Thursday, February 23, 2006

What God has Joined...

Friday of the Seventh Week in Ordinary Time
http://www.usccb.org/nab/022406.shtml

Reflection:

I will give you the analysis of the St. James reading a little later today. What I want to reflect upon is the Gospel from Mark. This is one of the more difficult pieces of scripture for those who are either divorced or are children of a divorced couple from old school Catholicism.

When we hear the initial question place be for the Lord; "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" our hears sink because, from pre-Vatican II days the literal answer from Christ was: "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.".

Did any of you every wonder why, in a Catholic wedding we don't say; "I now pronounce you man and wife." or words to that effect? It is because our understanding of the Sacrament of Matrimony is a joining by God of husband and wife. It is the Church's understanding of the passage; "Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

If we were to say, as many of our protestant brethren do and secular Justices of the Peace do, that we declare the union extant, we would deny that it is God who forms the sacramental bond. While it is true that when a Catholic Priest or Deacon witness a marriage, by the authority of the wedding license the couple has taken out, a legal contract is affirmed. It is not the legal contract we care about. It is the sacramental bond that the couple proclaims.

It is the couple saying the "God has Joined us" and the Church saying "what God has joined together, no human being must separate." That is what the Church must examine later if the marriage fails. That is what the Tribunal must look at and the Defender of the Bond must guard.

Indeed, what God has joined may not be broken apart. But not every couple who comes before God's alter is bound this way and they don't know that until it's too late.

I found out today that Myspace.com requires membership to comment. For that reason I will now start including an email address and will post the comments that come in that form to the Blog. Here goes:
Miles_jj@excite.com

Pax
Scripture From Jas 5:9-12
Jerome Biblical Commentary
9
Do not complain, brothers, about one another, that you may not be judged. Behold, the Judge is standing before the gates.

9. The exhortation abruptly changes to the theme of mutual relations in the community, harking back to 4:II-12 (cf. 1:19; 3:2-10). The coming of the Lord is now viewed as the coming of the Judge. may not be judged: Cf. Mt 7:1-2. at the doors: Cf. Ap 3:20; Mk 13 :29 par.
10
Take as an example of hardship and patience, brothers, the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

10. as an example: Jas has already used OT characters as examples (Abraham. and Rahab, 2 :21­25); now the prophets are represented as martyrs (cf. Mt 23 :29-3 I; Acts 7 :52). The persecution of Christians is seen as a prolongation of that of the prophets in Mt 5: 12 and 23 :29-39. The failure to cite Christ as an example of patience in suffering (contrast I Pt 2:21-24) illustrates the absence of a specifically Christian tone in this epistle. In this case, the omission may indicate an early stage in the adaptation of Jewish paraenesis to Christian teaching; or perhaps the early Christians regarded their Lord and his martyrdom in a basically different way than they did that of the OT prophets and martyrs, so that it would not occur to them to list him among such "examples" (Dibelius).
11
Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of the perseverance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because "the Lord is compassionate and merciful."

11. we call those happy who were steadfast: James has himself done this (I :12). Similar combinations of "happy" (makarios) and "steadfastness" (hypomone) occur in Dn 12:12 (Theodotion); 4 Mc 7:22. the stead­fastness of Job: Ez 14:14,20 illustrates the fame of Job as an example of virtue, even independently of the book that bears his name. the outcome which the Lord brought about: This is the probable meaning of the compendious. to telos kyriou. It implies that the readers are familiar with the details of Job's trials, patience, and providential deliverance. Some commentators, following Augustine, and Bede, .have taken the phrase to refer to Christ's death. the Lord is compassionate and merciful: An OT phrase: Ex 34:6; Pss 102: 8 ; II 0 :4; 144: 8. James departs from the LXX by introducing the word polysplagchnos (com­passionate), unattested in earlier Gk usage, but an apt rendering of the Hebrew rahum of the MT. In contrast to the self-sufficient virtue of Stoicism, Christian steadfast­ness is based on a conviction of the divine mercy and the hope of the coming of the Lord.

12
But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your "Yes" mean "Yes" and your "No" mean "No," that you may not incur condemnation. 5
5 [12] This is the threat of condemnation for the abuse of swearing oaths (cf Matthew 5:33-37). By heaven or by earth: these words were substitutes for the original form of an oath, to circumvent its binding force and to avoid pronouncing the holy name of God (see Exodus 22:10).

12. This brief admonition is unconnected with
what precedes and follows, except that the warning about falling under condemnation is similar to that of S :9. do not swear: Cf. Mt S :33-37. Thought and expression are similar, although the Gk of Mt is more Semitic. In both passages, the motivation of the prohibition is the danger of irreverence through a frivolous use of oaths and a disregard of truthfulness in ordinary speech. Thus, oaths are not absolutely forbidden, but only their abuse (cf. Sir 23 :9-II). The original form of swearing was "by Yahweh" (Ex 22: IO); with the later tendency to avoid the name of God, circumlocutions came into oaths (Str-B I, 330-3 I). by heaven or by earth: Cf. Mt S :34-3S. In the Mishnah (Shebuoth 4:I3) such an oath is said not to be binding. Avoidance of oaths was attributed to Py­thagoras and some of the Stoic philosophers and, accord­ing to Josephus, to the Essenes (]W 2.8,6 § I3S). Yetthe latter did take oaths of initiation (]W 2. 8,7 § I 3 9), as is confirmed in IQS S:8; CD IS. let your yes be yes, your no be no: James does not specify the mode of asseveration as does Mt S :37 ("Let your speech be 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no' "). It exhorts only to truthfulness. Thus, not the use of oaths, but untruthfulness is said to bring on danger of falling under judgment. If both Jas and Mt have preserved variant forms of one original saying of Jesus, James' form of the "Yes-No" section is probably the more original.

Scripture from Mk 10:1-12
Jerome Biblical Commentary
1
He set out from there and went into the district of Judea (and) across the Jordan. Again crowds gathered around him and, as was his custom, he again taught them.

(C) Marriage and Divorce (10:1-12). 1. he left there: See comment on 7:24. taught them: See comment on I :21. The use of this verb (contrast Mt 19:2), together with the fact that in vv. 10-12 an explanation is given privately to the disciples (see I :29), indicate that Mark sees this episode as a further disclosure of Jesus' Messianic authority.
2
1 The Pharisees approached and asked, "Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?" They were testing him.
3
He said to them in reply, "What did Moses command you?"
1 [2-9] In the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees on the subject of divorce, Jesus declares that the law of Moses permitted divorce (Deut 24:1) only because of the hardness of your hearts (Mark 10:4-5). In citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 Jesus proclaims permanence to be the divine intent from the beginning concerning human marriage (Mark 10:6-8). He reaffirms this with the declaration that what God has joined together, no human being must separate (Mark 10:9). See further the notes on Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9.

. 2. is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?: Mt 19:3 adds "for any reason whatever" -a form of the question that reflects more closely the contemporary rabbinical debate about divorce. Dt 24:1 implied that a man could divorce his wife for 'erwat dãbãr, lit., "the exposure of a thing," a euphemism for a wife's immodest exposure to another man (so Rabbi Shammai; cf. Mishnah, Gittin 9: 10); but the very vagueness of the Hebr expression gave rise to a debate among rabbis as to whether it meant any "reason" (dabar) whatever (thus Rabbi Hillel; Mishnah, Gittin, ibid.). Mark's omission of the phrase reflects a Gentile church background un­familiar with the rabbinical dispute and more interested in a universal moral principle (see 2:23-28).
4
They replied, "Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her."

4. a certifi­cate of divorce: Cf. Dt 24:3.
5
But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment.

5. for your hardness of heart: Dt 24:1-4 is in reality not a commandment but a per­missive rule regulating the relationship between a man and his divorced wife; underlying it is the view that a wife who for any reason whatever had had sexual intercourse with some other man, could not cohabit again with her husband.
6
But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.

6. God made them male and female: Jesus quotes, Gn I :27, and, in the next verse, Gn 2 :24, as the reason why marriage is indissoluble.
7
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),
8
and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.

7. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother: In Gn 2 :24 the reason. advanced is not that God created man as male and female, but that woman was taken from man and is "bone of my, bones and flesh of my flesh," and this reason explains a man's urge to form a unity with his wife stronger than his affinity to his closest blood relatives. A similar mode of argument, but directed against polygamy, is found in CD 4:20-5:5 (cf.J.A. Fitzmyer, NTS 7 [I960-6I] 3I9-20).

9
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."
10
In the house the disciples again questioned him about this.


9. what therefore God has joined together: Jesus thus claims to voice God's will on the indissolubility of marriage as against even Moses' authority.
11
He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;

11. whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;
12
and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

12. should she divorce her husband and marry another, she commits adultery: This pronouncement of Jesus is akin
to Mt I9:9; 5:32; Lk I6:I8, except that (I) Mark does. not have the exceptive clause' of Mt I9 :9, and (2) unlike! Mt I9:9 assumes that a women can institute divorce proceedings against her husband. This assumption, however, did not exist among Jews, and reflects rather a
non-Jewish church where civil law permitted a woman to divorce her husband. Mk 10:11 is usually regarded as closer to Jesus' own pronouncement on the absolute' indissolubility of marriage than Mt I9:9 with its additional exceptive clause. It is at least equally probable, however, that the porneia mentioned by Matthew meant "premarital sexual intercourse" on the part of a woman engaged in a Jewish betrothal. Such conduct was en­visaged by Jesus himself as grounds for divorce when the marriage had not yet been consummated, because the husband had been deceived into believing that his wife was a virgin. In such a case the husband was obliged by, Jewish customary law to sue for an annulment of the marriage contract. If the exceptive clause is regarded as coming from Jesus himself, then Mark's omission of ,it may simply reflect a non-Jewish milieu where the niceties of Jewish custom were unknown or irrelevant (A. Isaks­
son, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple [Lund, 19951' I27-4I).
Jesus' views on the indissolubility of marriage are a wholly new idea not found in the OT, rabbinical litera­ture, or QL. There is, however, an affinity with the Levitical rule regarding the marriage of priests (Lv 2I:7), and especially with the rule of Ez 44:22 regarding the marriage of priests in the new Temple of the Messianic age. Isaksson believes that underlying this ethic of Jesus is both a Messianic pretension and an eschatological view, that "the new Temple has already been established. Jesus Himself is Messiah and the fulfillment of the promise of a new temple and a new communion with God."