text becomes clear.237 This interpretation does not however provide an easy reading of Mt. 19, 9. To sustain this interpretation one must suppose that Mt. 19,9 is a conflation, a somewhat confusing one, of Mt. 5, 31-32. 3. Is Jesus speaking on the level of law? Perhaps the most common interpretation among contemporary Protestant scholars is that Jesus' teaching on divorce is not on the level of law, and therefore he should not be seen as laying down a rule to be followed slavishly. The exception clause in Matthew is included (probably an addition by the evangelist) to provide guidance to some readers who otherwise might wrongly presume that Jesus imposes a law.238 The expression "not on the level of law" is ambiguous, and what authors mean by it is not always clear. For some, it means simply that Jesus was not speaking of exceptionless rules. This position has already been considered in section 2 above. The following are some other possible meanings of "not on the level of law". (i) Laying down laws - rules of behaviour - is not primary in the New Testament. The more important message is that Jesus has saved us from sin; we have been transformed by the Holy Spirit who has given us an inner life on the basis of which we do good not simply because it is commanded by law but because we are moved by the Holy Spirit. Moral 237
The expression usually translated into English as “divorce” includes a Greek verb with the rather general meaning of “release” or “loose from” or “set free” (apoluien) which is then specified by the object - wife. The expression accordingly is to release or set loose one’s wife. In the usage of the time, one who released his wife was ending the marriage. However, Jesus brings a new idea to the subject – that a husband who sets his wife loose does not end the marriage. Thus the expression is not properly translated by “divorce” if by that word we refer to the act of terminating the marriage. It is not stretching the language to suppose that in Mt. 5,31-32 Jesus refers to a release or sending away of the wife that would be justified by her adultery, but which would not end the marriage. 238 See Deen, Edith, Family Living in the Bible, Old Tappan, New Jersey, Spire Books, c1963, Chapter 16; Ewald, George, Jesus and Divorce: a Biblical Guide for Ministry to Divorced Persons, Waterloo, Ontario, Herald Press, c1991, pp. 61-63. Beare, F.W., The Gospel according to Matthew: a Commentary, Oxford, B. Blackwell, c1981, p. 155, states that Jesus' saying is not to be taken as legislation. It expresses the unconditional will of God. Matthew's text reflects the tendency to translate such a declaration into a regulation for conduct in an imperfect society. Dominic Crossan ("Divorce and remarriage in the New Testament" in The Bond of Marriage, William Bassett, ed., Notre Dame, Indiana, University of Notre Dame Press, 1968, pp. 1-33) while interpreting the texts in Matthew in the way we will consider in the next section, holds that the teaching of Jesus on divorce is a catechetical ideal but is not to be imposed as a casuistic absolute.
142