the low sitting clouds. At this point I suppose we call it fog. The lights of the street and neighboring homes made it look as though the air was littered with roses or perhaps even set on fire. I could have sworn I heard music and voices singing. It was beautiful.

This is what God does. He comes down from the heavens, into our world, consuming all in the most beautiful of ways. He leaves the distant shining stars to occupy our world, even coming beneath the trees to walk with us in the fields and meeting us in our neighborhoods. He sets us on fire in the most wondrous of ways with his light. This is the picture of Jesus Christ. Though the names are many the God is one. Though He be fog He is also cloud. Though He be of Heaven He belong also to earth. This is what the incarnation is; God becoming man. What was high came to be low. Faster than rain or light, and in a far more mysterious manner God decided to descend into our midst and transform our world. He settled with us and communed with us whilst we walked, smoked, and prayed.

Though it is a bit early for Advent I can't help but be immersed in the loveliness of the incarnation. I can't help but be in awe of the God who loved us so dearly that even as we filled our lungs with smoke and our world with rebellion that he entered into everything we know. He became a human child, entering the world as we all do, naked and through a woman's body. He lived on the earth, enduring what we endure, suffering with us, and then suffering because of us, for us. But like the clouds he did not stay low but rather rose back up from the ground, defeating death and sin, and ascending back up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of our Father. In this incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension he put within us a hope for our own victory over sin and death and our own future resurrection in which we will sit in glory with our Triune God. Though we toil and shiver we look forward to when the world encounters the judgment which is like fire, either refining or burning us, we look forward to a renewed earth in which we shall forever be with God.

All of this; the clouds, the trees, the smoke, the music, the neighborhoods, the fields, the lights, the fire, the incarnation of God himself, the coming judgment, and the present victory which he shares with us and invites us into is because of his great and unending love. It can not be measured. It can not be earned. But it can be seen and entered into. It can be praised and presently consuming. It can infiltrate the clouds, the trees, the smoke, the music, the neighborhoods, the fields, the lights, and most of all ourselves. This is the love of God; that he came down and is taking us up. And it is beautiful.

The Problem with Disarmament

In the early 1900s there were some impressive pacifists, politicians, and discussions on the matters of peace, war, and disarmament. While there were politically involved pacifists working hard for the cause of international peace there were also tyrants running around Europe taking what they please through violence. There was a great desire for peace, absence of war and avoidance of international violence among many European countries and their political authorities. However, there was also great struggle for those leaders on how to best pursue peace (nothing has changed). Some authorities listened to the pacifists but the strategy of the pacifists fell short for a few solid reasons which don't need examining here. That's easy to see in retrospect. Here are some words of powerful leaders at the time.

"It is a great mistake to mix up disarmament and peace. When you have peace you will have disarmament." -Winston Churchill

"...the trouble with diarmament is that the problem of war is tackled upsid down and at the wrong end. . . . Nations don't distrust each other because they are armedl they are armed becase they distrust each other. . . . To want disarmament before a minimum of commom agreement on fundamentals is as absurd as to want people to go undressed in winter." -Salvador de Madariaga, chairman of the League of Nations Disarmament Commission

Both these men make excellent points. There can not be a laying down of one's weapons unless one is first embracing peace. If one does not have peace living inside them then their disarmament is of little use to them for now they not only are unarmed but don't have good reason to be unarmed and have not only disarmed themselves of lethal weapons but also of reason and conviction. It is possible that one may learn of peace as they begin to lay down their weapons but that peace won't be truly achieved merely by laying down one's weapons. More must happen. This type of behavior altering doesn't create longstanding or hopeful peace. It creates a ticking time-bomb. I have left the ways of violence because I have firstly come to the peace of Christ. I did not drop my weapons until I decided I must pick up a cross and had the willingness to do so. The same is true for groups.

The Church is able to be a nonviolent entity because it exists within the peace of Christ. She is able to say "thy will be done" and cling to the cross in which she was birthed. She exists within the beautiful sharing of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and victory over sin and death and as a result she is able to turn swords into plowshares. She no longer has reason to destroy but only to cultivate. This is, as they say, the business of the church; to cultivate eternal life on earth by clinging to Christ's redeeming blood as His body. Until Jesus returns in glory the pain and suffering will not cease. However, since Christ has come man has reason to not cause pain and suffering but great reason to endure it.

I have always maintained that nonviolence is not a way to discipleship but a take away from discipleship. We drop our weapons and pick up our towels because Christ has shown us the way and told us we can and we believed him. While I believe the Church is able to live this nonviolent witness on earth (through the Holy Spirit) I don't expect nations to do it. Since peace and trust must come before disarmament there must be a transformation of nations, their leaders, and the relationship between nations and national leaders. Until a system or individual is under Christ's reign there is little reason to expect lasting disarmament to exist within that system or individual.

Until all things are made right there will be sin and corruption among mankind. Until there is peace there will be violence and war. Until all nations are brought back to God they will be enemies and unable to embrace one another as true siblings belonging to the same Creator Father. I believe there is one entity on this earth that has the best chance of exampling disarmament and it is the one that is founded in Christ; the Church. The hard question then is how the Church functions in the world which refuses to enter the redemption of Christ. Do she try to get those lacking peace to "play nice" with one another even though she knows it is a shortcoming of her mission, stand back at a distance to create clear contrast while demanding repentance of individuals and nations, or get in the middle of everything seeking to be makers of peace while suffering and refusing to seek power? My bet is that the answer is far more expansive than any one of those options (while also including all of them at various times).