Sermon based on the Gospel: Mark 10:2-16
Quiz time. What is the longest word in the English language? If we were to be one of those Trivial Pursuit types, we may come up with the word that's been the gold standard: Antidisestablishmentarianism. At 28 letters, that's a mouthful, and while many of us might know the word, fewer will know its definition as “the belief that opposes removing the tie between church and state.” It's not exactly a word used in everyday conversation, especially in the US that has a long constitutional history of separation of Church and State. But it would make a killer point-getter in Scrabble.
But is it really the longest word? Not exactly. There is a one letter word that is longer: Floccinaucinihilipilification, which means “an estimation of something as worthless.”
And to be honest, there are people who spend time poring over such things who point out that there are chemical names that are a lot longer than that, including names of proteins that have more than a thousand letters and place names like the 85-letter name of a hill. For example, from a medical perspective, the longest word in the English language is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis --- a 45 letter word that describes a disease of the lungs, which would seem to be a bad thing if it takes that long to say.
When it comes to big words, English has more than its fair share but, if the events of this past couple weeks in our nation’s capital regarding the confirmation of now associate supreme court judge Kavanaugh and the accusations of drunkenness, sexual assault and his temperament has reminded any of us, we humans are often very guilty of failing or trying hard to avoid saying what we mean. Big words, avoidance and host of ways are used by us to avoid the truth or allow us to say very little while speaking a lot.
Conversely, equally the wonder of humanity and the way we communicate is that, sometimes, small words along with a few words, allow us to say a great deal. Big words may sound impressive because they are hard to pronounce, yet they may rarely be fully understood, and perhaps a way for us to avoid difficult topics. Instead it's often the small and few that are the hardest to say but have the clearest and deepest meaning.
I am not bringing this up to assist you with your crossword skills, or to help us get out of the rabbit hole of Washington D.C. that we have created, rather today in this week's text, Jesus is teaching about words and relationships. While the lesson is apparently some large thoughts about divorce and the relationship between married individuals, Jesus is helping all of us shift the center of our language on relationships from the language of law to the language of love.
How do we know that? Well let’s begin where the story begins with the first verse missing in our reading, the geography: “the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan.” Why would we begin there, because remember context is everything. For this location was the very same region where Mark tells us at the beginning of his gospel that John the Baptist had operated during his ministry (1:5), and John's ministry echoes through this passage.
Earlier in Mark 6:14-29, we read the story of how John the Baptist had died at the hands of King Herod Antipas. Think of that episode as a kind of first-century soap opera: The king ditches his lawful wife, Phasaelis, and Herodias divorces Philip so that the two can be together. But the reason this setting is important is that while this divorce was legal according to Roman law, Jewish law was quite different, and John the Baptist called the king on it, saying, “It is not lawful (Jewish) for you to have your brother's wife.” In response, John gets beheaded.
Simply put legal and illegal divorce and marriage is the air so when those interested in what is legal --- the Pharisees --- want to “test” Jesus, they do it with; a faith based system from the vocabulary of the law court; “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” The test was to place Jesus squarely in the same position that had resulted in John the Baptist being killed. It seems that they are hoping at least to challenge his popularity or perhaps even allow them to bring him up on charges of treason.
At first, Jesus sounds like a skillful lawyer, answering the question with a question: “What did Moses command you?” The question is subtle. Moses had no “command” on this issue.
Jesus perhaps knew how the pharisees would respond. “Moses permitted to write a paper of divorcement and to release.” Moses had permitted divorce as he helped the community develop a faithful response to living out this covenant with God. The provision for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 was, essentially, a concession to the reality of human relationships and an attempt to provide structure and guidelines in its wake. The pharisees present an acceptable legal and faithful argument based on the book of Deuteronomy.
Jesus however, recenters this permission with a sharp rejoinder. “For your hardness of heart” Moses allowed divorce, he says. The accusation of “hardness of heart” is a serious one. For example, do you remember from your Biblical studies who else famously in the Old Testament we are told was “hard of heart?”
Well the Pharaoh was one. The Pharaoh who had received the message from Moses to let his enslaved people go, had also had “hardness of heart.” Yes, it was technically legal in covenant law, if you took it literally in Deuteronomy, for a man to divorce his wife by simply writing her a certificate of dismissal. Do the paperwork and it was done (v. 4).
Jesus however centers the nature of the language from the legalese of the hard heart, to the language of love. Rather than the legal bonds his interlocutors are concerned about, Jesus is concerned about the bond of love. Put aside the law of Moses in this case, says Jesus, and look at what God intended from the beginning of creation (vv. 5-6). In effect, Jesus will base his argument on a broader understanding --- not specific commands or permissions, but a general attitude toward lives and relationships based on God's design of creation.
Going back to Genesis, Jesus outlines the intent of the bonds between two in the first place: the leaving and cleaving and becoming one. What were once two separate people now become “one flesh” --- one person joined together by God who created this diverse humanity to fit together emotionally, physically and spiritually. As God's own nature is three-in-one, so too is the nature of human relationships: reflecting the diverse image of God they were created to be from the beginning. The legal language of divorce is symptom of our separation. The language of love is about bonding.
We can see that Jesus seems to understand divorce as a indication of human vocabulary. And what is that vocabulary? Well, rather than a bunch of words that are longer than your arm, the increasingly become more and more specific and less understood. Instead the vocabulary of creation uses short words that carry a lot of meaning. Words like: I am sorry (three words, 8 letters). Please forgive me (three words, 15 letters). I love you (three words, 8 letters).
This vocabulary of love for many of us isn’t any easier to say than floccinaucinihilipilification, but they mean so much more. In our relationships, Jesus calls us not to turn to the legal dictionary but toward each other.
Certainly, it's clear from this text that Jesus is anti-divorce. To his disciples in private, Jesus gets serious about the kind of cavalier attitude that people in that time frame took when they ditched one spouse for another (vv. 10-12). Jesus understood that the kind of selfish male individualism that characterized Herod's court is all too common. In that male centered culture, where polygamy was possible and common, adultery was a crime only for women. But, contrary to the common assumption, Jesus does not “prohibit” divorce.
What Jesus does do is remove divorce from being something of a technical issue as cover for male sinfulness, and places it in the much broader context of God's desire for human life at the beginning of creation. For example, notice that the author of Mark follows up Jesus' teaching on divorce with a scene of Jesus with children (vv. 13-16). They are the ones to whom the kingdom belongs. Jesus blesses them and calls us to bless them, too but this is not about the "simple faith" of innocent children and how we all should emulate their unquestioning trust. Rather, in the kingdom of God, which is to be practiced here on earth, children are to be “received.” They are to be accepted. The vulnerable are not to be turned away just because they are small and powerless. Quite the contrary, in fact. Turn a child away --- turn away those who are weak --- and you are not living a kingdom lifestyle.
Following a lesson on divorce the author of Mark places Jesus words again in the language of love, not the law. So Jesus is not implying here that divorce is forbidden under every circumstance. What Jesus does say, however, is that we need to place the foundation of the Kingdom of God vocabulary in love, constantly aware of small and powerless, and to use every word and every opportunity we can to bring reconciliation to our relationships with a spouse, with children, with everyone and, most importantly, with God. That's how we were designed by God to be: one flesh, bonded by love, together.
Secondly, what about us who have divorce as part of our life journey? Whether as adults or children of divorce, as you may notice Jesus does not say, well now everyone needs to get back together. Rather Jesus is speaking to present and future relationships and possibilities. Jesus asks for us to ask to confess for and accept forgiveness and begin anew daily.
Moving forward in grace then how does that process enable us in our language of love not only to change our vocabulary, but even our sentence structures? Just return to the events of these past few weeks in our nation’s capital. What if from the onset before Judge Kavanaugh was even chosen, it had begun in the language of love, confession, forgiveness and reconciliation --- how could it have unfolded?
What happens on the public stage is a symptom of our own lives. What words would we use to characterize our relationships? What words do we need to change in our vocabulary to strengthen the bonds we have between each other, and between us and God? And how is even our sentence structure toward the immigrant, refugee and the vulnerable a sign of our brokenness.
God did not design us to have relationships that are examples of floccinaucinihilipilification. We were designed for each other, and that's the good word! The children had been brought so that Jesus might bless them. Jesus does that, and much more for all of us. Amen.
Comments