Nick Scolaro
09/10/2002
Gary Burge wants to prove that Jesus had beliefs on divorce and remarriage that were not the normative in these times. In fact, Jesus' beliefs on the subject were "more demanding and less restrictive . . . than [has often been acknowledged].
It was customary for a Jew to deliver a proclamation of divorce to his wife if the divorce was valid. The problems in question here are if a woman can remarry after being divorced and whether a woman can divorce her husband. In the earliest text, the Gospel of Mark, Jesus never says that divorce is legitimate. Is divorce okay then according to Jesus' teaching? According to both the Gospel of Matthew and Burge, it is legitimate in certain circumstances.
Burge mentions what has been known as the "exception clause" as the reason why divorce may be acceptable. The exception clause shows up in MT 19:9 and reads that one who divorces his wife and remarries another commits adultery "unless the marriage is unlawful" (NAB). Unlawful can mean many things, but according to Burge, it specifically means unfaithfulness.
Each pericope that concerns divorce and remarriage have been understood as only men divorcing their wives. Burge says that Jesus never meant to have exclude women from having the authority to issued papers of divorce. Specifically, he states it as: "even though in Jewish custom women could not divorce their husbands, Jesus includes women equally in this charge."
Burge brings up that the Hebrew Bible talks about divorce and Jesus appeals to it readily. But, when he is asked why Moses permitted divorce his response was that Moses permitted divorce solely because they were hard-hearted. Burge uses this example to show that Jesus did have specific beliefs concerning divorce. Burge also says that the reason why the Pharisees thought divorce was okay according to Moses was because Jewish laws said that a man could both freely discharge his wife on speculative grounds, and that a man was required to leave his wife if he suspected infidelity. Jesus stands up against both of these teachings.
Burge's article brings out many points that spark great interest and further evaluation. One of Burge's biggest claims is that Jesus did see legitimate reasons for divorce via the Gospel of Matthew The exception clause is where he bases his argument saying that Mark simply left it out. He does not go further to explain whether Matthew simply added it into his interpretation of the story or if Matthew had other sources to get the clause from. The article does not completely address all the questions it brings forth.
I agree very much with what Burge says about the exception clause, I only bring up the question on its validity because it is something to look more into more fully. Jesus was a loving and (more importantly) understanding man who knew the ways of men and women. Matthew says that a man shall "be joined to his wife." The marriage ceremony itself is not the binding contract but the consummation of the marriage is. He would never ask one to stay married to someone who destroyed the greatest gift they can receive from God, sexuality.
The article is very important to study of this subject because it brings out the many questions about divorce and remarriage. It does not limit itself to one particular pericope but expounds on much of the First and Second Testaments.