Homily
27th Sunday of Ordinary Time
Maria Thornton McClain, RCWP
Note what we did not hear in the first reading, Genesis 10: verse 7. We didn’t hear that God created “man.” We heard: “God created an earthling – a human being – from the ground of the earth.” Come to find out, what we’re used to hearing, Adam, is a mis-translation of the Hebrew. There is no sense that God, working as a potter, created a man, but ha-adam, meaning “from the earth.” Sexual differentiation is first spoken of later in verse 23.
Genesis 2:18 gives the reason for the creation of woman. “It is not good that the human being be alone.” God takes the side of the androgynous human and shapes it into another being. From this point on in the narrative, the human beings become ish (male/man) and ishah (female/woman). As patriarchal as this text is in other aspects, the writer did not describe God's creation of a male being first and then a female. Instead, the writer describes God’s creation of a human from which both male and female emerge simultaneously. This other human is to be a partner. The Hebrew word for partner or helper is the same word that is used when it refers to the help that God gives Israel. There is nothing in the symbolism of the rib in antiquity or in the narrative itself to suggest that the second human being is subordinate to the first.
The reading from the Book of Hebrews, like Genesis, speaks of the creation of the universe by God's invisible Word. We need to keep that in mind as we reflect on the Gospel according to Mark. That Gospel was written about 30 years after the resurrection. Jewish legislation did not consider the possibility of a woman initiating a bill of divorce.
This Gospel adapts Jesus’ teaching to the Greco-Roman culture, to an actual community situation. This gives evidence of the cultural contexts that can influence interpretation.
What was Jesus’ teaching? We can put that into a few words, words that form the theme of this year’s Festival of Faiths: COMPASSION THROUGH ACTION!) Jesus spent much of his time healing others. In the Jewish world women whose husbands had divorced them were forced into extreme poverty. Mark, speaking to a non-Jewish audience, says that Jesus taught that women should have equal rights as men to divorce.
Let’s leave the ancient world and bring Jesus’ teaching to our day and location. Think of the thousands of studies on why some marriages last and some fail, studies based on the experience of many, many people. Think of the recent studies of the diversity of sexual orientation. Jesus’ teaching on marriage applies the same way to all people. Marriage is a covenantal commitment based on God’s infinite love, intended to bring the two people to the fulness of love.
The teaching on divorce is based on compassion. Since many women in our culture can survive divorce economically and socially, the prohibition on divorce is less necessary. The sanctity of marriage at all costs is no longer viable if we are to affirm honesty, healthy relationships, and the equality of all genders. Yes, God is love and those who abide in love abide in God and God in them. Let’s affirm those who are striving to love fully, and support those who find it impossible in their current situation.
Where would you like to apply this teaching? (Discussion followed)
27th Sunday of Ordinary Time
Maria Thornton McClain, RCWP
Note what we did not hear in the first reading, Genesis 10: verse 7. We didn’t hear that God created “man.” We heard: “God created an earthling – a human being – from the ground of the earth.” Come to find out, what we’re used to hearing, Adam, is a mis-translation of the Hebrew. There is no sense that God, working as a potter, created a man, but ha-adam, meaning “from the earth.” Sexual differentiation is first spoken of later in verse 23.
Genesis 2:18 gives the reason for the creation of woman. “It is not good that the human being be alone.” God takes the side of the androgynous human and shapes it into another being. From this point on in the narrative, the human beings become ish (male/man) and ishah (female/woman). As patriarchal as this text is in other aspects, the writer did not describe God's creation of a male being first and then a female. Instead, the writer describes God’s creation of a human from which both male and female emerge simultaneously. This other human is to be a partner. The Hebrew word for partner or helper is the same word that is used when it refers to the help that God gives Israel. There is nothing in the symbolism of the rib in antiquity or in the narrative itself to suggest that the second human being is subordinate to the first.
The reading from the Book of Hebrews, like Genesis, speaks of the creation of the universe by God's invisible Word. We need to keep that in mind as we reflect on the Gospel according to Mark. That Gospel was written about 30 years after the resurrection. Jewish legislation did not consider the possibility of a woman initiating a bill of divorce.
This Gospel adapts Jesus’ teaching to the Greco-Roman culture, to an actual community situation. This gives evidence of the cultural contexts that can influence interpretation.
What was Jesus’ teaching? We can put that into a few words, words that form the theme of this year’s Festival of Faiths: COMPASSION THROUGH ACTION!) Jesus spent much of his time healing others. In the Jewish world women whose husbands had divorced them were forced into extreme poverty. Mark, speaking to a non-Jewish audience, says that Jesus taught that women should have equal rights as men to divorce.
Let’s leave the ancient world and bring Jesus’ teaching to our day and location. Think of the thousands of studies on why some marriages last and some fail, studies based on the experience of many, many people. Think of the recent studies of the diversity of sexual orientation. Jesus’ teaching on marriage applies the same way to all people. Marriage is a covenantal commitment based on God’s infinite love, intended to bring the two people to the fulness of love.
The teaching on divorce is based on compassion. Since many women in our culture can survive divorce economically and socially, the prohibition on divorce is less necessary. The sanctity of marriage at all costs is no longer viable if we are to affirm honesty, healthy relationships, and the equality of all genders. Yes, God is love and those who abide in love abide in God and God in them. Let’s affirm those who are striving to love fully, and support those who find it impossible in their current situation.
Where would you like to apply this teaching? (Discussion followed)
RSS Feed
