Homily Notes for the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time 2018
27th Sunday of Ordinary Time/ “Who is Made in God’s Image?”
One of the quickest ways for a religious leader to get into controversy is to talk about marriage and divorce. For a priest, the reason is obvious. We are single, so it is assumed we cannot know much about matrimony. But I do not find that people who are married who present information on marriage fair much better. Why? I would speculate, it is because, everyone’s experience of marriage is unique. The marriage vows, after all, speak of better or for worse. Couples experience on a day to day basis the reality of those words.
Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees who asked him about divorce. I wonder if Jesus, as a single man, was hesitant to give an answer? I wonder if he was being asked because his inquisitors were aware that King Herod had divorced his wife. John the Baptist criticized Herod. He had his head cut off. To put forth a marriage teaching was a hazardous thing to do.
One thing we notice, if we look at history, is that marriage laws have evolved through the years. We only have to look at the Patriarchs and Kings of the Old Testament considering the fact that they believed in polygamy, to see that this is so. By the time we get to Jesus’ day we see that monogamy was the norm. Jesus speaks from that context.
Monogamy may have become the norm, but along with that teaching divorce had become more common. Moses had recognized the possibility of divorce in the religious law that he passed on to the Jewish people. Jewish Theology had two types of teaching on divorce. One school of rabbinic thought was the school of Shammai. In this teaching, divorce is granted to a man for only one reason. If a man’s wife was caught in adultery the man could divorce.
The second school of Theological thought was the Hillel school which was much liberal with divorce. A man could divorce his wife if she spoiled a dish of food. If a woman even talked to a strange man in the street this could lead to divorce. If a wife was disrespectful to her husband’s relatives he could divorce her. The list of faults that could lead to a break-up of a marriage was long. Jesus did not seem to fit into either camp.
Why do we say that? Because he disagreed with the law at its very root. What do we notice about all this Hebrew marriage law? What we notice is that the woman had no rights. A woman was considered a thing, a piece of property. Jesus saw this is a violation of his Law of love. He believed that a woman was a human being made in the image of God. As he reminded his listeners, “God made them male and female.” God was both male and female.
The second part of this gospel has another teaching of Jesus that seems shocking to those who hear it. The teaching was regarding children. Children were also considered “things” in the eyes of the ancient world. For that reason, they could be easily disposed of as well as well as pushed aside. Jesus scolds his disciples for this. He proclaims that humans have dignity no matter what their age or sex. For Jesus divorce did not just concern the laws of society. Divorce was not just about the rights of men, but it was about the human rights of women and children who had an equal dignity in the eyes of God. Jesus wanted to limit divorce for the good of families.
The question of all moral law is where do justice and mercy meet? We remember lady justice who holds a scale in her hand. In Jesus’ mind it seems there was the ideal law in all its strictness on one side of the scale while on the other there is virtue of mercy. The question is always where to justice and mercy balance out.
Jesus viewed marriage law as he viewed all moral law with the eyes of mercy. The question is always what the most compassionate course of action? Quite often that is decided through discernment. Marriage is a human relationship. All human relationships are complex. We must humbly ask God for guidance.
The ethical principle for anyone who follows Jesus is this. “What is the loving thing to do? As St. Paul says in Romans 13:10, “Love never harms the neighbor, hence love is the fulfillment of the Law.”