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.