Within Jesus’ society, the Pharisees hotly debated the subject of divorce. Pharisees of the School of Hillel believed that a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever. Within in that patriarchal culture, the economic results of a woman being divorced could be devastating. A woman who could be divorced for any reason would be in a very fragile position socially, politically, and economically. The Pharisees of the School of Shammai strongly opposed the School of Hillel’s view of divorce, however, and stated that a husband could only divorce his wife if there had been infidelity.
Welcome Readers! Please subscribe to Social Jesus Here.
(Read this series from the beginning at Part 1 and Part 2.)
Within the context of this debate among the Pharisees, we read our passage this week. Mark’s Jesus takes a hard stance against divorce as practiced in his society. I believe that Mark’s Jesus demonstrates a profound-for-his-time concern with the well-being of women, their survival, and their welfare. Jesus opposes divorce as practiced at that time with his people’s own origin stories (Genesis 1 and 2). And that was the only form of divorce that existed in Jewish society then. The form of divorce we practice today was night-and-day different from the form practiced in Jesus’ time.
We should also note that Mark was written for a more cosmopolitan Jesus-following community made up of both Jews and Gentiles thanks to the evangelistic efforts of Paul and others like him. So although Jesus takes a strong stance against divorce for the protection of women, Mark’s Jesus also applies the same prohibitions to women and men, since in the larger Roman society women could divorce just as men could. Compare this to Matthew’s Jesus on the subject of divorce. Matthew was written primarily for a Jewish Jesus-following community, and it does not account for women divorcing men because wives did not divorce men in that community. Also, in Matthew, Jesus sides with the Shammai Pharisees by stating divorce should not be practiced but was permitted if the woman had been unfaithful:
“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31)
So what are we to make of all of this today?
It is foolish at best and dangerous at worst to build a modern practice of marriage and divorce on any of this. We can use it to inform our decisions, but we can’t use it as the basis for our decisions. Our context is different today. Let me explain.
In our time, not all divorce looks like the kind of divorce being practiced in Jesus’ day and to which the Jesus of Mark’s gospel was so opposed. Divorce that is only concerned with the well being of men in a patriarchal culture should be opposed. But what do we now do in matters of abuse where there has been no sexual infidelity? Or with marriages where both partners come to a mutual, consent that a mistake has been made and they they are better as friends than as marriage partners?
I was raised by a single mother who was married multiple times, sometimes to abusive, narcissistic men. Should my mother have waited for her husband to have a sexual encounter outside of their marriage before she divorced him? In one situation, waiting might have gotten her killed. I take the principle of Jesus’ concern for the wellbeing of women in Mark’s gospel and concern for my mother’s well being as encouraging women in her position to leave rather than suffer violence. This is what I mean by allowing the story to inform us in our practice of marriage and divorce.
Our practice of marriage and divorce in our culture today should be based on the ethics and values of the golden rule, the well being of all parties involved, whether abuse is taking place, and an egalitarian concern for justice for everyone. This is the spirit of the gospels’ teachings. People matter above institutions. Institutions were made for people not people for institutions. Even the institution of marriage.
Justice and that which was life-giving were Jesus’ concerns in Mark. And that which is just and life-giving should be our concern today, too. Marriage and divorce are two sides of the same coin. We are not infallible. And when marriage becomes death-dealing, divorce as a life-giving option should be among the choices available to those seeking to turn things around. Whether people believe that they can work on and change their marriage or that their marriage should be undone, that is strictly up to them. It is not our place to shame or look down on them. It’s our job to life-givingly support them during such difficult choices. People who have been divorced or are going through divorce don’t need our judgement. They need our encouragement and our care.
Are you receiving all of RHM’s free resources each week?
Begin each day being inspired toward love, compassion, justice and action. Free.
Sign up at:
https://renewedheartministries.com/Contact-forms/?form=EmailSignUp
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In