I. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light
Of The Reasons For Their Omission In The Other Gospels And In
Other New Testament Books
Mark wrote particularly for Gentile
readers and more particularly Roman readers. In Mark, Jesus Christ
is presented as the suffering Servant. In contrast to Matthew,
for example, Mark often omits references to the Old Testament
prophets. Other marks of difference that connect it with Gentile
readers are: the word "law" does not occur; the genealogy
of the Lord Jesus is omitted; references to the Law of Moses (cf.
Matthew 12:5-7) are missing. In other cases, explanations are
included which the Jews would not require: thus Jordan is a "river"
(compare Mark 1:5 with Matthew 11:6); the Pharisees used to "fast"
(Mark 2:18). Yet at other times, explanations necessary for Gentile
readers are given such as: "the time of the figs was not
yet"; at the Passover men "eat unleavened bread";
and other explanations are given which Jews would not need. There
are yet two expressions, one an inclusion and the other an omission,
which are extremely significant with regard to the matter of divorce.
Mark alone makes mention of the possibility of a woman putting
away her husband. Matthew omits all reference to this. Why? Because
the Law of Moses did not allow a woman to put away her husband.
Mark's mentioning of such an uncommon practice, is in keeping
with the design of his writing. The omissions in Mark are also
of divine design. The reason for the omission of the exception
clauses in Mark is because he wrote for Gentile readers. Mark's
composition is determined throughout by interest in the reader
or the audience for whom the Mosaic divorce practice is unimportant.
Hence the exception clauses are not included in Mark's account.
Then an explanation is given to the disciples which evidently
gives the permanent principle for them as the future missionaries
to the Gentiles. Additionally, Jesus seems to be giving His permanent
principle for the disciples in relationship to their founding
of the church, a post-Mosaic Law entity.
In Luke, the Lord Jesus is presented as the Son of Man. This title
is used more in Luke than in any of the other gospels. Luke's
design in writing was to write for the Gentile Christians and
especially for the Greeks. His gospel treatise was designed to
show that
Jesus is the Savior of the Gentiles. The purpose of the gospel
of Luke would have mitigated against the inclusion of a detailed
discussion of the divorce provisions of the Mosaic Law and would
rather have included the permanent binding principle for those
not under the Law. This is exactly what is found in Luke 16:18
where the matter of divorce is mentioned.
John wrote his gospel to present Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
This gospel has a universal scope and purpose (John 20:31). John
does, however, give a good description and definition of the distinction
between fornication and adultery which will be discussed later
(John 8:41).
The specific passage which clearly gives church truth on the matter
of divorce is the Word of God through Paul in I Corinthians 7:10-11.
The present author cannot agree to the use of intentional fallacy
that most modern interpreters claim for Paul here vis-a-vis
the exception clauses. They suppose that Paul assumes permission
to divorce based on Matthew's exception clauses. This is not exegesis,
it is eisogesis: reading into the text the interpreter's meaning
and not drawing out Paul's (God's). Paul gives no indication of
this assumption and hints elsewhere that he is quoting Jesus'
teaching regarding Genesis 2:24 (I Corinthians 7:39, Romans 7:2-3).
Abel Isaksson in his book Marriage and Ministry ably points out
(page 78) that Paul does not assume the applicability of the exception
clause even supposing that he knew about it. Here in I Corinthians
7:10-11, God commands that men and women not divorce each other.
To seek or to actively get a divorce (on the mere supposition
that Paul wanted Christians to assume that he involved Jesus'
exception clauses) disobeys the clear stated command of I Corinthians
7:10-11 and is consequently sin.
Why did Mark, Luke, and Paul not mention the exception of fornication?
The average conservative seems so happy to find one legitimate
cause for divorce that he does not realize that his conclusion
actually places the accounts in Mark and Luke in the category
of contradictions to Matthew. He even goes a step further in Scriptural
contradiction by accepting as a standard for the church age something
revealed in Matthew's gospel and which specifically involves an
explanation of the Mosaic Law. This is done in spite of the clear
Pauline teaching of church-age truth in I Corinthians 7. The above
explanations, which do not violate the doctrine of verbal plenary
inspiration and yet which are aware of the textual and contextual
evidence, leads to the conclusion that Jesus forbade divorce altogether.
In summary, the book of Matthew was written primarily with Jewish
readers in mind, and much of it has the leaders of the nation
in view. That is why the gospel of Matthew contains some statements
concerning divorce found nowhere else in the New Testament. In
the gospels of Mark and Luke, written primarily with Gentile readers
in view, these statements do not appear. These distinctions are
prominent and important. inasmuch as Mark and Luke were writing
primarily with Gentile readers in view, divorce is strictly forbidden
in their gospels. This is because divorce was permitted during
the time of the Mosaic Law only because of the hardness of the
Israelites' hearts. Yet since divorce was never God's permanent
principle, the exception was not mentioned to the Gentiles. The
distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles and their relationship
to the Mosaic Law explains why the exception clauses regarding
divorce are mentioned only in the gospel of Matthew. The two passages
in the gospel of Matthew that are commonly cited concerning the
acceptability of divorce were really spoken to those living during
the time of the Law and were not designed to give specific instructions
to those living after the time of the Law. Jesus answered the
Pharisees' questions according to the Mosaic Law under which they
were living. Even so, He still additionally emphasized God's original
standard.
