Divorce and Eye for an Eye

[cmnahrwold]

My wife and I had our bible study tonight and she had a few good questions in which I did not know how to answer. Will you take a stab at it? The more basic the explaination the better.

1) Matthew 5:31-32

"You have heard the law that says, ‘A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.’ But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery."

She struggles with this verse because the punishment lands on the woman even though the man is the one whom divorces. Does the husband commit adultry as well? What if the woman was a good and decent wife in which the husband is cruel and evil towards her? If the husband decides to divorce this woman than the punishment goes to her and her possible future husband? Doesn't make much sense.

2) Matthew 5:38-42

38 "You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also. 40 If you are sued in court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat , too. 41 If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. 42 Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow."

Her response to this verse was "So God wants us to let people take advantage of us?"

[SERay]

What Jesus Meant

I started my response simple and then it became a full blown book to make the necessary points

The verse in Matthey 5:31 first reflects on the old law, that allows the male to divorce the wife on written notice. The old law WAS primarily male dominant. Christ in essence was saying, “No, a written notice is not right. Unless the woman has been unfaithful, he cannot divorce her.” Now Christ certainly wasn’t trying to imply that the men had the upper hand and women were cattle, but was merely correcting a fallacy about divorce using the old law as an example. It is fully accepted in church theology that this teaching applies to husband or wife equally.

Matthew 5:38-42 has been a stumbling block too, when read at face value, not knowing the colloquialisms or expressions of the time, of the meaning intended.

Christ first addresses what is known as Lex Talionis, "the law of retaliation." We know this concept by its more familiar name, "an eye for an eye." Many took the Old Testament guideline in a literal fashion during the time of Christ. At first glance, it seems that, if a person's tooth or eye were lost in a scuffle or accident, the one who caused the loss to happen would be required to forfeit his own tooth or eye. Though some may have demanded this in times past, it is clearly not God's intent for the law. Instead, it is a principle, given in concrete, understandable terms, that damage is to be justly compensated.

According to commentator Adam Clarke, the Jews of Christ's day abused this law to extract every last penny from another, and in the majority of cases, there was no mercy shown. Human nature being what it was then, and still is now, they insisted that the one who caused the problem receive every bit of punishment coming to him. In short, they wanted and exacted revenge! Jesus wants us to understand that His disciples are not to act this way.

In countering the faulty understanding of this Old Testament law, Jesus teaches as you have already quoted, "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also". He begins by instructing us not to escalate the situation by stubborn resistance or, worse still, by perpetrating an additional offense. Elsewhere, Paul writes, "Repay no one evil for evil" (Romans 12:17). If offended, do not offend in return. If injured, do not inflict an injury in payment. In other words, retaliation is not the answer.

Note that Jesus is not speaking of dangerous situations, like facing a robber with murderous intent or a rapist on a dark street. On His mind are circumstances of daily life that are insulting, bothersome, or even mildly injurious, but not life-threatening. The Interpreter's Bible comments on the latter half of the verse: "A blow with the back of the hand to the right cheek was an insult, thus the palm of the hand was now poised to bring a blow to the left cheek." The blow is struck contemptuously rather than homicidally.

In a situation like this, the first thing that comes to most minds is revenge. Jesus desires that, rather than avenging oneself and acting with the same attitude of hatred as the aggressor, we reflect our calling and suppress the urge to seek vengeance. We should even be willing to take a second slap, this one from the other's open hand, without retaliation. Such pacifism usually pours cold water on the situation, avoiding further tit-for-tat retribution.

Jesus continues, "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also." Certainly, no one likes to be sued. It is a time-wasting, frustrating, chaotic legal mess. It is often a huge disruption of normal life, and for a Christian, a terrible distraction from our spiritual priorities. Christ advises us to nip the suit in the bud by taking the loss—and even adding a premium to it if it will settle matters before they get out of hand!

Paul the Apostle wrote in I Corinthians 6, "Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?" Neither Jesus nor Paul means that a Christian should not use the law properly, but they are more interested in the right attitude in these matters. If confronted by such a person, it is usually better to suffer the loss of one's "shirt" than to fight back.

Continuing with the scriptures you presented, Jesus instructs, "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two." His third example deals with the Roman practice of commandeering civilians or their property (horses, carts, wagons, etc.) to carry the property or other burden of military personnel for, in this case, one mile. In Roman times, a man could have worked all day, and suddenly, a Roman soldier could order him to carry a heavy load for a mile. The practice did not actually originate with the Romans but with the Persians!

No one likes to be made to do someone else's work. At the very least, we are apt to complain, argue, or simply refuse to be so used. Being compelled to engage in "community service" by law or by might is demeaning and perhaps unjust. But Jesus tells us to take the sting out of the situation by being willing to carry such a burden an extra mile in a cheerful attitude. In everyday terms, it might be “It’s not my turn to do the dishes, why do I get stuck with them again?” or “It’s your turn to check on the baby, I have already done two of your turns.” The attitude is, cheerfully fulfilling a task, even if it is beyond your call. Certainly NOT the natural inclination of the flesh.

Christ often taught in spiritual reference with elusive comments regarding literal actions. This was a didactic method that Christ used, as he was inspired. For example, in John 6:53, when he taught those following him, they must drink his blood and eat his flesh or they would not have life. He was not promoting cannibalism, but teaching a profound truth. These mysteries or hidden truths indeed did fully escape those not following him for the right reason, for they said "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and they turned and followed Him no more. This is the reason the Catholic church does not encourage lay people to interpret scriptures. Some of Christ’s teachings where symbolic and metaphors, almost a secret code of such, correctly understood by those endued by the Spirit in maturity. In Mark 4:11, Christ was quoted as saying "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables." The flesh nature that is preeminent after conversion can only perceive at face value, not grasping the deeper meaning intended by the Spirit. Tough teaching I know, but as we grow in the faith, we become mature in our understanding, rightly dividing the truth from error.