Mark 10:2-16

TWENTY-SEVENTH SUNDAY IN ORD. TIME 

Mark 10:2-16

A good Sunday to all. 

If there is a topical issue worth reflecting on in the light of the Gospel, it is the situation the family institution is going through in our society. We know that the picture painted by sociologists today is worrisome, and it is not even necessary to resort to their studies because the reality is obvious: people are getting married less and less, and later and later, they have one child, at most two. The percentage is very high of those who don't even want to feel like talking about getting engaged in a project of starting a family. It is the concern of many parents with a forty-year-old still living at home. 

There are even those who speak of a society that is taking shape, which is post-family, that is to say, the traditional family it would have had its day and be a legacy of the past. Today, families that are in fashion, the ones that are presented to us by the media as normal, or rather, as modern, are not the traditional ones but the extended families, where there are more fathers, mothers, siblings, half brothers and sisters who live serene and happy life. 

This image is dangerous and false because it is useless for those who want to hide the divorce. There is always a failure; it leaves deep wounds in those involved, especially in the children. But this is the image that the media tries to pass off as the reality of the future. 

In this context, those who still believe in the value of unconditional and definitive conjugal love feel a certain discomfort; they feel like those who do not think and live up to date. Still at the level of the media, about how sexuality is presented, how it should be lived, I think the most accepted norm is this: everybody has the right to have sex wherever and with whomever they prefer, if those involved agree. 

This is how a permissive mentality spreads in society, in which everything is fine, everything is lawful, the norm is what one likes, inhibitions and guilt are said to be invented by religion. Let's imagine a television debate in which someone dares to make reservations about these choices, how would they be labeled? Of obscurantist, of medieval sexophobic; that's the perspective we have for the future of society. 

Let's ask ourselves if this approach to sexuality is correct or dangerous. Is it humanizing or demeaning us? This question will make believers appreciate the importance of knowing what Jesus thinks about it. We will respect all the other ways of thinking or living, but it is essential that the believer internalize the thought of Jesus of Nazareth and witness in his life that the truth presented in the Gospel gives results of joy and love. Let's hear those who open the discourse on the subject: 

“The Pharisees approached Jesus and asked, ‘Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?’” 

They were testing him. The question put to Jesus by the Pharisees seems to be the one still in circulation today: divorce, yes, divorce no; today it is said: premarital relations yes, premarital relations no; cohabitation yes, cohabitation no; and a distinction is also made between modern and non-modern priests. To keep up with the times you must answer immediately yes; otherwise, you are retrograde. 

With this argument, people already have their convictions well defined and, in general, do not want to question them, and it is not even worth discussing, because they end up raising their voice to offend. Why? Because if a person is entrenched in this way, in their positions, before answering, it is necessary to clarify the understanding that one has of the relationship between man and woman and sexuality, that is to say, to ask why God or nature wanted that the human being be male and female, for what purpose? 

Therefore, the point of reference must be clarified, otherwise, we are talking in different languages, and no one is willing to question the conclusions they have already reached. We see how Jesus does not give the yes or no answer, he wants to bring out the truth from within: they are people, they are human, and let it come out of their deepest nature the meaning of the relationship between man and woman, the authentic relationship that comes from your human nature; And we see that instead of saying yes or no, Jesus has a counter-question and wants to help his interlocutors to discover and accept God's plan for sexuality. 

Let's listen to what he asks them: 

“He replied to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ They replied, ‘Moses permitted him to write a divorce bill and dismiss her.’” 

Divorce in Israel was allowed at the time of Jesus; we know that. The biblical text referenced to justify it is chapter 24 of the book of Deuteronomy, where it says that a husband who has lived with his wife, if one day he finds in her something improper ('ervat devar’ in Hebrew), then he should write for her the document of repudiation and send her back, and the woman who has received this document may remarry and have legitimate children. 

Therefore, the text of Moses was to protect the woman because if she is left without this document, the husband could denounce her as an adulteress, and she could be stoned. To protect the woman, Moses had established that whoever repudiated his wife had to give her this document to free her. In the 'Mishnah' are presented the discussions of the rabbis about that detail, what is the reason that would allow a man to divorce his wife. Rabbi Shammai taught that one could not divorce his wife unless she had engaged in immoral behavior. Whereas Rabbi Hillel was more open-minded and said that the man could divorce her even if she had spoiled a meal. Then, Rabbi Tiva taught that he could divorce her if he found another prettier than her. 

But also, all of them remembered the reprobation of divorce pronounced by the prophet Malachi (we are at the end of the 5th century B.C.). The context is a long accusation of the prophet who denounces the evil deeds of the priests of Jerusalem, and at a certain point, he says: 'There is another thing that you do; you cover with tears of weeping and sighing the altar of the Lord on which you offer sacrifices, but God does not look upon your offerings. He does not accept them from your hands; why? Because the Lord is a witness between you and the wife of your youth whom you betrayed while she was your companion, the woman bound to you by a covenant.' And he concludes by saying: 'For I detest the divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.' 'I hate divorcement;' everyone knew this text. 

The tractate of the Talmud that speaks of repudiation closes by quoting the opinion of Rabbi Elazar who said that divorce is an extreme measure, an evil to be avoided because when there is a divorce, even the stones of the temple's altar weep. 

What answer do the Pharisees give to Jesus in this social context? They answer him: 'Moses permitted the writing of the act of divorcement.' Jesus had asked them what Moses commanded them, not what he permitted. Moses never allowed anything. Divorce existed, and Moses wanted to protect the woman by putting the rule that if you divorce you must give the woman the document of repudiation. You see at my back the 'ketubot,' which is the document that is read at the time of marriage; the document that the spouses and the witnesses then sign. It is written there the commitments that they take. 

Note how these ketubot are presented; they are an invitation to live, and there are bunches of flowers and grapes. Also, the artist Marcos Chagall painted some of these scenes. In this ' ketubot,' everything speaks of joy, of conjugal love blessed by the Lord. Now notice a ketubah and a 'seper karitut' ( סֵ֤פֶר = sê-p̄er = ballot - כְּרִיתֻת֙ = kə-rî-ṯuṯ = of divorce), the document of separation, rupture, as the Hebrew term says, the breaking of a covenant of love. While the 'ketubot' are hymns to joy, to life, the 'seper karitut' is a cold form to be filled out when filing for divorce, and it is written in cursive Hebrew, not the Hebrew spelling which we find in the Torah codes because the sacred spelling cannot be used to write a seper karitut. 

So, will it be enough to observe the command of Moses to feel in tune with the Torah, with God's plan on sexuality? Let's listen to the answer given by Jesus: 

"But Jesus told them, ‘Because of the hardness of your hearts, he wrote you this commandment. 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, no human being must separate’.” 

Jesus made it clear that Moses did not give permission to divorce but that he established a rule to protect the rights of women, and here Jesus adds the reason why he gave this provision: 'Because of the hardness of your hearts. You divorce, you are hardhearted, you forget the rights of women, and Moses wanted to protect them.’ But now, says Jesus, let's try together to find out what is the design of the Creator about sexuality, and then we will evaluate from this design of the Creator which behaviors are part of it and which are not. And specifically, we will see if divorce is part of this Creator's design. 

There is a biological reality, and we must try to discover its meaning, and that is the fact that there are two ways of incarnating the human being, as a male or as a female, and this is the great diversity that we find in human beings. In front of this, all other diversities are marginal: to be beautiful or less beautiful, intelligent or less intelligent, white or black, Chinese or European. 

Why did God want human beings to be male and female? We can see it immediately in nature. He made us in need of each other. He made us complimentary. Each cover in the other the part they need to be fully themself. The Genesis text calls this condition: nakedness; they were both naked and felt no shame. Nakedness is the condition in which one is born and is born not self-sufficient. This is our nature. We need the other to become fulfilled; we are not complete without the other. 

It is beautiful what the text says: the man did not feel ashamed of this lack. In the Bible, 'shame' means defeat and failure. Here is the man facing his condition; he feels no shame, and therefore, he does not consider it a defeat, a failure. The balanced person is glad to need the other, of not being self-sufficient, but the one who wants to be a Superman believes that he can be self-sufficient and doesn't need anybody. This is the 'Superman.' 

God made us well; he wanted us incomplete to force us to come out of ourselves to meet the other, to exchange gifts with the other, and thus to love; he made us for love. This is the nature of man and the reason for all our differences because we need what the other has, and the other needs our gifts. This is our nature of which we should not be ashamed; it is our nakedness, our condition. 

And note well the sacred text: after it was said that he had seen that all was good, that all was beautiful, for seven times this refrain is repeated in the bible at the beginning, the first thing that God sees that is not good is the loneliness of man; it is not good for man to be alone because if he is alone, he does not become human; he does not realize himself as a man. 

This is the meaning of sexuality, of the reason of being of this diversity, which is the image of all the diversities with which God has enriched us, precisely so that we may exchange our gifts. Sexuality is not to be identified with genitality; sexuality is much broader; it permeates all aspects of our personality. It is the impulse that pushes us to go out of solitude and to look for those who are different from us, to let us get involved, therefore, in the dynamics of love, in the exchange of gifts that each one of us possesses and that must be given to those who need it. Thus, if a teacher has the gift of science and finds himself in front of students in need of this gift when he generously distributes his knowledge he realizes the meaning of sexuality, that is to say, the impulse that comes from this diversity. 

We must remember that genitality is only one aspect, a very important one, of sexuality. And this genitality, this way of realizing sexuality, is recognized in God's plan in an exact context which is that of the married love that presupposes a commitment of unconditional, definitive and exclusive love between two persons, but genitality is not indispensable for sexuality. Jesus fully realized sexuality because everything in him was a gift, but he did not exercise genitality. This is the conclusion that Jesus draws from this nature of married love and, therefore, man must not divide what God has joined together. Divorce, then, does not fit into this design. 

At my back, I have put two 'ketubot.' Notice that in this 'ketubah,’ there are two Hebrew letters gimel and tet. The word 'tet' means repudiation. The rabbis had noticed that the word 'repudiation' - 'tet' does not exist in the bible. Not only that, but these two letters, gimel, and tet in Hebrew, are never found one after the other. And not only that but also the rabbis realized that no word in the Hebrew Bible ends with gim if the next one begins with tet. They concluded that God wanted to avoid even the shadow of repudiation in the bible. Therefore, it is not a question of indissolubility because if it is placed as a rule that fetters the people it is meaningless; it is the reality of love which by its nature is unconditional, definitive, unreserved, without ulterior motives. A couple can count on each other's love without fear, without uncertainty because they know that it will be definitive. 

This is the design of the Creator and, therefore, that formula of love that we hear repeated among lovers 'I love you and want you for me,' 'I need you,' 'I love you absolutely and woe if anyone touches you because you are exclusively mine, I only take pleasure in being with you'... but the day you no longer give me this satisfaction, I'll change you and find someone else. This is not the love that enters into God's design. This reasoning only impoverishes. The formula of love designed by God is different: 'I love you means that I am willing to do anything, even to give my life so that you will be pleased and my will to take care of your happiness will never diminish; you can fully count on the gift of my whole being.’ This is the love planned by the Creator. 

After understanding this plan for sexuality, we can evaluate whether certain ways of living genitality are part of this plan or not. It is not a question of whether it is forbidden, whether it is lawful or not, but whether a certain behavior is humanizing or whether it degrades you. And so, starting from this plan of the Creator, we can say that sexual adventures, disorderly behavior, are certainly outside of God's plan. The media are pleased to present, to justify these behaviors, but these behaviors always provoke inner drama, even if those involved try to hide them, they provoke untenable situations, even if those involved try to show apparent happiness. 

Let us keep this in mind: sexuality is not a game; building the love willed by God is an arduous commitment; therefore, impatience and haste must be avoided. Is the extramarital affair part of this creation project? Certainly not; it is a betrayal of love, it impoverishes the protagonists; it does not enrich them. The simple cohabitation while it lasts, premarital relationships are part of this plan of the Creator or not? We do not want to judge and condemn but we just want to understand what is fully humanizing and what is not, although there are manifestations of love (there is always a spark of love), we must aim at the full design of the Creator. And it must be said that these behaviors of cohabitation, premarital relations, lack the full and definite involvement presupposed in the Creator's design. 

Jesus says: "A man shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." That passive of the verb used by Jesus is beautiful, ‘proscolaumai' in Greek. This union is in the passive voice: 'The man shall be joined to his wife.' This 'shall be joined' is called by biblical scholars a divine passive, i.e., the subject is God who joins the man to his wife and the two become one flesh. It is in this context that human sexuality is realized, which is also expressed in genitality. 

Is it easy or difficult to accept this design in life, of unconditional love willed by God? It is certainly difficult to understand and comprehend; it was also difficult for the apostles who were with Jesus. Let us listen to their objection: 

“In the house, the disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’” 

In the face of the precise position adopted by Jesus on the subject of divorce, not only the Pharisees but also the disciples were very perplexed because, in their catechesis, they had learned that the man not only has the right but sometimes also the duty to divorce his wife. For example, if she does not give him offspring, that is, God's first commandment is "be fruitful and multiply," and if I cannot fulfill it with this woman, I must change her. Well, with Jesus has come the kingdom of God, and the time has come to say enough to everything not in harmony with the Creator's plan. No more compromises, no more pettiness, subterfuge, we must aim at the ideal proposed to us in creation. 

So, Jesus did not introduce a new law more severe than that of Moses; no, he recalled the original project of God in which repudiation is not contemplated. And now the evangelist Mark brings to the scene the children. We wonder if they have anything to do with the subject that Jesus is dealing with. Yes, they have something to do with it; let's listen: 

“And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he became indignant and said to them, ‘Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.’ Then he embraced them and blessed them, placing his hands on them.” 

The evangelists Matthew and Luke also recount this scene, but only Mark says that Jesus took these children in his arms, to the great joy of the mothers, while the disciples began to cast them out because they were making their Master lose face. This is the only time in the Gospels that the verb 'aganakteo' is used to express the anger that Jesus had; he was very indignant with his disciples. And in fact, he gives an essential message by saying that only the one who adopts the attitude of the child can welcome the kingdom of God. 

The child has nothing of his own; he receives everything from the father and the mother, and he receives it with full confidence; he trusts in his parents' love. Here Jesus says that the child is a model of the one who welcomes the kingdom of God, trusting in the love of the Father in heaven. In the context of the message of today's gospel passage, this refers to the way we are called to accept with full confidence what the Father says to us is very timely. Human reasoning about sexuality can lead to justifying many behaviors that are outside the design of God's kingdom, because human common sense, our judgment, can justify many things. Face the proposal God makes to you with the trust of a child; trust him because he wants your life. 

The goal that is proposed to us is very high, but we know that the steps of people are always quite uncertain and that God understands our fragility; it is at this point where pastoral care must enter, that is to say, to know how to accompany the concrete situations in which each of our brothers and sisters finds themselves; a brother or a sister whom no one can judge, whatever choice he or she has decided to make. One must always approach the brother, and the sister, trying to understand them, to accompany them, to make the best of the situation in which they find themselves. 

Showing understanding and patience does not mean that we are softening the requirements and demands of the Gospel or adapting to the current morality, no, but it is to show wisdom and, above all, to show love for the people that are going through difficult situations that are always very painful. 

I wish you all a good Sunday and a good week.