Is this the Word of the Lord?

WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
October 8th 2006
Rev. Mark R. Bradshaw-Miller
“Is This the Word of the Lord?”
Mark 10: 1-16

Each week at the conclusion of the scripture passage, we end with the words: “This is the Word of the Lord.” Often times, we response with the words: “Thanks be to God.” It is our affirmation that the bible is the written word of God and we are thankful for what it says. However, on some days it may be more difficult than others to give thanks for what has just been read. It is even possible that one might even question if what is being read is actually a word from God. I must admit that when I saw this passage in the lectionary cycle for this week, I seriously considered skipping this passage. However, since I do believe the bible to be the written word of God, I knew I had to wrestle with this passage head on.
This passage from Mark requires that we dig deeply in order to avoid an overly simplistic reading. If we settle for a simplistic reading, we will end up turning it into a pharisaical law or discarding the passage because of its perceived teaching. Fortunately, these reactions to the passage miss what it really happening in this passage. In the end, I believe that we can say this passage is God’s word and even give thanks for what it says.
Chapter ten in Mark’s Gospel is a shift in Jesus ministry. As he crosses the Jordan into Judea the story moves ever closer to Jerusalem and Jesus death. Once Jesus crosses the Jordan, crowds gather around him. Anything which causes a stir with the people makes the religious leadership nervous. As a result, they go out to see if they can minimize the threat of this rabble rousing rabbi.
In order to test Jesus, the Pharisees seek to get his position on a ‘hot button’ issue of his day. In the ancient world, within the rabbinical circles, there was a heated debate regarding the issue of divorce. There were really two schools of thought and each was rather entrenched. At the heart of the ongoing debate was the issue of interpretation of scripture. While refusing to take sides, Jesus leaves his challengers, and the disciples, stunned.
Having been challenged by questions like this before, he knows how to proceed. Jesus does not answer the question but instead asks them what Moses commanded. They respond: “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” It is important to notice that their response does not include a woman’s right to issue a certificate of dismissal or to divorce her husband. Jesus rebuttal addresses this issue.
“Because of your hardness of heart (Jesus says) Moses wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” In his response Jesus uses one part of scripture to argue against another. He places the creation narratives in conflict with the Sinai Covenant. This form of argument, using scripture against scripture, was unheard of in the rabbinical circles. Jesus uses this style of argument to do something which is nothing short of revolutionary.
Many interpreters have missed or simply decided to ignore this reality. However, Elizabeth Shussler Fiorenza helps illuminate why Jesus would have chosen the creation narrative. She says: “The Genesis passage is best translated as “The two persons – male and female – enter into a common life and social relationship because they are created as equals.” Jesus use of the creation story was a deliberate inclusion of women. The ancient interpretations of the Law of Moses saw women as property. As such, adultery was never an offence against a woman, only against another man. In other words, women did not count. That is why Jesus’ inclusion must attract our attention.
Throughout this passage Jesus reframes the conversation to include women and to point to a principle of equality within marriage. When Jesus speaks in private to the disciples he makes this abundantly clear when he says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Jesus shifts the discussion, so that women are no longer excluded and are given equal partner status in the marriage. In Jesus teaching, both partners in the marriage are given rights and as such, must also accept the responsibilities of the marriage.
While Jesus teaches a new reality for marriage, his teaching is not as simplistic as it might seem. It is also clear that divorce is seen as a profound spiritual and social tragedy. In other words, it is never easy. It is also clear that Jesus recognizes the social reality of divorce and as such shows that the fundamental issues of justice must never be ignored.
Even as we proclaim this powerful message, we must be careful not to see Jesus’ teaching as a new legalistic requirement regarding marriage. Jesus was not laying the foundation of a new law. Instead, he was challenging an unjust system which left women vulnerable. In simple terms, Jesus elevates the status of women in marriage. This is one of the reasons I am always shocked to hear there are still pastors who claim that the bible teaches there is no justification for divorce. There is not justifiable basis for that claim in this passage.
It is the shape of this encounter which is most telling. Jesus does not address this ‘hot-button’ issue until the Pharisees show up and try to test him on it. Instead of taking sides in the debate, Jesus reframes the issue with a demand for justice. Throughout his ministry, whenever Jesus breaks religious law, he always chooses the spirit over the letter of the law. So, any attempt to use this passage in legalistic ways is an abuse of scripture.
Instead, I think there is something more powerful and life-giving to be taken from this encounter. When Jesus was faced with a hot button issue of his day, he does not take sides in the partisan debate. Instead, he reframes the entire debate around the issue of justice. We live in an age of hot button and wedge issues. I wonder what it would look like if Christians refused to give their allegiance to this camp or that party but demanded justice for all. (Maybe this is a pipe dream) Nevertheless, we need to give up the practice of seeing this passage, and other like it, as a new law and instead follow Jesus’ lead by reframing the issues of our day through the biblical demand for justice. Following this path may just make it easier to see how this passage, too, is the word of God. Amen.