This blog follows the daily bible readings of the Catholic Church

Reading 1, Ezekiel 16:59-63

59 “For the Lord God says this: I shall treat you as you have deserved for making light of an oath and breaking a covenant,

60 but I shall remember my covenant with you when you were a girl and shall conclude a covenant with you that will last for ever.

61 And you for your part will remember your behaviour and feel ashamed of it when you receive your elder and younger sisters and I make them your daughters, although this is not included in my covenant with you.

62 I shall renew my covenant with you; and you will know that I am the Lord, 63 and so remember and feel ashamed and in your confusion be reduced to silence, when I forgive you for everything you have done — declares the Lord.” ‘

shaming a woman-an image of God's love?

This passage comes at the end of a sustained and bitter denunciation of Jerusalem/ Judah as an unfaithful, sex-mad, whore who pays her customers for sex. The jealousy and disgust of her husband is fully displayed, as is the threat to have her stripped naked and exposed to stoning. But now he will remember only the first days of their marriage and will offer forgiveness and a new start. It is a very startling picture of Israel/Judah but an even more startling picture of God. The feelings of God as the rejected lover are portrayed without reserve. Clearly Ezekiel feels these emotions on behalf of his God. God’s disgust has led to disaster for his people, but now that they have been “stripped naked” and disgraced, God offers forgiveness.

The sneaky question almost arises: can the people forgive God? Especially as the account of their behaviour is very debatable and in any case the innocent have suffered with the guilty. Given that the prophetic theology is an attempt to explain (and justify) the otherwise inexplicable disaster of the near extinction of Israel/ Judah, the reader can legitimately ask if it succeeds. Can this portrayal of an enraged and rejected lover-God explain the near extinction of a people? Is it not more likely that the whole idea of God controlling history of behalf of, or against, his favourites, is wrong? My answers to these questions are respectively, no, and yes..

Gospel, Matthew 19:3-12

3 Some Pharisees approached him, and to put him to the test they said, ‘Is it against the Law for a man to divorce his wife on any pretext whatever?’ 4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female 5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? 6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’

7 They said to him, ‘Then why did Moses command that a writ of dismissal should be given in cases of divorce?’

8 He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted, that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but it was not like this from the beginning.

9 Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife — I am not speaking of an illicit marriage — and marries another, is guilty of adultery.’

10 The disciples said to him, ‘If that is how things are between husband and wife, it is advisable not to marry.’

11 But he replied, ‘It is not everyone who can accept what I have said, but only those to whom it is granted.

12 There are eunuchs born so from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by human agency and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’

The only clear teaching of Jesus on the issue of sexual morality, is one which many churches reject. It seems clear that Jesus viewed marriage as indissoluble. One may say that he was defending the women against the superior status of men in his society, but Jesus appeals not to social justice but to the will of the Creator God. If God makes them “one flesh”-and surely here he is speaking of the sexual act-this cannot be annulled.

one flesh

His disciples obviously were staggered at this teaching, and assumed that it made marriage very unattractive. Jesus responds by saying that celibacy (becoming a eunuch for the kingdom) is an option for some. He does not command it.

Are Christians allowed to argue with Jesus? Of course they may, but given that their faith is based on the image of Jesus in the bible, there is a risk of undermining the basis of belief.

A view which interprets sexual intercourse as an irrevocable commitment may not appeal to many today, but it’s only one of many views of Jesus that our society dislikes.