“Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” That is the only one of the many options in our marriage service that I tell couples I will not do. I’m willing to ask, “Who presents this woman?” or “Who presents this man and this woman?” but I won’t ask, “Who gives this woman?” Because “give” implies ownership, and I know the history of that, the history of women being viewed as property, of the marriage contract as being essentially between the father and the groom for the sale of the bride. Probably nobody at a wedding would realize or think about any of that, but I do, and I’m not saying it.

Jesus isn’t saying it either. Some Pharisees were trying to test him, trap him, when they asked whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. They’re throwing Jesus right in the middle of the hotbed issue of his time. Rabbi Shammai taught that a man could divorce his wife only in the case of her infidelity (his infidelity was irrelevant, of course). Rabbi Hillel taught that a man could divorce a woman for any reason. (There were examples of a man divorcing a woman because of her cooking). The thought of a woman divorcing a man was, of course, unthinkable.

Jesus says, “What did Moses command you?” They quote Deuteronomy (24:1, 3), which states that a man can write a certificate of divorce and kick his wife out of the house because “he finds something objectionable about her,” (Deut. 24:1) or “he dislikes her” (Deut. 24:3).

Jesus says that Moses told them that because of their hardness of heart. Then he quotes two passages of his own. The key to understanding this is not what he says, but what he doesn’t say. In both cases, he gives them a familiar second line in order to make them call to mind the first line. It’s like we were on a TV game. If my clue to you were, “And violets are blue,” you might guess, “Roses are red.” See how it works?

So Jesus quotes, “God made them male and female.” They know the first creation story from Genesis very well, and so they can’t help but think, “In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1: 27) He’s made them remember that males and females are created in the image of God.

Next he quotes another second line: “For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” They also know that story, the Garden of Eden story, very well. So, again, they can’t help but think of the first line: Adam is absolutely delighted to finally have a partner who shares his humanity, so he sings gratefully, joyfully, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken. For this reason, . . .” and then comes Jesus’ quotation (Gen. 2: 23). Jesus has made them recall Scripture reminding them that woman is fully human, of the same substance as Adam.

So, by citing to them the second verses of two well known passages (“and violets are blue”), he has made them recall (“Roses are red”) that woman was created in God’s image, and woman is fully human. (I’m telling you, don’t argue with Jesus!)

Now Jesus can turn to their hardness of heart. Before we get to that, I want to tell you that what we’re about to do really separates us from lots of other denominations, especially those which purport to take the Bible literally. Because what we’re going to do involves a very different way of understanding how the Bible is to be interpreted. What we’re about to do is to try to understand what was going on in Jesus’ time, what ethical considerations motivated Jesus in dealing with his time, and how that motivation translates into our time. This is how we interpret the Bible. (1) What was going on then? (2)What was the ethical motivation? (3) And how does that translate into our time? It isn’t easy, but I’m telling you, it’s honest. It uses the brains God gave us. And, of course, those who say that you don’t have to do this, or that you should not do this because you can just take the Bible literally, well, they don’t take it literally, they just pretend they do. (Last week, for instance, we heard Jesus say that if your eye offends you, you should pluck it out; if your hand or foot causes you to stumble, you should cut them off. I don’t see all these self-professed “literalists” limping around, half blind, asking for help buttoning their shirts.)

So, what was happening in Jesus’ time? Women were not considered fully human. They were property that belonged to men. Their function was to provide men with food, clothing, cleaning services, sex, and sons. And if they displeased their husband, a woman and her children could be put out on the street with a simple note written at the kitchen table: “Get out!” No alimony, no child support, no appeal, no nothing. If a divorced woman had no family to take her in, or didn’t land another husband quickly, she and her children faced a life of poverty, possible starvation, and the woman might well be forced to turn to prostitution to stay alive.

Now, in Jesus’ time, there were undoubtedly abuses within marriages, and it is unimaginable to think that Jesus would condone that, but what was happening in Jesus’ time was that the consequences of divorce were so dire that Jesus forbids it while reminding the men of texts that should stop abuses — that women are made in God’s image and are as fully human as are men.

Jesus was motivated by an ethical concern against allowing the creation of innocent victims. His world was no easier than ours, and he had to weigh the abuses that existed in some marriages with the horror that could befall women and children as a result of Judaism’s unjust divorce policy. In his day, the consequences of divorce were clearly more dire.

In 1973, after long debate, the Episcopal Church decided that things had changed to the extent that the ethical consideration had tipped, and the Church recognized divorce and allowed for remarriage. We decided that since we no longer treated women as property, since women could vote and initiate legal action and own property, and since we now provided for alimony and child support, the dire consequences of divorce in Jesus’ time were at least reduced. And since we had seen that the failure to allow divorce had resulted in so much tragedy, brutality, heartache, and abuse, we decided that the scales had tipped to the point that Jesus’ ethical norm against creating victims now weighed in favor of allowing divorce when the marriage was irreconcilably broken.

I think it was the right decision. But I want you to know that I also take very seriously the part of the marriage service that says that we understand marriage to be a lifelong union. In addition to telling couples that I won’t ask, “Who gives this woman?,” I also tell them that if they think of this as a trial run, if they aren’t completely committed to marriage as a lifelong commitment going in, they should not do it.

I also want you to know that I think many people get divorced far too casually. I was speaking with a friend recently who told me that her sister had recently called and told her that the sister was getting a divorce after ten years of marriage. My friend said, “Tell me what’s happened.” The sister went through a litany of difficulties. My friend told me, “You know what? To me it didn’t sound like grounds for divorce; it just sounded to me like ten years of marriage.” Sustaining a committed, lifelong relationship is hard work at times. Charlotte and I are aware that one of the reasons we’re still married after almost nineteen years is that when we’ve hit hard patches, we’re both been just too damn stubborn to get divorced. There’s a lot to be said for that kind of stubbornness to carry you though the hard times so you can get back to the good times.

I also want you to know that I think our society has failed in many ways to provide for support for divorced persons and the children of divorce. The fact that, statistically, divorce results in a rise in the economic quality of life for men and a fall in the economic quality of life for women and children should call us to action. If a man is not current on his alimony and child support, we will not allow a remarriage in the church. But our political leaders need to fix this problem, and we need to insist that they do.

So, there are some of my thoughts about divorce. I’m telling you these things because this is an important issue, and I know that it is painful for many of you. But as we reflect on how we have dealt with the ethical considerations of people who need to dissolve a marriage which the Church blessed, we are also faced with those who are asking for permission to have their lifelong relationships blessed. It is not an easy consideration. But it is important that as we go about it we remember that we are a communion of faith with the honesty and integrity to look at Scripture in the context of what was happening at that time, decide what the enduring ethical consideration was, and then apply that ethic to our time.

That type of analysis is dangerous and sometimes divisive, I grant you. You might have gotten a taste of that in the “Faith and Values” section of the paper yesterday. It is hard; we worry about the “slippery slope,” about substituting our prejudices for those of Biblical times, but we also worry about holding onto traditions Jesus would change, about being frozen instead of alive. It’s hard, but I genuinely believe that this way of interpreting the Bible is the only honest and faithful way to go about it.

Ah, this is all so heavy. I’m sorry. Sometimes things just aren’t light and funny. But it ends with a wonderful image. After this heavy teaching about divorce, children appear. The disciples try to keep them away, but Jesus scolds them and takes the children in his arms and blesses them. “Truly, I tell you,” he says, “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”

Isn’t this just perfect? In contrast to the men who took oppression of women for granted, Jesus hugs the most vulnerable, least powerful people in the world — children — and says, “Learn about the kingdom of God from them.” As we go about the hard job of applying Jesus’ ethical norms to the challenging issues of our day, it’s probably not a bad exercise for us always to be asking anew: “Humm. ‘Learn about the kingdom of God from these most vulnerable, least powerful of people.’ What do you suppose he meant by that?”