Sermon Reed 4th October 2009 – Trinity 17 October 4, 2009
Posted by ktweston in Reed, Sermons.add a comment
The Rev’d Sonia Falaschi-Ray
“Eve, will you take Adam to be your husband?
Will you love him, comfort him, honour and protect him,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?”
“I will.
I, Eve , take you, Adam ,
to be my husband,
to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part;
according to God’s holy law.
In the presence of God I make this vow.”
“Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder.”
The ringing tones of the marriage service. What comprehensive promises those are and how hard it is for us to fulfil them. Those of us who have married must all have thought about the implication of these sentiments and been more than a little worried about our ability to live up to them. Even those of us, including myself who married in a civil ceremony will have made similar commitments. However, we all know for many reasons things don’t always turn out as we hope. The church has until recently mostly been guided by a very literal reading of our Gospel passage, which is expanded by Matthew to say, ‘Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for Any Matter?” Jesus answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘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.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” Jesus replied, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for Indecency, and marries another commits adultery.” In interpreting this passage, and relating it to the 1st and to the 21st Centuries, I am indebted to research conducted by The Revd Dr David Instone-Brewer[1]. There are two important technical legal terms used here whose meaning is not clear in translation. One is the phrase Any Matter, which is often translated as ‘for any cause’, the other the Greek word porneia porneia, translated here as Indecency, rather than the more common adultery. We will come back to the significance of these later.
The Church of England was of course founded on the matter of divorce. King Henry VIII wished to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled, as she hadn’t produced a male heir and he had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn, who refused to become his mistress. You may recall last year that The Vatican had strenuously to deny reports that when they met in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI would give Prince Charles a copy of the 1530 document relating to Henry VIII’s divorce! Given Charles’s marital history it could have been tactless. Until recently in this country, divorce has been considered socially unacceptable. In 1936 Edward VIII abdicated the Crown in order to marry divorcée Wallis Simpson, and Princess Margaret was forbidden to marry Group Captain Townsend, a World War II hero, for similar reasons. It was only in 1955 that divorcees were allowed to enter the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. Nowadays there will be few families in this country who have not been touched by divorce. Probably all of us here have experienced divorce somewhere in our family. I think it’s no accident that immediately after engaging with divorce Jesus welcomes children. As we know, children are often the vulnerable victims of failed marriages, and they themselves may go on to have difficulties in forming lasting relationships.
Returning to the Gospels, what we have to remember here is that Jesus was being asked about a very particular interpretation of divorce law, where the wider context is not mentioned because, “everybody knows that!” Well they may have done early in the first century but following the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD things changed and custom and practice was forgotten. It is as though someone from another era saw the sign ‘No Smoking’. “Oh? did these people smoke meat and fish indoors? Or did they spontaneously combust?” We know it refers to cigarettes etc. but it doesn’t say that. The first time I went to the USA in the mid 1970s I saw a car-bumper sticker which read, “Don’t drink and drive. You might hit a bump and spill your drink!” We know admonitions not to drink-drive refer to alcohol but a visitor might wonder why cars have cup-holders in them if drinking liquids is illegal. So it is with the Legal phrase Any Matter and the wide-ranging term porneia. Porneia covers sexual indiscretion, through what you do with a prostitute to grievous sexual degradation.
According to David Instone-Brewer, “First-century Jewish hearers and readers of Jesus’ words came to the subject of divorce and remarriage with several presuppositions.
All branches of Judaism were agreed that there were five grounds for divorce in Scripture: infertility (Gen 1.22, 28), unfaithfulness (Deut 24.1), and neglect of food, clothing or love (Exod 21.10f), and that these were recognized as the vows implicit in a marriage contract. The Old Testament example of God’s divorce from Israel illustrated that divorce occurred when these vows were repeatedly and stubbornly broken. They also learned from Scripture that remarriage was allowed after divorce (Deut 24.1–4), and the purpose of the divorce certificate was to state this right. [one group of Pharisees] The Hillelites had popularized a new no-fault divorce called ‘Any Matter,’ which quickly become the basis for virtually all divorces. They had extrapolated this from the second half of the phrase ‘an indecent matter’ in Deut 24.1
Jesus was asked if he agreed with ‘Any Matter’ divorces and said that the phrase in Deuteronomy only meant ‘Indecency.’ He added that if anyone got divorced for ‘Any Matter’ (unless it was a matter of ‘Indecency’) that they were not really divorced, so they were committing adultery if they remarried. [The Jewish Any Matter divorce was similar to our no-fault divorce ruling.][2]
Jesus also disagreed with many other Jewish presuppositions about marriage and divorce. He used the Old Testament to teach monogamy and lifelong marriage. He did not deny divorce, but pointed out that it should only be resorted to when a partner is hard-hearted, that is, stubbornly breaking their marriage vows. He therefore denied that divorce was compulsory for unfaithfulness. He also denied the idea that marriage and procreation was a command so he would not support a divorce on the grounds of infertility. Jesus did not say anything about the other grounds for divorce—neglect of food, clothing and love.
Paul, however, did allude to these three grounds when he reminded the Corinthians that marriage includes the obligations of emotional support (1 Cor 7.3–5) and material support (1 Cor 7.32–35). Paul told believers that they must not use the no-fault divorce-by-separation and told any believer who had already separated that they must attempt a reconciliation.
……….
The overall emphasis of both Jesus and Paul was that marriage should be life-long, and that divorce should be avoided whenever possible. A Christian should never be the cause of a divorce by breaking marriage vows, and should try to forgive a partner who has broken the vows, unless the partner is stubbornly unrepentant. Both Jesus and Paul condemned the no-fault divorce of their day.
Within a couple of generations, the church had lost all knowledge of the Jewish background of the gospel divorce debate and consequently thought that Jesus condemned all remarriage as adultery. The Jewish background of Jesus’ divorce teaching was partially rediscovered in the mid-1800s. Since then, virtually all commentaries have mentioned the [Pharisaic] Hillel and Shammai debate but the churches have not yet applied this insight to practical theology.”[3]
The Church has in the past been uncompromising in forbidding remarriage, and then restricting whom it will re-marry following a divorce. If the second spouse was deemed to have been party to the breakdown of the original marriage the Church may refuse to marry them. Hence Charles and Camilla having to have a civil ceremony and then a service of blessing. Church of England Priests, (provided they have the agreement of their Bishop) are allowed discretion in this matter. I agree with Instone-Brewer that, arguably the Church should teach all the biblical grounds for divorce. “These can be taught on the basis of the marriage vows so that they are seen within the traditions of the Church. The church should teach that marriage vows form grounds for divorce if they are stubbornly and unrepentantly broken.”[4] Before remarrying it may be appropriate to take part in a service of ‘Repentance for Broken Promises.’ We confess together that we have all broken promises which we have made before others and God.
However, I think all of us have to consider how we can try to keep our marriage vows. And also, how we may be able to help others maintain viable marriages. That may be by offering some practical help, so enabling the couple to spend more quality time together. It might be child care or gardening, or just listening to issues and perhaps helping people to see their situation from another point of view. We may be able to assist those whose relationships have broken down to recover, and to gain personal insights. This may help prevent them remarrying exactly the same type of person as previously, and reacting similarly to that behaviour as last time. Personal growth means we have a chance at a second marriage, not just repeating a failed first one.
May we pray:
[1] Divorce and Remarriage in the 1st and 21st Century, David Instone-Brewer, Research Fellow, Tyndale House Cambridge, Grove Books Ltd, Ridley Hall Cambridge, 2001
[2] ibid p23
[3] Instone-Brewer pp20-21
[4] ibid p24
