17th Sunday of Ordinary Time (Proper 12), Year A

    All Things Working Together for Good

Today’s Bible passages invite us to embrace the ways God is working in us for the good of all people as we challenge attitudes and theology, even definitions of marriage, that can separate us from loving one another.

This week's lectionary Bible passages:

Genesis 29:15-28 & Psalm 128; Romans 8:26-39; Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52 (1 Kings 3:5-12 & Psalm 119:129-136; Psalm 105:1-11,45b commentary not included)

 “Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus – that includes attitudes and theological positions as well as angels and principalities.”

Mona West

“Regardless of the rhetoric, no one who takes the Bible seriously wants a biblical marriage – for such a marriage would encourage polygamy, marrying girls once they reached puberty and making war booty into sex slaves."

Miguel De La Torre

“Today’s Bible passages celebrate the intimacy that is possible in God – intimacy built on love, trusting each other and being present to one another even when times get tough.”

Deborah Appler

	In your personal journey of faith are there beliefs and views that you once held that are different now?  What are they?

For Mona West, this has been a very powerful passage from the apostle Paul for LGBT people: “’If God is for us, who is against us?’ (verse 31) ‘Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus’ (verse 39).  I can remember the palpable feeling of hope in the room when these verses were read at a funeral for a young man who had died of AIDS in the early years of the pandemic.  Even though there were those in his own family who had been ‘against’ him as a gay man and there were others who believed that certainly AIDS had ‘separated’ him from God and those who could not bring themselves to physically touch him in life or in death, this promise from Romans 8 resounded throughout the church of his childhood.  Nothing in life or in death could separate him from the love of God in Christ Jesus.”

Genesis 29:15-28 is part of a larger narrative cycle concerning the patriarch Isaac’s sons, Jacob and Esau.  The tables are turned on Jacob who earlier ‘tricked’ Esau out of his birthright (Genesis 25-28).  Now it is Jacob who is ‘tricked’ by his father-in-law Laban who gives him his daughter Leah instead of his daughter Rachel on the wedding night.  This story in Genesis 29 sets up a fierce competition between Leah and Rachel to see who can produce more sons for Jacob.  A woman’s worth was measured in this patriarchal society by the men she belonged to (husband or father) or the male offspring she produced.  Today oppressive systems and structures often pit LGBT people against other marginalized groups.  In our efforts to “fight over the same piece of the pie” the dominant culture has chosen to give us, we fail to work together to make sure the “whole pie” is shared.

Deborah Appler points out that although the lectionary cuts off the rest of Leah and Rachel’s story, these two women do form an alliance at times within the restrictions of their patriarchal marriage. Some Jewish interpretations, midrashim, suggest that, maybe out of respect for tradition or out of love for her sister, Rachel shares information with Leah to help her deceive Jacob so that she will be cared for. Another suggests that Rachel might have talked to Jacob under the bed when Jacob and Leah consummated the marriage. Although Rachel and Leah’s ultimate goal  was to have sex with Jacob in order to produce children, Leah and Rachel shared mandrakes (Genesis 30), an ancient plant believed to be both an aphrodisiac and to increase fertility. Both of these women are revered in the Jewish tradition as mothers of Israel. Again, even when they work together, they seek to fit in with the system as it stands and there is a competition.

This reading of the marriage between Jacob, Rachel and Leah complicates the picture of marriage found in Psalm 128 and today. One hears much rhetoric from the radical right about the need to return to a biblical definition of marriage, but as the Genesis text illustrates, imposing a biblical definition of marriage upon modern society is oppressive, especially for women.  These biblical values are based on the assumption that women’s bodies are chattel that can be sold or traded in return for seven years of labor. Men could acquire these women as possession once they reached puberty and could produce children. A literal acceptance of the biblical marriage would allow for polygamy. Fortunately the definition of marriage evolved to what it is today for most Westerners – a relationship based on love, not on obtaining female bodies, or creating financial security or insuring reproduction.  Just as the definition of marriage has evolved toward a love-based relationship, maybe in the next stage we will care less about the gender of those adults entering into marriage and more about marriage as a mutual and self-giving relationship.

How might the definition of marriage continue to evolve in your community of faith?