Introduction – Historical Context
I am borrowing from my Commentary on Matthew 5:21-37 for the historical context are divorce at this time.
From the Matthew 5:21-37 Commentary:
This is the type of text that sometimes leads our sermons to get “holier than thou” (especially when we compare ourselves to other denominations). But we also need to be careful about leaning into antisemitic tropes. I have heard plenty of sermons that use these passages to talk about how society back then (as a whole) treated women terribly. But that is a gross overstatement, and the truth is that this topic was a societal discussion for a long time throughout the Jewish community. There were different traditions among different teachings (just like denominational differences in the church today). Some more strict and some less strict. And interpretations and opinions depended on preference of who is protected and what warranted divorce. Here Jesus is participating in a longstanding and active debate within the Jewish community. Here is a famous passage of some of the debate of the time:
“The school of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything [Deut 24:1]. And the School of Hillel say: [He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, Because he hath found in her indecency in anything. R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, And it shall be if she finds no favour in his eyes… [Deut 24:1]. (Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:10)”[1]
It appears that Jesus is siding with the stricter interpretation of the law. Most commentators agree that the stricter interpretation would protect more women who might be left destitute without this protection.[2] In theory, the certificate of divorce was already a step in that direction because it moved the matter into the public, required witnesses, and would allow the woman to remarry. However, without the certificate of divorce, she would be without support and be destitute.[3] In each of the synoptic gospels, Jesus takes this strict interpretation (Mark 10:2-11, Matthew 5:21-37, Matthew 19:3-15, Luke 16:18) and it is also seen in Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians (7:10-11).
This Week – Narrative Context
So, what do we do with this stricter teaching from Jesus in the larger narrative?
Again, as a warning, Mark is not portraying the Pharisees fairly. They are being used as a foil and antagonist in order for Jesus’ authority to shine forth. And so, we shouldn’t take their approach as a wide-reaching Pharisaical perspective (as we saw above there are many schools of thought). So, instead, how is Mark using them narratively? What is their purpose?
First, they are coming to Jesus to test him. This indicates that tensions are still running very high and have not cooled off. There is a level of malevolence here in their question. Which also tells us that this is supposed to be read as an unfair question. They don’t ask if divorce is permitted (at all) but what grounds would permit it—a kind of leading question albeit a normal question for this time. So, what was the test? Afterall, we know from above that this question is being asked by many schools of thought.
For scriptural context, Deuteronomy 24:1 already permits divorce (with a certificate). Maybe the Pharisees already know that Jesus has a stricter interpretation here and they are trying to get him to refute and contradict the law of Moses in front of the crowd. Could they actually get Jesus to say that the law of Moses is wrong, and divorce is not permitted in front of all these people and destroy his authority in one fell swoop?
But Jesus anticipates their trap and immediately brings up Moses’ instruction but then nuances it.
David Schnasa Jacobsen introduces this well.
“Jesus responds by trying to place Moses’ command in a narrower context. What Jesus proceeds to do in v. 5ff is to juxtapose the later commandment with God’s purposes in the creation stories of Genesis. A common practice in scriptural interpretation is to bring two texts into such juxtaposition. The idea is not to bring two texts into open conflict, but to argue that one has a more far-reaching meaning while limiting the scope of the other. Jesus’ perspective here is that God’s purposes for creation (Gen. 1:27 and 2:24) represent the overarching purpose and context for understanding the later command in Deuteronomy. In this sense the commandment concerning divorce is a narrower concession to “hardness of heart.” In this way, Jesus’ reading is actually consistent with the Pharisees use of the term “permission”! The law is an accommodation to human weakness, but finds its fullest expression in Gods purposes in creation. Joel Marcus also points out that the reframing also plays into the eschatological interests of Mark’s apocalyptic thinking. A teaching about marriage and divorce that recognizes God’s purposes at the beginning also points forward to God’s ultimate purposes in going back to an Eden-like state. Thus matters of marriage and divorce for disciples are concerns for the reign of God and God’s new age.”[4]
Jacobsen’s point about the Jesus’ rhetorical style here is critical to our interpretation of this text. If we read it at face value, then it indicates that divorce is not at all permitted. But the argument Jesus is using is not contrasting these two scriptures but looking at a broader instruction to inform the narrower exception.
What Jesus continues teaching to the disciples in private is still interpreting these two texts. And while it feels overly restrictive, Jesus is emphasizing the ideal of unity as encouraged by God in Eden. For the purposes that one not be alone, for the purposes of relationship and companionship, for the purposes of love and family, the covenant of marriage should be made with the intention of remaining together.
That Jesus says the continued (and more restrictive) teaching in private to the disciples is interesting. It calls several things into question that may have been curiosities (or concerns) among earlier followers of the Church who hear about this Jesus movement and the disciples who followed him. Based on Peter having a mother-in-law (Mark 1:29-31), is Jesus instructing them that they are to remain married or that they cannot get remarried after this? Later in this chapter (and in next week’s Gospel) we hear: “28Peter began to say to him, “Look, we have left everything and followed you.” 29Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, 30who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age — houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions — and in the age to come eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”
These disciples have left everything. But it’s interesting that a “spouse” is not mentioned. Children and parents are mentioned. So, have each of their spouses also come along? Or are the spouses filing for a certificate of divorce because the disciples have left them?
For us today this feels harsh and restrictive but there’s an additional piece here that just exposes the oddity of Mark’s context a little bit more. Joel Marcus’ pointing out the apocalyptic nature of Mark is critically important here as it connects this first Gospel with the earliest writing on divorce in the Greek Testament: 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. So, let’s dive a little into some more context that muddies the waters.
What Do You Do When the World is Supposed to End?
The title of this section is a bit tongue in cheek but that’s really what Paul and Mark have to consider as they answer these questions. Uniquely, this 1st Corinthians text is one in which Paul says this is a direct teaching from Jesus and not one that he is interpreting for the Corinthian Church: “To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife (1 Cor. 7:10-11).”
As we hear in the Words of Institution (1st Cor. 11:26), there is expectation in the Pauline churches that Jesus will be coming back soon. And for Mark, as he hears of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, it must be now. If you read the whole of chapter 7 in 1st Corinthians it could be summarized as “stay as you are.” If you are divorced, stay divorced and don’t remarry. If you are married, stay married. If you are unmarried, don’t get married. And it is all because of the “impending crises” (1 Cor. 7:26) … “for the present form of the world is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31).
In our modern context, to some it may seem silly and to some it may seem harmful, but for Paul and Mark, they are trying to maintain unity in the early church in a time when the end could be tomorrow. Hold onto your promises. Hold onto your commitments. As Paul says, “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose” (1Cor. 1:10).
Matthew Already Starts Changing
Somewhere between 10 and 20 years pass between Mark’s Gospel and Matthew. What happens when the world doesn’t end?
Matthew starts returning to the Pharisaical debate even though he uses Mark’s form in the later section of the book. Matthew writes in the sermon on the Mount: “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt 5:31-32).” While still restrictive, is harkens back to the first section and ensuring protections for women. As the Church realizes that the end of the world is not imminent, they begin to interpret these things with more flexibility and understanding. And still, they don’t throw away the importance of what all of this is supposed to mean.
Now that that I’ve muddied the waters on every front, how the heck do we preach this?
Preaching Possibilities
Entering Into Covenants and Promises
Ultimately Jesus is emphasizing the importance of companionship and relationship. And when we are entering into committed relationships with one another, we can’t take that lightly.
No one, when making their vows, ever intends to break them.
Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was imprisoned by the Nazi’s during the time of his best friend’s wedding back during WWII. His friend, Eberhard Bethge, still wanting Bonhoeffer to be a part of the ceremony, asked him to write the sermon to be read at his wedding. So, from prison, Bonhoeffer wrote these words for his best friend’s wedding. In it he writes, “It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love.”1
It is our promises to each other that can sustain love. It is our promises to each other that hold relationships together. I have seen this in countless families and in so many married relationships. We never expect the trials and stresses that come our way, no matter how hard we plan for them. Job loss, moving and transition, deployment overseas, new dreams and new callings, having children or difficulty in trying to have children, a global pandemic.
Each of these experiences will test our love for one another. And as Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes so well, it is not our love that will sustain the marriage. Sometimes, when our heart and mind is torn in so many different directions, it can’t be love that is expected to hold it all together. But it is our promises, the covenants that sustain the love.
This is not only true of marriage, but it is true of so many promises that we make as humans who seek to be in relationship.
It is true of the promise that we make to each little one or each person who is baptized in that font. In each baptism this community makes a vow, a covenant, to support and love each child of God, and to welcome them into the community of Christ. “People of God, do you promise to support Sarah, Matt, Ruth, or Skip, and pray for them in their new life in Christ?”
We make a promise before God and before the family, to the child, to love and support them as a child of God. It is a promise, a vow, a covenant, that we do not take lightly. Each person who comes to the font, we make that promise to regardless of what will happen in their life to come.
We never make these promises and vows intending to break them. Whether it is marriage or baptism, or any promise that we make. But even though we make these promises before God, and these promises are loved by God, they are human promises. We are broken people in a broken world and our promises and covenants are our very best efforts. But even they too can be broken.
No one goes into a marriage thinking that it will end. But I want to make something perfectly clear. This text today should not be used to say that no one should get divorced. There are many good reasons why a relationship should end, and no institution or promise should be used to prevent separation when a relationship is unhealthy or abusive or destructive in any way. Sometimes divorce needs to happen. Sometimes what is healthy is the separation of something that is destructive. No one goes into a marriage thinking that it will end. No one makes a covenant intending to break it. But not every marriage is meant to last. And that is more than okay, and Matthew is an example of how the Church came to instruct that too. There are many good and healthy reasons why a marriage should end, and God loves and blesses those who come to that realization just as much as anyone else.
Marriage is more than love; it is a promise. A promise between the two partners that through it all, they choose each other each day, and that they are healthier, more whole, more themselves, when they are together.
At the end of our Gospel reading, Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”
One of my colleagues a few years back noted something about the end of this Gospel passage: that one of the greatest things about children is that they are malleable. Their minds and thoughts, their hearts and who they love. Children continue to learn and are molded by the relationships around them, and it is what creates such an incredible bond when they meet new people, new friends, new relationships.
My colleague posed the question, “what if we entered into all of our relationships with that heart?” Whether it’s marriage, friendships, in school, or volunteer groups, or our church communities.
What if we entered with that heart?
A promise to be malleable. To learn and grow from the other person or the community around us. To be shaped by and to shape the one that we love. To be understanding of changes. To not set up unfair expectations. To give permission to mess up. To give yourself permission to make mistakes. To know that whatever may happen or whatever may pass, each and every day you attempt to love others with the best of your ability, always knowing that they are human. That you are human.
What if that’s how we entered into these promises? With a malleable heart, the promise will sustain the love.
[1] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew: A Commentary (Westminster John Knox Press, 2021), 112.
[2] Culpepper, 113.
[3] Culpepper, 112.
[4] David Schnasa Jacobsen, Mark, Fortress Press, 2014.
- Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers From Prison. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2010. https://hdl-handle-net.ulsem.idm.oclc.org/2027/heb30619.0001.001. PDF. ↩︎
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment