stoneshms.jpg - 54764 Bytes
Our Priority,
Our Philosophy,
Our Position,
Our Programs,
Our Physical LocationOutside Links-
Baptist Bastion,
Books and Bibles Online,
HomeSchool Sailor,
Fundamentally Basic,
Religions & Cults,
More Christian ResourcesSupported Missions,
Other Missions,
World Church DirectoryRecent Additions to Our Site
Home PageSermons in Type,
Sermons on Tape,
Doctrinal WritingsOur Pastor,
Our PeopleAsk the Pastor,
Pastors Pen Online,
Memorization,
Daily Devotions
  clear.gif - 808 Bytes
helm2a.gif - 1580 Bytes
......................
Sermons
in Type
......................
Sermons
on Tape
......................
Doctrinal Writings
clear.gif - 808 BytesBy Author
clear.gif - 808 BytesBy Subject
......................

clear.gif - 808 Bytes
Quick Links
clear.gif - 808 Bytes
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Priorities
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Constitution
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Pastor
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Programs
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Location
clear.gif - 808 BytesOur Missionaries
......................
Favorites
clear.gif - 808 Bytes
clear.gif - 808 BytesGoogle Search
clear.gif - 808 BytesAsk the Pastor
clear.gif - 808 BytesDoctrinal Writings

......................

Thank you for visiting. Please send spiritual comments to Pastor's Pen

......................

Please e-mail all other comments to WindJammer

......................
A Little Ocean Ambiance
clear.gif - 808 Bytes clear.gif - 808 Bytes
Doctrinal Writings
clear.gif - 808 Bytes


clear.gif - 808 Bytes

AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXCEPTION CLAUSES
IN THE DIVORCE PASSAGES OF MATTHEW
IN LIGHT OF THEIR DISPENSATIONAL CONTEXTS

clear.gif - 808 Bytes
By
Pete Heisey, Romania
poheisey@mail.dnttm.ro

previous page- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- next page



IX. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light Of The Exegesis Of Matthew 19

Arguments about the Scripturally acceptable ground or grounds for divorce (and if there are any) have been raging for hundreds of years. This is why the discussion in Matthew 19 is so significant. However, in actuality, Christ put an end to the argument for all those who are open to the truth. Jewish marriage customs definitely lie back of the exception clauses. Thus both Matthew's and Mark's accounts record Jesus' absolute prohibition of both divorce and remarriage for a divorced person.

"On that significant day, two sides were drawn. On the one hand was Christ. On the other hand were the Pharisees. The basic purpose of Christ was to stop divorce. The basic purpose of the Pharisees was to trick Christ and to find reasons to support divorce. The Pharisees asked Jesus, 'Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause?' Christ's answer is very significant. He did not become embroiled in a multitude of arguments which they could present from the Law of Moses. He went back to God's original design for marriage. He said, 'Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' God made no provision for divorce when He instituted marriage. Divorce was not permitted in the Ten Commandments. Two commandments are constructed so as to forbid it (Exodus 20:14,17). The Pharisees knew these truths but continued their argument. 'Why did Moses [Deuteronomy 24] then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?' Christ's answer is the same today as it was then for anyone who looks for a reason to support the acceptability of divorce. He said, 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.' The implication and inference is that it is not to be so in the post-Law era either. The Pharisees were scholars, but they used their academic ability to read into the words of Scripture an interpretation which was contrary to its original intent. That is precisely what has happened in our day with the exception clauses. These are widely used as justification for divorce, yet the very purpose and spirit of the chapter was to rule out divorce. When the disciples finally understood how strict Christ's standards were on marriage and divorce, they were shocked."

The divorce sayings of Jesus in Matthew 19 occur in a section of Matthew dealing with the pronouncements of the King on various subjects. Many times these pronouncements have to do specifically with kingdom life on the earth during the earthly reign of the King. This section follows Jesus' explanation of the program of the King and its adjustment during the time that the King is absent physically from the earth. Interestingly enough, the passage in Matthew 19 follows Jesus' rather strict teaching regarding the matters of childlike faith, concern for the lost, church discipline, personal reconciliation, and thorough forgiveness. All of these items can and should be legitimately brought to bear on the matter of marriage, divorce and remarriage, but especially on the matter of divorce.

The context and setting of Matthew 19 is described in the first three verses of the chapter. He obviously had upset the Pharisees with the demonstrations of His Kingship, Messiahship, and Saviorhood. The miracles He performed were adequate proof of Who He really was. Rooted in their unbelief, the Pharisees obstinately refused to accept these proofs and began to try to entrap the Lord Jesus in order to refute His claims to be the promised Jewish Messiah. The fact that Jesus' debate with the Pharisees took place regarding issues of and situations under the Mosaic Law should somewhat (definitely?!) affect our understanding of the exception clauses.

"The Pharisees clearly were very much displeased with the life and teachings of the Lord. They also had at least some idea (cf. Matthew 5) that Jesus disagreed with their view of divorce. In this setting, one must recognize that Jesus was talking to a hostile Jewish group - the Pharisees. One must also understand what the Pharisees meant by divorce. Alfred Edersheim says, 'To begin with, divorce (in the legal sense) was regarded as a privilege accorded only to Israel [as far as God was concerned], not to the Gentiles.' In this light, it must be recognized that Matthew pointed his gospel toward the Jews, while the other gospel writers directed theirs more toward the Gentiles."

Matthew 19:1-2 are verses which give the significance of the geographical locus regarding Jesus' teaching on divorce and this locus cannot be minimized. He went specifically into the land of Judea -- a clearly Jewish and Law oriented area.

In Matthew 19:3, the Pharisees evidently sought to trap Jesus by pitting Him against the Law of Moses and against the two schools of Jewish thought on divorce -- the school of Rabbi Hillel and the school of Rabbi Shammai. The Pharisees most probably were referring to the two schools of interpretation of the Deuteronomy 24 passage in which Moses, in the first four verses, wrote concerning a bill of divorcement. The division between the two schools was sharp and the discussion of the day on divorce was heated. The Pharisees must have supposed that Jesus had some disagreement with the Law.

It was characteristic of the Pharisees to constantly test Jesus by posing questions which they thought would cause Him to answer in a way that would blaspheme God or go contrary to the Mosaic Law. However, it was characteristic of Jesus to answer in such a way that the real charge was turned against the Pharisees instead of Himself. God did permit divorce during the time of the Law. But it was permitted for those in Israel who were uncircumcised of heart. They were circumcised in flesh but not in heart. They were in fact backslidden. That which was permitted for the uncircumcised in heart in Israel should not serve as a rule for those in whom the love of God has operated through the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). As far as God's principles are concerned, there is no provision for divorce. He did, however, give permission for divorce to the hardhearted, uncircumcised in heart in Israel. However, the fundamental, Bible-believing, spiritual Christian is not to take what God permitted because of the hardheartedness of Israel and make it a rule for the church. The church is governed by the law of Christ and not the permissive Law of Moses.

The questioners in verse three were the Pharisees. They asked Jesus if it was "lawful" (that is, acceptable according to the Mosaic Law) for a man to put away his wife for every (or any) cause. The question indicates that the divorce practice in Israel had become so lax that husbands were divorcing their wives on any grounds they desired or chose. The Pharisees' reason for asking was that they were trying to tempt Him. Jesus answers, in effect, "No, it is not acceptable according to the Mosaic Law to put away your wife for every or any cause." "In fact," he says (based on the Matthew 19:4-6 quotes), "as far as God's permanent principles are concerned, there are absolutely NO acceptable causes for a man to put away his wife."

In Jesus' answer to the Pharisees' question here in Matthew 19:4, He referred them to the Old Testament Scriptures in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:18. The significance of this Old Testament quote is that it is taken from a passage which, dispensationally speaking, refers to a non-Mosaic era. This statement was a barb to the Pharisees who were supposed to know their Old Testament Scriptures. Jesus did not mention the possibility of divorce as far as a permanent principle was concerned, but rather took them back to a pre-Mosaic (and post-Mosaic) principle found in Genesis.

In Matthew 19:5, Jesus continues His answer to the Pharisees' question. He reminds them of God's original command to cleave to one's spouse. To disobey this command (the Mosaic permission or concession or regulation notwithstanding) is sin. Consequently, to seek or actively obtain a divorce is sin.

Jesus continued His refutation of the Pharisees' thinking by pointing out in Matthew 19:6 that an essential oneness (the same term is used of God's oneness in Deuteronomy 6) is established in marriage. He further commands people not to mar this oneness by putting away a marriage partner. To do so would be sin.

It seems clear to this author that these verses (Matthew 19:3-6) teach that Christians should never seek or actively obtain a divorce. To do so would violate several direct commands and principles elucidated in this passage by the Lord Jesus Himself. The fact that Jesus went back to the pre-Mosaic regulation on divorce and marriage indicates that the permanent principle for Christians to follow is never to attempt to divorce a spouse.

In answer to the Pharisees' first question, Jesus restated God's original principle. In light of the absolute prohibition of divorce which Jesus gave in that answer, the Pharisees then asked Jesus (in Matthew 19:7) why Moses permitted divorce. Moses indeed commanded a writing of divorcement to be given if the man was going to put away his wife for the one reason taught by Deuteronomy 24. This was the regulation ("command") on the Mosaic permission/concession regarding divorce. From Jesus' answer to the Pharisees, it is apparent that God made no provision for divorce. The Pharisees were not satisfied with Jesus' answer, so they asked their second question (the one regarding Moses' permission for divorce). They thought that they had Jesus trapped at this point. His earlier comments indicated that there was no provision for divorce, and yet they were aware that during the time of Moses there was an instance when divorce was granted. The Pharisees wanted to know why Jesus was implying that there were absolutely no acceptable grounds for divorce when Moses had permitted it.

If there is any uncertainty that the Pharisees' first question referred to the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, their second question (verse 7) clarifies it. Evidently, the answer of Jesus in verses 4-6 infuriated them, causing them to drop all of their subtlety. They then spoke directly to the point that was in their evil hearts. This time they drew Him specifically to the Mosaic text regarding a writing of divorcement. The answer of the Lord had taken them far beyond the Mosaic bill of divorcement, back to the very beginning when God's standard was far above their idea of divorce. To these evil men, entrenched in their sinful thinking, this cut deeply. So, they brought Jesus to the one thing that they felt excused them (or supported their idea of a "permanent" principle) -- the Mosaic Law.

In Matthew 19:8, Jesus' replied to their question and indicated that God permitted divorce (and regulated it) because of the hardheartedness of those who were uncircumcised in heart. Notice also that Moses permitted divorce but did not command divorce. Jesus came down hard on the Israelites in general and on the Pharisees in particular by referring to the hardness of their hearts. Because of their lack of concern for the things of God, Moses had permitted divorce. However, Jesus says that God never intended for either of the spouses to put the other away.

This time Jesus pointed His finger at the very center of the Pharisees' sinful lives and thinking. When Deuteronomy 24 was written, the Jewish people had followed the terrible sin of the Egyptians and other pagan nations. The concept of marriage in its highest sense had degenerated to a very low status. It is interesting that Jesus said Moses suffered or permitted ("epetrepsen" - third person singular, aorist active indicative of "epitrepoo" = "to allow or permit") them to put away their wives. It seems that Moses was saying that if these depraved, hardhearted men were going to act contrary to God's commanded will regarding marriage, at least they would have to put into writing the grounds for their desire to put away a wife.

"Nothing could be clearer than the commanded will of God as it relates to the marriage relationship. Even though divorce was permitted and granted during the time of the Mosaic Law, this was not the permanent and directive will of God. When Christ spoke these words to the Pharisees, the Law of Moses was still in effect. Jesus knew that the Pharisees had twisted the Law to do about whatever they wanted. So He then gave a precise interpretation of what was permitted under the Mosaic Law (verse 9). Jesus was here making the same distinctions between fornication and adultery that were discussed in connection with Matthew 5:32. Notice again that divorce was not granted for adultery because the penalty for that sin was death by stoning. Notice also that divorce on the ground of fornication (a specific sexual sin before a legitimate marriage) was granted only because of the hardness of the people's hearts."

An interpretive paraphrase of verse 8 might then read something like this: "From the beginning of creation, God did not permit divorce [verses 3-6 and quotes from Genesis]. But since you asked about Moses' permission for divorce, I [Jesus] tell you that it was only because of the hardness of your hearts that Moses allowed you to put away your wives." This expresses the essential teaching of Matthew 19:8.

The Greek word "de" ("and," "but," "moreover") at the beginning of Matthew 19:9 indicates a slight contrast with Jesus' final statement in verse 8. In contrast to the permanent principle of Genesis, and in contrast to the Pharisees' understanding and interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, Jesus indicates that Moses gave one and only one ' acceptable ground for divorce (and that only under the Law). In context, Jesus also specifically and directly addresses the unbelieving Jewish Pharisees, a group clearly under the Law. He uses the word "you" with regard to the Pharisees (cf. verse 8) as He gives the temporary "exception" to the permanent principle.

The exception clause of verse 9 seems to indicate evidence of an apparent contradiction between the permanency of marriage on the one hand (verses 3-8) and a permission for divorce on the other hand (verse 9). However, this is only the case if two conditions are true and valid: (1) the "marriage" spoken of must have been a legitimate (or even consummated) marriage, and (2) the verse is giving a universal, permanent, trans-dispensational principle which is applicable today. To this author, it seems likely, logical, and Scriptural that neither of these two situations is involved in the exception clause. It is incongruous to say that Jesus would ever contradict Himself, especially in the same passage, by accentuating and commanding the permanence of marriage and then deaccentuating it for one particular case. Of course, a Bible-believing Christian rejects the possibility of an actual contradiction being involved.

"If Jesus had in any way indicated that a full, legitimate, consummated marriage could be broken, the Pharisees would have been delighted. It seems logical that the Bible would have recorded their further criticism of Him. To interpret and to accept the exception clause in the sense that the Pharisees [and many Christians today] desired, Christ would be canceling His own appeal to the original institution in Genesis 2:24 and would be sanctioning as a permanent principle the permission of Moses which He had just clarified. "

Because the exception clause was delivered by Christ before the Mosaic Law was set aside, and because He was explaining the Mosaic Law, therefore, the exception clause relates only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles or the Church. Jesus granted that divorce was permissible only to the Jews under the Law and only on the one ground of a specific kind of fornication. By no means were the Gentiles or church saints included in the exception. Because Moses' permission was only to the Jew under the Law, and because the Jews' hearts were hardened, therefore, Jesus recognized this exception only for the Jew under the Law. He in point of fact gave the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (a part of the Mosaic Law).

Through word choice and word order an author has a number of different ways in which he can convey to his readers the message he wants them to understand. In the word order of the compound conditional clause in Matthew 19:9, there are clearly several possible positions Matthew could have placed "except it be for fornication" in order to express Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage. When Matthew placed the exception clause where he did in the Greek text, he clearly and functionally brought out the syntactical and interpretive intent by the particular construction which he used. This can be expanded as follows: "Whosoever puts away his wife, unless it is [if it is not] for fornication that he puts her away [and marries another], commits adultery." If Matthew wished to express the view of modern interpreters, he most likely would have put the exception clause after the second verbal action ("marries another") and before "commits adultery." This would have resulted in a meaning like this: "Whosoever puts away his wife and marries another, unless it is [if it is not] for fornication that he puts her away and marries another, commits adultery." Thus although the present position of the exception clause does not eliminate all ambiguity, another word order would have served Matthew better if he wished to express the modern (Erasmian) view.

"One must see that 'mee' here is not a simple negative particle, but is governed by the introductory conditional formula (hos an ... ei) and thus is not essentially different than 'ean mee' ('if not,' 'unless,' 'except'). Some might cite, though, the example in Matthew 26:5 as a possible parallel. However, the particle [in Matthew 26:5] does not occur in a conditional relative clause as is the case in Matthew 19:9. The only way to understand 'hos an ... ei mee epi porneia' in Matthew 19:9 is as an ellipsis for a longer conditional clause. In the current passage this might mean something like, 'If anyone [whosoever] puts away his wife, if it is not [unless it is or except it be] for fornication that he puts her away [and marries another], commits adultery,' and thus the connection between the sin of divorce and the sin of adultery is maintained by Matthew's construction and recording of Jesus' words."

Can the Greek word "mee" mean "'except"? The question has a certain importance in connection with the divorce clauses. It is obviously likely that the two expressions (Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9) have the same meaning, i.e., that "mee epi porneia" means the same thing as the previous "parektos logou porneias." In this Matthew 19:9 passage, as well as in Matthew 5:32 where "saving for" is equivalent to "except for," the Greek word "mee" not only can mean "except" but should mean "except." It is not that "mee" necessarily must mean "except" in and of itself, but because "mee" is here dependent upon the introductory conditional phrase, "hos an ... ei." This phrase is equivalent to "ean tis" ("whoever ... except for fornication," = "if anyone dismisses his wife ei mee epi porneia. . . "). Thus "hos an ... ei mee" is equivalent to "ean mee" which is equivalent to "unless," or "except." Both expressions, therefore, lay down the same true exception and that only under the Mosaic Law. Heth and Wenham in Jesus and Divorce also point this out in notes 10, 11, and 13 (pp.232-233).

"Apart from the five examples of 'ei mee' used in first class conditions (logical) and once in a third class (anticipatory - Luke 9:13) condition, 'ei mee' is confined to the second class condition and to the elliptical use like 'pleen' in the sense of 'except' or the phrase 'ei de mee' meaning 'otherwise' without a verb (A.T. Robertson, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 1016). This is also confirmed from Blass, DeBrunner, and Funk's Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Further, as a rule in the New Testament 'ei' goes with the indicative and'ean' with the subjunctive (Matthew 5:13; 11:27; 12:4,24,39; 13:57; 14:17; 15:24; 16:4; 17:8; 21:19; 24:22,36). Only in Matthew 24:22 in an unreal (second class) condition does'ei mei' introduce an actual conditional clause. An examination of the nineteen examples Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker list in which'mee' is in a conditional clause after 'ean' reveals that 'mee' is immediately followed by a verb fourteen times; in four cases a single word comes between'mee' and the verb; and Mark 3:27 (with Matthew 12:29) adds 'proton ton ischuron' before the verb. Of the eight examples BAGD list in which 'mee' is in a conditional clause after 'hos an' (='ean'), of which [interestingly] Matthew 19:9 is one, in each instance'mee' is immediately followed by a verb. Only in Matthew 19:9 is 'mee' followed by a prepositional phrase. It is a unique construction and needs a verb supplied. All the evidence indicates that the verb to be supplied indeed comes before (i.e., the verb to be supplied is'puts away'- 'apolu-oo') the phrase'[hos an] ... ei (ean) mee' in Matthew 19:9."

These grammatical constructions show that Matthew is specifically connecting the exception clause to the "divorce" part of Matthew 19:9. He also continues to maintain the connection between unlawful divorce and (as) the sin adultery.

"Greek word order in general adds further support to this analysis. In a study of the function of all the negated prepositional phrases in the New Testament (about forty with 'mee' preceding), the following norm emerged: it appears that every time a prepositional phrase immediately follows the negative particle 'mee' (unless a postpositive particle intervenes), the negative particle negates the verb which the prepositional phrase follows unless the qualification is emphatic, in which case it precedes the verb it qualifies. All of this seems to mean that on the grounds of New Testament word order in general and Matthean style in particular, the elliptical [elided] negated prepositional phrase, 'except for fornication,' is intended as a limitation of the verbal action that immediately precedes it (i.e., 'puts away')."

To what then does the exception clause, "except it be for fornication," refer? There does not seem to be much debate, though there is some, about the fact that Jesus' is in fact giving an "exception" (this author would say and has shown that it is a "temporary, Mosaic exception") to the universal, trans-dispensational principle of the absolute prohibition of divorce. The only questions remaining are: (1) "To what does the term 'fornication' refer?" and (2) "Is the exception clause applicable to Christians today?"

The author believes that this study has adequately answered the second question even at the present juncture. Remaining then is the burning question regarding the definition, meaning, and application of the word "fornication" ("porneia") in Matthew 19:9. As has been explained previously, the necessary research regarding the linguistic and Scriptural usage considerations concerning "fornication" ("porneia") has been done by the author. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to include all that research at this point in the study (it is actually beyond the scope of this thesis). His conclusion is that "fornication" here cannot and does not mean nor does it include the idea of "adultery" ("moichos"). Only two legitimate possibilities seem to remain as to the meaning of "fornication."

One view is that the word refers to a situation involving the Jewish betrothal period. This view has much to commend it both from an exegetical and from a dispensational standpoint. It is consistent with Matthew's Jewish emphasis and detail. One of the considerations in favor of the betrothal view is the Jewishness of Matthew's gospel. Matthew reveals a familiarity with the Jewish betrothal custom. In the light of his largely Jewish audience (and Jesus' Jewish hearers), Matthew includes an exception which, very probably, Jesus would have made in the original controversy with the Pharisees if His teaching and explanation of the Mosaic Law was not to be misunderstood. The "betrothal view" involves the dissolving of the betrothal agreement (the couple was considered to be husband and wife). The "fornication" terms are used in the Old Testament with regard to this situation (cf. Deuteronomy 22). This was acceptable in an unconsummated "marriage" (= "betrothal") when one of the partners had violated the agreement by engaging in sexual relations with a third party. Especially was this true if there were not sufficient witnesses to put anyone to death. Joseph and Mary are the Biblical representatives of this situation (see also John 8:41 for the usage of the term "fornication" in this situation). If Matthew had explicitly called Mary's supposed sin, "fornication" ("porneia"), and Matthew may have had this kind of betrothal situation in mind as he recorded Matthew 19, then a link with Jesus' use of "fornication" in the exception clauses would have been established most certainly. Especially is this notable since the Pharisees had used the term this way in John 8:41. As Isaksson points out thoroughly in his book, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, this is not actually a "divorce" (in the contemporary understanding of the term), though a bill of divorce was required to be given. Rather, this was a matter of canceling an unfulfilled covenant and contract because one of the parties had "tricked" the other.

The betrothal view has much to commend it. The use of the word "fornication" and not "adultery" in the exception clauses may indicate a specific premarital (betrothal) sexual sin. The theology and interests of Matthew's gospel suggest that the exception clause is to be interpreted in light of Jewish marriage customs. Furthermore, if Jesus had absolutely prohibited divorce, He would have had to make such an exception to avoid the danger of saying that divorce was forbidden even under the Law of Moses. Additionally, there exist specific contextual indicators which would cause Jesus' hearers and Matthew's readers to understand that Jesus may have spoken here of betrothal unfaithfulness ("fornication"). Thus, the word "fornication" ("porneia") in the exception clause may indeed refer to betrothal unfaithfulness (unwitnessed in the Jewish legal sense and specifically under the Mosaic Law). Consequently, the exception clause has no applicability to Christians today.

The second possible meaning of the word "fornication" ("porneia") in the exception clause is that of a discovered marriage of close relatives within the prohibited Levitical degrees (Leviticus 18:6-18). This view is commonly called the "consanguinity view." The understanding that this refers to a type of "incestuous" marriage would be consistent with the usage of the term in Acts 15, in Acts 21, and in I Corinthians 5. When a man who has married within the prohibited Levitical degrees puts away his wife, the word adultery is out of place. Rather the marriage is nullified (the wife is put away) via the bill of divorcement. Again, the implications for Christians today are clear. This situation does not apply today and particularly in the dispensational sense.

Whichever of these two explanations is in Jesus' mind when He speaks the "exception" clause, it is clear that neither applies to the situation of the Church and Christians today. Though the "betrothal view" has much to commend it, the author takes the "consanguinous marriage" position to be the most likely and would answer the Lord along those lines if asked by the God of Heaven to explain the exception clauses.

Now, the mouths of the Pharisees were shut. They asked no more questions. Jesus had superseded the Mosaic permission for divorce by going back to God's original and permanent plan for marriage. Jesus had silenced the Pharisees by taking neither the view of the Hillel school, which allowed divorce for many reasons, nor the view of the Shammaite school, which allowed for divorce in a full, legitimate, consummated marriage for just one reason (adultery).

The reaction of the disciples (Matthew 19:10) was quite different than that of the Pharisees. They were so amazed at the strictness of the Lord's declaration that they responded with the statement of verse 10 that if the situation regarding marriage was as strict as Jesus described, then perhaps it would be better not to marry at all. Thomas Edgar's attempt to blunt the effect of this startled reaction by claiming that "the disciples' intensity and emotional pitch are not described" is especially weak because he argues from silence (in spite of the strong wording that is used by the disciples) and also in view of the fact that Edgar assumes that they spoke in a merely factual tone. In spite of Edgar's opinions, the present writer does believe that with the known and familiar position of Shammai, and despite Israel's lenient views, the disciples' reaction to Jesus' statements is indeed strong. This author does not accept Edgar's opinion that the disciples would have reacted so strongly had Jesus merely reproduced Shammai's position. Additionally, the Pharisees' mouths would not have been shut quite so severely if Jesus had merely reiterated Shammai's position. The disciples' surprise is in fact indicative of their wonderment that Jesus went beyond either school of the Pharisees. Had Christ taught no more than Rabbi Shammai taught, His disciples would have had no such reaction of amazement as is recorded in this passage. Their astonishment is actually confirmed by the passage in Mark 10:10-12 in which they pursued the subject further in the home of one of the disciples. They asked Him further concerning these things in case there might have been some misunderstanding about His strictness. Jesus' answer in Mark 10:11-12 is a reiteration of His strong and strict position. The issue here is, in fact, the reality that there is no "exception", except under the Mosaic Law. The disciples "in the house" have no question concerning any exception clause, only a question about the absolute strictness of Jesus position in contrast to all the known positions.

"The remark of the disciples in verse 10 confirms the view that Christ forbade divorce [His permanent principle], even in the case of the wife's unchastity. If that was His decision, their remark is intelligible. It would then mean that marriage is a'dangerous' condition, if a man cannot free himself from an adulterous wife. But, if He taught that the divorce of an adulterous wife was allowable, then their remark would mean that marriage is [merely] a hard lot, if a man may not get rid of a wife whom he dislikes; and it is hardly likely that they can have meant this. After being Christ's disciples so long, they would not be likely to hold that the stricter school of Shammai's view respecting the marriage bond was [somehow] an intolerable position."

The amazed reaction of the disciples in combination with Jesus' further remarks in verses 11-12 can only be explained by the fact that Jesus had absolutely prohibited separation or divorce. Further, their startled reaction is not surprising in view of the fact that Jesus prohibited remarriage after divorce for whatever reason, and that He gave an "exception" that was either an annulment of a promise of marriage or an annulment of a Levitically forbidden relationship, and that the "exception clause" does not establish post-Law grounds for divorce at all.

When the disciples responded in amazement that it was good, then, for a man not to marry lest he marry the wrong person and have to live all of his life with that person, Jesus answered the disciples by stating that all men could not receive this teaching. He explained in Matthew 19:11 that there are some people called to a single life. Only those who were serious about following God were able to receive these sayings.

The disciples seemed to have understood that Christ was teaching a very restricted meaning to "fornication" and an even more restrictive and universal, trans-dispensational principle. It seems that they understood Him to have completely disallowed divorce for those who are not or who would not be under the Mosaic Law. In turn, Christ acknowledges that the saying, "it is not good to marry," is also valid in some cases. These are enumerated in Matthew 19:12. He is saying that in some cases celibacy is an acceptable option. Those cases involve (at least) those who are congenitally incapable, those made incapable, and those who wish to devote themselves more completely to the service of God (cf. I Corinthians 7:7,8,26,32-35).

Jesus has delivered some difficult precepts in the previous nine verses. The disciples have reacted with astonishment at the strictness of Jesus permanent teaching in contrast to that of Hillel, Shammai, and even Moses. Jesus then responds that His prohibition of divorce is indeed a difficult precept to understand and to live by, but that His disciples have been given the ability to understand it and will be given the grace to live by it (cf. Matthew 19:26). Jesus then explains how and why this is possible. Not only is it commanded and necessary to follow God's prohibition of divorce, but continence in a "broken" marriage is also possible. It is possible because ("gar" = "for") there are some who may never marry because they are born eunuchs or made eunuchs by men. Furthermore, there are even some who have renounced the possibility of marriage altogether for the kingdom. Upon introducing the possibility that some may never marry because of the claims and interests of God's work, Jesus concludes with the call to a life of faithful reception and practice of the will of God. Therefore, if God enables individuals (including even those who have been widowed) to live continently apart from marriage (Paul?), He can and will enable those who are married to stay married. He can and will also enable a separated partner to live continently in spite of a "broken" marriage.

Read in the light of Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9 is not necessarily ambiguous. Only the phrase "causeth her to commit adultery" is missing from Matthew 19:9. If Matthew 5:32 in its more natural interpretation excludes remarriage [and it does], it becomes easy to take Matthew 19:9 as an abridgment of the fuller remarks written earlier [by Matthew in Matthew 5:32]. If divorce is seen as a breach of the seventh commandment (i.e., divorce is tantamount to committing adultery - cf. Matthew 5:27-32), then it is not nonsense to say, "whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication [unless it is for fornication that he puts her away], committeth adultery." There is really only one way of understanding the syntax of Matthew 19:9. It is a double conditional clause in which an elliptical phrase is placed immediately after the first condition, "to put away." The elliptical phrase -- "except it be for fornication" -- does not contain a verb, and one must be supplied from the context. The only verb which has already been stated for the reader to understand is the one immediately preceding the exception clause -- "put away" -- the verb Matthew's readers just saw. Matthew 19:9 would then read or mean essentially, "If a man puts away his wife, unless it is for fornication that he puts her away, and marries another, [he] commits adultery." Supplying the elided elements in the Greek text would result in the following: "hos an apoloosee teen goonaika autou, ei (ean) mee epi porneia [apoloosee auteen], kai gameesee alleen, moichatai." The exception clause is thus stating one and only one exception to the first condition. 0 The consequent interpretation (expanded interpretive translation) would be as follows: "Whoever puts away his wife [at least and at most under the Mosaic Law dispensation/economy], unless it is for one [and only one -'the cause'] specific kind of fornication that he puts her away, commits adultery and whoever marries another [unless as one under the Mosaic Law he has put her away for one specific kind of fornication] commits adultery." Thus Matthew's account teaches, at least in terms of permanent principles regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage, virtually the same thing as Mark's account, Luke's account, and Paul's account. Especially is this true in light of Matthew 19:4-6.


previous page- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- next page

His Majesty's Service
In His Service,
Teaching the Word
To Glorify Our Lord
Return to
Doctrinal Writings

Please email your spiritual comments to Pastor's Pen
Please email all other comments to WindJammer