If we accept (a) that many of Jesus’ disciples had left their wives behind to follow him and (b) that women were included in Jesus’ following (some known in their own right; not attached to a particular male), could this provide the context for Jesus’ strange teaching about divorce?
Given Jesus’ praise of eunuchs and those who have left their wives and houses behind, it comes as no surprise to hear him discourage remarriage. After all, Jesus seems to have an aberrant view on marriage and family.
Could it be that he was discouraging his male disciples (who had left wives behind) from marrying the female followers with whom they traveled? In other words, perhaps Jesus is saying, “So you’ve left your wives behind to follow me; great! But don’t use that as justification for divorcing your wives to marry one of your new traveling companions!” Please keep in mind that "leaving" one's wife behind and legally divorcing one's wife were two very different things - the latter being devastating for many women.
This possible reading would also help to explain this saying, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman [or just "wife"] with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt 5:27-28). Dale Allison has suggested that this saying suggests a moderate form of asceticism on Jesus' part. But maybe Jesus is just trying to keep his disciples from exploiting their newly formed "family".
Thoughts?
You are suggesting that Jesus promulgated a rule forbidding divorce and remarriage, apparently making the rule applicable to millions of Jews, in order to keep his 12 disciples in line? That doesn't make sense to me. Certainly Jesus was capable of setting rules applicable only to his disciples. The fact that Jesus made these rules applicable to all (Jews) suggests to me that Jesus' concerns here went beyond (re)marriage among his immediate followers.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that Jesus wanted to discourage his male disciples from marrying his female followers, but you’re not saying why this should be of concern to Jesus unless (as Allison suggests) Jesus was moderately ascetic. People get married all the time; generally, we think this is cause for celebration. Why would Jesus have felt differently?
Should we consider WHY Jesus would have had women in his travelling party? The answer I usually hear is that these women supported Jesus financially. That is as may be, but that doesn't explain why Jesus' financiers had to travel with him. I know little about the subject of patronage in the first century, but I think that wealthy women frequently acted as patrons, and few of them traveled with the objects of their patronage.
Thanks for pushing back Larry,
DeleteYes, I am suggesting that (sometimes) Jesus was given to speak to a particular set of concerns and did not necessarily envision a universal standard.
The bottom line for me is that I think that Jesus was more against remarriage than he was with separation.
-anthony
ps. It is also worth noting that even within this little corpus, we see an example of casuistic vs apodictic law. I.e. "Don't divorce".... "but if you do divorce...".
A few open-ended thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. I think your attempt to interpret Jesus' actions in the context of his itinerant ministry is an appropriate endeavor. Thus, his immediate situation and those of the disciples could indeed have served as an impetus for these types of sayings.
2. However, this suggestion would require more dialogue with the Mosaic typology at work in the Sermon on the Mount. Is Jesus uttering general axioms/laws here that need not necessarily have a specific (itinerant) impetus?
3. Moreover, a few words on the make-up of these "crowds" (5:1) convening to hear Jesus' teaching would be needed. Surely, some of these people had indeed not left family to follow Jesus but could indeed be sympathizers with Jesus--what specific import (if any) would these sayings have for them? To borrow from Keith's terminology in regards to literacy, the "gradations" of the crowds/audience ( I think) deserves attention. But, the words we speak (and the words of the Sermon the Mount) are not always directed towards everyone who listens.
Nevertheless, I think you're on to something compelling (I myself have thought the same thing many times), even though I wouldn't necessarily label Jesus' views on marriage and family as "aberrant," as if there existed a singular standard on the issue in the 1st century.
well if I was away from my wife for extended periods, a few glances at any attractive woman might occur. Out damn lust, out!
ReplyDelete"if I was away from my wife for extended periods"
DeleteOnly then? You're a better man than I am.
we should not overlook evidence suggesting that Peter and at least some of the other disciples did not divorce / leave their wives / embrace celebacy ("Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?" 1 Cor 9:5)
ReplyDeleteperhaps it then becomes necessary to inquire about the Gospel statements about divorce in the later attitudes of the Evangelists...(?)
Scott Caulley
We should not overlook evidence that Cephas and the other disciples reportedly had wives ("Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?" 1 Cor 9:5).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Allison vis-a-vis Jesus' asceticism. The way I read this (especially in the context of Mt. 19:12--see my upcoming chapter in _Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages_!) is that Jesus is essentially saying, in the eschatological age, there is no need for reproduction, and thus marriage has served its primary purpose. Divorce, in Jewish tradition, was first and foremost a recourse when the marriage failed to produce offspring (the Rabbis even debated why Abraham didn't divorce Sarah as was REQUIRED to by the Law...). The OTHER reason would be the desire to have another sexual partner. Neither of these would be legitimate motivations in the eyes of an apocalyptic Jesus. Thus his concession allowing divorce without remarriage makes sense: if you can't stand being around each other, you can end the marriage, but don't start a new one just to satisfy your lust.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jack,
DeleteI tend to side with Dale Martin on this: if Jesus had ascetic tendencies, he is a very strange ascetic. In almost every other respect, Jesus seems almost hedonistic. This might suggest that Jesus (or Matthew's Jesus) is pushing back against a particular perception of him and his disciples.
No doubt, you're simplifying things because this a blog comment. It should be said that the rabbis' conversations about legal separation are much more complicated than you suggest.
-anthony
It's an apocalyptic asceticism, which is going to be strange by dint of the axes of its dualisms. It isn't an anti-cosmic hatred of the body like you see in some later gnosticism, but simply a belief that some aspects of carnal, earthly existence (and especially attachment thereto) are becoming obsolete as this world passes away.
Delete(And yes, the Rabbis' discussions are ALWAYS more complicated. With respect to Abraham and Sarah's situation, they went so far as to speculate if Abraham might have been a tumtum--a person with ambiguous genitalia--in the context of a wider discussion of the marital responsibilities of various intersexed categories.)
I thought the idea that Jesus taught that divorce shouldn't happen has long been abandoned? E.g. see the standard work on this Instone-Brewer's "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: the social and literary context"
ReplyDeleteNope. Still considered a representative teaching of Jesus by most.
Delete-anthony
Oh well. What do you make of Instone-Brewer's arguments? I found them really rather persuasive on this particular point; particularly the Rabbinic sources he brings to light.
Delete