Mark 10:9

What God himself, then, has yoked together no one must separate.” 


be good
no question

what is
is what is

nothing more
nothing less

without standing
stand down

sit cornered
slip away

grow elsewhere
and elseway

for now
no pulling

no pushing
no birth


Any “therefore” is dependent upon its preceding data points.

Obviously “one flesh” means more than one flesh. Though there are few parables told in this second half of Mark, this can be seen as a parabolic response to a typical challenge. To rebuild a legal or social edifice on a thought-opening rejoinder brings with it a great weakness. In this case it is most clearly a retrenchment of patriarchy that grew from the identifiers originally chosen (male language and interpretation from a male perspective). Don’t hesitate to choose differently.

One of the choices here is which phrase to put first. Are humans to refrain from sundering that which has been yoked? Is a yoking by G*D not to be sundered by humans?

Yet there is a tension in the G*D/Human partnership that sometimes needs noting as a Human/G*D partnership. As in this larger yoked pair each urges the other on to more beauty and each restrains the other from knee-jerk ugliness, so there is an evolving quality to their relationship. In this, ancient stories call out to be retold from a different vantage point.

For one who later will be “forsaken”, abandoned, divorced, this is a great cry for premeditated mercy as a basic grounding in any economic, political, military setting. It is a remembrance of an exiled Garasene. This is a recollection of healings, of lifting up and restoring to community. This is a seed seeking healthy soil and soil yearning for a new seed.

This is a call to fisherfolk to look around them again. Can they see the way the world has been separated into this group with power and that powerless mass? If they can glimpse the need for good news, will they begin to use that analysis to craft a way to re-yoke the world into a better image through hospitality and partnership?

Mark 10:8

and the man and his wife will become one;’ so that they are no longer two, but one.


man & wife
are as different as
giraffe and ostrich
both have long necks
but . . .

two being one
has no grounding
in the artificiality
of formal marriage
but . . .

man and woman
husband and wife
hold different status
marriage is good
but . . .

papering over différence
even doing so twice
is a frail bridge
even in fair weather
but . . .


And it was so what G*D spake after the earth had brought forth herd-animals, crawling things, and more: “In our image, humankind” (Genesis 1:26).

And it is so, the “our” is a very old problem. It gets to fallibility and weakness of the likeness to G*D. It wonders about a single authority or multiplicity of “personality”. “They were created, whole, as well as female and male” (Genesis 1:27)

Here we have both specificity and multi-dimensionality. Any intention of that which is whole, now split into two, eventually and universally re-bonding as a whole, places untold vectors into a relationship. It is amazing that the standard expectation is not divorce, a bias toward one pole or the other.

It becomes even more problematic if a second story is looked at. Genesis 2:7 relates a single, soil-being (brought forth from the earth). Not only was their form dictated, but their need for a “helper” (2:18). A next creation was needed, one then called Isha, from an Ish (2:21–24). [Note: rather than “ribs” it could be “sides” reflecting other ancient understandings of a basic androgyny (both male/female with untold variations that become a unit known as human).]

Strange business this specific differentiation intended to go beyond differentiation.

It is sometimes helpful to change media when dealing with attempts to freeze a moving target. A helpful shift would be to revisit the first few chapters of Genesis in a graphic book by R. Crumb, The Book of Genesis: Illustrated. Crumb’s introduction reminds us that the compilers of the creation stories were codified by a “priestly caste”. This is part of the irony of using priestly stories on the priests.

Mark 10:7

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother,


always intriguing
basing today
on because
of yesterday

there are many ways
beyond this theory’s given

more intriguing
basing today
on soon
a tomorrow

there are many ways
beyond this theory’s given

most intriguing
basing today
on ifs
of today

there are many ways
beyond this theory’s given


There is nothing inherent in the development of a binary male-female construct that requires one way of working out a relationship between the two. Questions galore can be asked about this “because”. There seems to be a tradition taking precedence here, not a cause.

There have been alternatives to a joining of male and female down through time. An obvious joining is the bringing forth of a new generation of males and females. Beyond that, which is not an imperative in an over-populated world, there are as many different ways of combining sexes and genders as there are people involved. It can’t even be said that in any given relationship that the parties are engaged with one another in an agreed upon reason for their being together.

If readers here are interested in exploring some of the variations of human integrity and cultural expressions, it would be good to pick up nearly any book by Ursula K. Le Guin. A couple of starting places would be her Left Hand of Darkness, The Birthday of the World, and Changing Planes.

Since the Kinsey Reports in the 1940s and 50s we have been finding more and more variations of human interaction within and between males and females. The combinations and permutations are legendary by now and it takes a certain amount of myopism to hold to one etiology and commandment about human interactions.

Even a push beyond later commands and traditions to a basic observation about male and female can’t get us to a single place. The basic indeterminacy of intersexuality points to diversity. When bodies are unclear about basic physiology everything else becomes more so.

Mark 10:6

but, at the beginning of the Creation, ‘God made them male and female.’


our starting point
is always direct and specific
I am this and this
you are that and that
with hope of completion
this dancing with that
and fear of any new home
honing and molding us
reducing invading

once started we choose
where variances need apply
virtues shed their shadow
or hold it tight
vices find their warm heart
or grip their cold
ideally both find more
than batch-ing it
under the same roof


We are now a step deeper into the commandment as we move from Moses to Genesis. In this ancient view, the positive benefit of a parent/child relationship becomes a communal liability (an inbreeding) that can only be rectified with new blood and so a child bonds with another child beyond the confines of a beginning family structure and cleaves to them in a way that requires a shift in relationship dynamics.

This is more than simply a maturational issue; it is a deeply genetic attempt at the improvement of the gene pool that goes much beyond this or that personal life. There is a multiplicative binary that seems deeper than any subsequent dualism that is used to hold everything to one standard. This is particularly visible when considering a gift of singleness.

When we can look beyond a commandment’s surface, we can begin to see a wider issue. With divorce as it had come down to Jesus there is a tendency to see it in the limited view of a single male-female relationship. The dynamics of life are never quite as simple and clean as whatever triggers a loss of honor in the eyes of one or another party. There are waves of additional energies that ebb and flow around and behind a single instance. Myers118 points to an on-going issue of social patriarchy that stands behind divorce.

[Jesus] addresses the system of male power and privilege in which a woman who had been “dismissed” by her husband became a social outcast with little means of supporting herself. The original vision of Genesis, Jesus argues, stipulated equality between men and women. The marriage covenant, far from delivering the woman into the power of the man, instructed the man to break with his patriarchal “house” in order to “become one flesh” with his wife (10:6–8). Jesus’ conclusion in 10:9 refers to the way in which patriarchy, not divorce, drives a wedge that tears this equality asunder.

Mark 10:5

“It was owing to the hardness of your hearts,” said Jesus, “that Moses gave you this direction;


an unyielding heart
blocks good news
before it is thought
or whispered

for this consistency
we will not break
our beasts
nor heed an angel

here “sorry” limps
sorrowfully away
wandering ever deeper
through withering wilderness

a resolution always away
on a moveable horizon
short-circuited before it’s time
by the quickest fix to hand


Induration, hardness of heart or obstinate stubbornness is the import of σκληροκαρδία, (sklērokardia).

We’ve all had a touch of this when we, for one reason or another, get stuck in a one-way answer to life’s perplexing questions. Our very attempt at cutting through the clutter, instead sets up a wall around our thinking and feeling. Whether we are protecting a secret or defending a principle, it is easy to get caught in a web of justifications.

In humans, sclerosis is a hindrance. In plants, the equivalent of lignification is a benefit. It strengthens cell walls and assists with the transport of water throughout the plant. It assists in helping plants store carbon, which in today’s changing climate is an extra benefit.

This beneficial use of hardening is a simple reminder that we are never dealing with a simple situation. Behind a blessing of relationship there are untold mysteries. Within a blessing of ending a relationship are also untold mysteries. The issue of commandments and the development of allowances to be made because they are too cookie-cutterish when it comes to the dynamics of life—commandments are made for our lives, not our lives for the sake of a commandment, no matter how primal we think it might be.

Commandments, like aspects of any legal system derive from ungrounded idealism in real lives or a reaction to an event with an attempt to constrain its reoccurrence. Either way there is a recognition that some form of control is required to hold a larger system in place.

So, using the allowance noted by the Pharisees as a commandment, Jesus identifies an indifference to others as a key for the way we excuse turning our back on one another and whole groups.

Mark 10:4

“Moses,” they said, “permitted a man to draw up in writing a notice of separation and divorce his wife.” 


now that we know
the standardized rule
we can wrestle honestly
with whether it fits
this unique partnership

to wed a Neighb*r
is to wed G*D and gods
in all their manifold
combinations and permutations

to divorce a G*D or gods
is to divorce Neighb*rs
those we hang with or won’t
affects every molecule

this is no matter
for framed certificates
proving only time
when space is the matter


Whatever distinction can be drawn between a command and what is allowed is still up-for-grabs. For practical purposes there is not much difference. However, to ask for a positive action and receive back a passive one does raise a red flag of missed communication—one more time.

There is a still further subtlety to the business of allowing divorce. Whatever allowance Moses was talking about in Deuteronomy 24, it appears Moses was simply taking what was presumed to be a behavior of the day (husbands leaving wives) and regulating it, giving a process that clarifies and regulates a leaving to be more protective of the one being left. This assists a fledgling community to better flourish.

This shift from command to allow also gives another opportunity to ask questions about where we are grounded. In this case and current American civil-religion it is helpful to keep pushing things back and back, removing layer upon layer, to a more solid footing than simply a current common agreement or latest meme. In the current scene there is a great emphasis upon individual freedom that takes no account of any communal context or the effect one freedom has on another.

It is this question of effect that is always in play when dealing with any presentation of good news. From its military background we can understand a long-ago dancing on the watery grave of Egyptian charioteers. Seeing from a partnership perspective reduces the clear-cut nature of what is beneficial, for whom, and for how long.

Reponses to clear questions do reveal whether we are in an investigative or adversarial relationship and help us stay centered.

Mark 10:3

“What direction did Moses give you?” replied Jesus.


there are many ways
to decide intractable questions
each and every one
having its limitation
particularly when more than one
consideration is in play

agreed upon authorities
can be prooftexted
one against another
divorcing varieties
of one integral from another
falsifying our hero

we can look back
to past resolutions
we can peer ahead
to a larger mercy
we can cast around
to poll and repoll

still there are many ways
to hold one another
at a distance or hugged close
that easy-eyed
I see your worth and admit
your best is my absence


Since the Pharisees raise a question of Law that typically revolves around Moses, Jesus has a couple of ways of responding. He can get into case law and be lost in the minutia there with exception upon exception countering every position taken. He can step outside the bounds of the question and find a different basis on which to respond. He can remain silent.

Whichever way he chooses to go there is no control over what will be done with his response, either in the moment with the Pharisees and their intended trap, with Herod in reopening an old wound, or with the crowds looking for a simple either-or answer that can be applied everywhere upon everyone.

Before picking a direction from which to respond to a significant challenge, the wise move is to have additional information up-front so it won’t be sprung later. Following this wisdom, Jesus responds, “Tell me more”, or “What is this Law you are asking about?”

There have been many of these Challenge-Riposte scenes already and several yet to come. Malina240 speaks about this formula in an honor/shame culture.

…every time Jesus’ opponents put a hostile question to him, he answers with a counterquestion, usually an insulting question….The honorable person, when challenged, pushes away the challenge and diffuses any advantage his opponents might believe they had. Here the insult in the counterquestion is underscored by the emphasis on the word “you.” Jesus distances himself from his interlocutors and their interpretation of Moses.

Mark 10:2

Presently some Pharisees came up and, to test him, asked, “Has a husband the right to divorce his wife?” 


mediators facing reality
come to learn
a new way
in such a common
perplexity
of social relationship
gone awry

knowing the difficulties
of any endeavor
to bear fruit
even with pruning
when hopes and fantasies
lie ruined
what out can be offered

this is no test
beyond what one
brings to it
what healing touch
is available
when a slightest touch
traumatizes wider


Remembering Baptizer John lost his head over a question of divorce, this is no little pop quiz.

To allow divorce, and on what grounds, has been a live debate in both the scriptures Jesus would have been familiar with and the differing rabbinic schools. Ezra 10 required divorce from “foreign” women. Hosea deliberately marries a whore, a key reason for divorce. Hillel and Shammai represent the rabbinic divide on this subject.

We will hear in a bit about the focus of this chapter being thought experiments on “the beginning of creation” (10:6). It is also about how creation ends.

Just as scripture and rabbis debate internally about divorce, there are equal debates about whether G*D brings a judgment that destroys the wicked and redeems the good or acts as a healer leading the people back to their origins. Too broadly put, this is a debate between prophetic and wisdom literature.

Where the Pharisees show up in Mark there are not only questions of the prevailing law but of nationalism. In this regard there is not only an overriding concern with having been conquered by Rome and desiring independence from Rome, but inter-family debate about which of the various interest groups will prevail among the others. This is not unique to humans more than 2,000 years ago. Now, as then, there is a disjuncture between advocacy groups all moving in the same direction, but unable to sort out their competition on the way to a more effective cooperation. Healing of systems is as crucial a need as the healing of individuals.

The question of divorce is still a live one on every level.

Mark 10:1

On leaving that place, Jesus went into the district of Judea on the other side of the Jordan. Crowds gathered about him again; and again, as usual, he began teaching them.


a developed usual
speaks everywhere
in season and out

beyond bounds
crossing both ways
with open eyes

within bounds
as though without
remains unusual

weightless imponderables
these markers of ours
imposing what’s not here


Jesus’ leaving his time of teaching with the Twelve comes with an arising from the seated position of teachers in his day. Rising is the signal for yet another journey.

Mark has had previous difficulties with the lay of the land. That confusion continues. Did he or did he not cross the Jordan? Arguments continue.

The key thing here is the end of the verse where we hear about palin after palin, again and again, public teaching alternates with tutoring. Whether or not the Transjordan is involved, we can remember back to previous teachings and prepare ourselves for hearing more about this last round of teaching regarding a preference for “little ones” and the depth of simplicity.

Sabin-2157 speaks of Jewish Wisdom Traditions. In the first part of Mark, the rhythm of parables and teachings are key examples. In the second part Sabin sees Chapter 10 as a concentration of this tradition. Rather than stories we have encounters with a social justice bent.

The perspective of primal wholeness prevails in Chapter 10 when Jesus recalls the original unity of man and wife (10–12), holds up the child as the model member of God’s Kingdom (13–16), and counsels the rich young man to return to a state of primal simplicity (17–31).

Looking at the whole book through a Wisdom lens, Sabin notes that this return to a creation-oriented “primal simplicity” is reversed in the chronology of Jesus’ death in chapters 14–15. G*D’s creating acts in Genesis 1 is torn. In chapter 16 this reversal is again reversed with “images of transformation and a new beginning”.

In regard to reversal, we are in a “usual” setting—crowd(s) and teaching. Moving away from an overview, we are ready for Jesus’ standard of reversal to help us think afresh and create anew.

Mark 9:50

Salt is good, but, if the salt should lose its saltiness, what will you use to season it? 
You must have salt in yourselves, and live at peace with one another.”


antecedents are tricky
when talking of salt
think fire
that burns tongue
and all connected to it

should your flame burn out
how in the middle of the deep
rekindle fire
with no things no body
at beck or call

fire ants know connection
even in a whelming flood
living fire
floating toward a next shore
to begin again

mere humans need intention
to build a sustainable community
prevenient fire
leaping up when ebbing
encouraged one to another


This conversation began with a question about what the disciples were arguing about between themselves (9:33). The result is to remains salty with one another as well as with those in the world around them.

There are many references of the importance of salt. It is used in religious rituals, healing, and preserving; it is a sign of hospitality, disobedience, genocide; and more.

The repetition of salt from the last verse suggests a connection with suffering brought on through a lack of awareness of an independent good and its transgression leading to “hell” in this life or whatever is projected after it.

Mark is using salt as a vehicle of choice and transformation between arguing (fighting over a limited resource) and suffering (lived consequence of living wider and deeper than the convention of any society or politics of the day) and the way of healing (returning to a wholeness of salvation, hospitality, healing) and peace (connecting a wider context and deeper identity into a new partnership).

What happens if “you” lose “yourself”? How will you regain your right mind? [Substitute “salt” for “you”.]

If we peek ahead, Acts 1:4 records Jesus’ post-rising “meeting with” (συναλίζω, synalizō, “while having salt with”) the disciples. This affirmation and assurance of peace beyond rivalry, betrayal, and abandonment stands as an ever-present choice. This peace beckons us beyond any present suffering and death. Fear not.