The other week, I put out some of my reflections on the question of defining marriage and whether or not the Presbyterian Church in Canada should seek to adopt a prescriptive definition of marriage at this point in time. If you haven’t read those reflections, you really ought to before reading these ones. You can find the blog post at:

https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2019/08/19/defining-marriage-should-we-or-shouldnt-we/

In the above post, I will confess that I did leave out a key part of the discussion. I was worried that what I wrote would be too long and convoluted and that people wouldn’t read it as a result. But a lot of people did read it and a few have called my attention to what was missing. I spoke about how important the following verse from the Book of Genesis has been in the whole discussion about defining marriage.

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

I argued that, in the context where it appears in Genesis, the verse really seems to be more of an observation on why people get married than it is a rule describing what kind of marriages people ought to have. But I also noted that one of the things that makes that verse so important in our discussions is that it is quoted prominently in the New Testament, most especially in this passage where it is found on the lips of Jesus himself:

Some Pharisees came, and to test him they 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 dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he 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. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 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.” Mark 10:2-12 (see also the parallel passage in Matthew 19:3-9)

It has been suggested to me that, in that exchange, Jesus reinterprets (or perhaps misinterprets) the passage from Genesis and changes it from an observation about marriage into a command concerning marriage and that, if we are going to follow Jesus and his teaching, we ought to interpret it likewise. And so I would like to take the opportunity to spend a little bit of time on what Jesus does with this passage from Genesis and consider how we ought to take his words and apply them to the question of defining marriage today.

What is actually going on in the gospel passage?

This story from the gospel is actually a very particular kind of story both in the gospels and in the popular literature of the time. It is a challenge-riposte story of the kind that were commonly told of popular philosophers, teachers and sages in those days. There are several such stories in the gospels. Challenge-riposte stories follow a consistent pattern. The wise teacher is presented with a rhetorical challenge from his enemies. Basically, the enemies set a trap for him by asking him a question that puts him in danger of losing honour or standing no matter how he answers. But, of course, the point of the story is to highlight the wisdom of the teacher who is able to offer a riposte that confounds his enemies.

The question about paying the tax to Rome is one of the more famous challenge-riposte stories of the Bible. (The Tribute Money by Titian).

The best-known example of this kind of story in the gospels is the story about the question of taxation (Mark 12:13-17). Jesus’ enemies come to him and ask him if it is lawful to pay the tax to Rome. This question is clearly a trap. The tax that they are discussing is extremely unpopular and so if Jesus says that it must be paid, he will lose the respect of the people. But, at the same time, if he tells people not to pay it, he will be guilty of fomenting revolt and his enemies could accuse him and get him arrested. Jesus shows his wisdom by answering the question in such a way as to avoid both negative possibilities, firstly by asking to see a coin (thus demonstrating that he doesn’t have any money and that the question therefore does not apply to him personally) and secondly with his famously wise answer, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17)

The discussion of divorce follows exactly the same pattern and so it is clearly intended to be a challenge-riposte story. Mark even calls the question a “test.” But, if that is the case, then we must ask what is it about the question that is asked that makes it so particularly hazardous for Jesus to answer. On the surface, it seems to be an innocent question regarding a rather obscure point of law. What could possibly make this a dangerous question for Jesus to answer?

Well, think of it this way…

If some reporters came up to a prominent politician today and asked him or her the question, “Do you believe it is ethical for a man to have sex with a porn star while his wife is recovering from having a baby and then pay off that porn star to be quiet about it?” would that be considered to be a general ethical question? Of course not, because everyone would immediately know what famous rumour the politician was being asked to comment upon and everyone would understand that answering that question would force the politician to take some particular (and perhaps perilous) position on a scandal concerning President Donald J. Trump.

Well, when the Pharisees ask Jesus a question about divorce, we are dealing with the same kind of thing. They are not asking a general question about the legality of divorce, they are asking about a very particular divorce that had questionable legality. You see, at the time of Jesus’ ministry, there was only one divorce that mattered in Galilee. It was the divorce that the princess Herodias obtained from her first husband Herod II in order to marry her second husband, Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee.

There were a number of things that made this divorce and subsequent remarriage particularly troubling. Herod II and Herod Antipas were brothers and they were both uncles to Herodias. The marriage of Herodias and Antipas was particularly scandalous, however, because everyone could recognize that it was a cynical move on the part of both parties to gain political power. A marriage to Herodias was politically advantageous to Herod Antipas because she was one of the last direct descendants of the last legitimate dynasty of Jewish Kings, the Hasmoneans.

The divorce of Herodias was the great Galilean political scandal of the lifetime of Jesus. It was made all the worse because Antipas had also divorced his first wife in order to marry Herodias, a move that so enraged his former father-in-law that it caused a war that Antipas lost rather spectacularly. You can read the historian Flavius Josephus’ account of the whole disastrous affair here.

If there had been tabloids in first century Galilee, the divorces and marriages of Herod Antipas and Herodias would have been constant front page news. Everybody knew about the scandal and everybody had an opinion. So, when the Pharisees raised the question of divorce, everyone in the crowd immediately understood what they were asking about and how dangerous the question was.

This question was, in many ways, a far more dangerous one for Jesus to answer than the question about taxation. He dared not simply approve of divorce because that would have been equivalent of endorsing the questionable actions of the hated tetrarch, Herod Antipas. This would have lost him the support of the people.

John the Baptist kind of lost his head for daring to take a position on a certain divorce. Herod Antipas, Herodias and Salmoe

But what would happen if Jesus condemned the divorce? Well, it was exactly such a pronouncement that got John the Baptist arrested and ultimately killed!

17 For Herod himself had sent men who arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because Herod had married her. 18 For John had been telling Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19 And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. Mark 6:17-19 (Note: Mark, in this passage, incorrectly identifies Herodias’ ex-husband as her other uncle Philip.)

So Jesus was in a bind. No matter what opinion he expressed regarding divorce, he was going to get in trouble. The rest of the passage is Mark’s account of how Jesus got out of that bind.

And it is in that context that Jesus brings up the verse from the Book of Genesis. Now, as I said, it has been suggested to me that, when Jesus brings up the verse, he is reinterpreting (or misinterpreting) it as a commandment that mandates the shape of marriage — effectively limiting it to one man and one woman despite the fact that it was clearly not understood that way in Old Testament times (as I outlined in my previous piece).

But I would suggest that that is not exactly what Jesus does with the passage. The verse serves a very particular rhetorical purpose in his response. It allows him to answer the Pharisees’ question without actually giving his own personal opinion on the divorce. He argues that the verse from Genesis is saying that God is involved in bringing married couples together and that, therefore, a marriage is not something that is intended to come apart. By answering this way, Jesus is able to escape the Pharisees’ trap by not giving his own opinion but instead offering a scriptural interpretation.

So Jesus does indeed reinterpret Genesis. The verse never explicitly stated that God brings married couples together but, since it comes in the midst of the narrative of Adam and Eve where God literally makes a couple for each other, such a reinterpretation is hardly a stretch! And with it Jesus bests the Pharisees at their rhetorical game.

But I do not see what some people have suggested to me that Jesus is doing in this passage — I don’t see him reinterpreting the passage to say that marriage must always and eternally have a particular form or composition. That is not his interest or concern in citing the verse and I see no reason to read that into what he says. All he is speaking of is his belief that marriage is a serious and life-long commitment because God is involved.

But wait, there’s more!

Then something very interesting happens — something that happens in no other challenge-riposte story in the gospels — Jesus offers another answer to the question in private. This underlines just how dangerous the original question was. There were certain things that he simply did not dare to say in public because Herod’s agents might be listening. But later, Jesus speaks much more plainly to the disciples:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Now, I argued in my previous piece that the particular position that the Bible takes regarding marriage is that is accepts the current cultural practice of marriage and then seeks to tweak that practice to create at least a little bit more equality and mutual honour and service within the marriage relationship. That is what Jesus does in this private session with his disciples as well.

Divorce, in first century Galilee, was legal, but it was something that was not equally accessible. Only men had the ability to divorce their wives. What is more, only men could be considered as the offended party in an act of adultery or divorce. Women were just not important enough for their needs or feelings to be considered. So, for example, when Herod Antipas divorced his first wife to marry Herodias, the first wife was not a wounded party (though her father considered that his honour was wounded enough for him to start a war).

But Jesus, in what he says, does something rather extraordinary. He takes the marriage practice of his society and nudges it towards greater equality between the sexes. He suggests that a woman may actually be victimized in such a process. I know that this hardly seems like a big deal from our point of view. This is something we would just take for granted. But in Jesus’ context, it is really quite significant. It suggests that, if he would like to redefine marriage in any way, it would be to move it in the direction of greater equality between the sexes and towards a relationship where both parties involved are able to achieve their own maximum potential.

In summary, Jesus in this rather extraordinary gospel story, does say some important things about marriage and his interpretation of the Genesis story. He speaks about the participation of God in the coming together of married couples. He speaks about the intended lifelong commitment of such relationships. And he nudges marriage towards a more egalitarian understanding. This is all very significant. But I don’t see him doing is really saying anything, one way or the other, concerning who may enter into such relationships.

Of course, what Jesus says here about divorce should provoke some careful thought within the Christian community, though that is not the focus and what I’m talking about in this post. My personal understanding, after much consideration, is that, within an egalitarian society, divorce is a viable option for couples for whom it has become impossible for their marriage to be I mutually affirming and nurturing relationship. But that truly is a whole other discussion.