grounds for divorce

Matthew 5:31-32

Jesus continues the formula: "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." but this time he tackles the topic of divorce. If I understand the context of the time correctly, there was two main opposing schools of thought put forward by two teachers (I was going to put the plural of rabbi but I didn't know how to spell it: rabbis looks like rabbits and rabbies look like rabies). One school of thought taught that you could divorce your wife for any reason at all, the other school taught that you could only divorce your wife if there was sexual immorality. In both schools of thought it is the man who does the divorcing and the wife has no say. Jesus seems to endorse the second school of thought.
It's interesting that the divorced woman becomes an adulteress and nothing is said about what the divorced husband becomes (the man who marries the divorced woman becomes an adulterer). Why would Jesus say that? In that time, the woman had no economic viability apart from a man so by divorcing a woman you were basically forcing her to get remarried so that she could survive and part of the marriage would involve sex with the new husband. Jesus seems to be teaching that the previous husband is the "real" husband and anyone else the woman has sex with is outside the bounds of the "real" marriage and is therefore adultery.
It is also interesting to me that hard core conservative Christian fundamentalists will interpret this passage literally and condemn people who get divorced and remarried but I don't see them missing any hands or eyes that have caused them offense (the previous verse). I am not saying that this verse should not be interpretted literally but how do they get to pick and choose which verses they are going to follow? I saw if you are going to camp hard on this verse, you better be getting out the knife because I don't know anyone who hasn't struggled with lust at one point or other and Jesus clearly says to amputate the part of your body that's causing you offense... ouch! that could really hurt!!
It is obvious to me that this verse needs some interpretting in light of today's context. Even the hard core conservative Christian fundamentalist interprets the verse to apply to both men and women (and not just to women as Jesus makes clear here). So what does this verse mean? In the context Jesus is teaching that all humans must be treated with the honour, dignity and respect they deserve as someone who is created in the image of God. In that context I think that Jesus is teaching that women must be treated with the same honour, dignity and respect and must not be divorced without cause. Remember, in that day women were seen as property belonging to their father until they got married at which point they belonged to their husband. Jesus is elevating the view of women by this teaching - they are not like a horse or a dog that you can get rid of whenever they cease to please you. They are created in the image of God and are therefore worthy of dignity, honour and respect. Also, in the context, Jesus is teaching that the spirit of the Law reflects the character (specifically the holiness of God). Jesus is teaching that marriage must reflect God's character of faithfulness, love, purity and commitment. It should not be broken without serious cause.
So, what do I learn from this passage? That God is faithful, love, pure and committed to his people and that my marriage should be a reflection of his character. I learn that all people are created with dignity, honour and respect because they are created in the image of God and that in all relationships I must seek to treat them as such and must seek to help others who are trying to follow Jesus treat each other with the same.

extreme amputation

Matthew 5:27-30

Jesus continues with his formula: "You have heard that it was said... but I tell you..." This time he takes issues with the traditional interpretation of adultery. Rather than the letter of the Law - don't sleep with a woman who is not your wife - which interprets the Law at a physical level, Jesus uncovers the spirit of the Law - treat all human beings with the dignity, honour and respect that they deserve as beings created in the image of God and reflect God's character of purity and holiness in your interactions with other humans. Anything else is lust and lust breaks the spirit of the Law in regards to adultery. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 speaks to this definition of lust. Paul tells the church to control their bodies in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust. This reinforces what Jesus is saying here: lust = sexual desire - holiness + honour. As soon as I dishonour somoene or disregard the character of God in the way that I relate to others I have committed lust (therefore we can have lust for power, possessions, etc. as well as sex).
Jesus' remedy is pretty extreme: cut off your right hand or pluck out your right eye if they are the member of your body causing you offense. I don't think Jesus is advocating mutilation of the body (which would be the plain meaning of what he says) but he is advocating that his audience take drastic action to avoid lust and avoid breaking this Law. The extreme action that Jesus advocates is nothing compared to the extreme result of giving in to lust which is hell. This shows me the seriousness with which Jesus, the Father and the Spirit take my interactions with other humans. If they are not full of honour for the person and full of regard for the character of God then I am in danger of hell.
According to Jesus' interpretation of the Law so far, I am an adulterous murderer who is danger of hell. I think the point that Jesus is trying to make is that even though the Pharisees, most of Jesus audience and I have not physically committed adultery or murder that we still fall short of the standard of the Law (which is a reflection of the holiness and purity of God). I think that's Paul's point in Romans, especially in chapter 3. Jesus' thesis for this section is in v. 20: "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." My only hope for that kind of righteousness is that somehow the righteousness of Jesus would cover me.
Finally, I am convicted by my lazy attitude toward sin. Jesus calls me to take radical action to avoid it and I have been very lazy in my approach. Am I willing to suffer some pain in the short term for gain in the long term? My life would say no. I pray that Jesus would help me desire holiness and honour above comfort and ease.