II. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light
Of The Immediate Audiences Who Heard Them
There were essentially three schools of thought and practice which
existed in the nation of Israel on the matter of divorce and remarriage.
One must take the time to understand how Jesus would convey His
teaching within the context of the first century situation, the
Jewish marriage laws, and the differences between these three
schools of thought. The first is represented by John the Baptist
in the matter of remarriage and by Joseph in the matter of divorce.
Joseph would have divorced Mary on the ground of premarital unchastity
(fornication). He would have done so, however, because he did
not have sufficient witnesses to put her to death. To pursue the
course he originally intended would have made a "public example"
of her and Joseph was not willing to do this. Since fornication
was not actually involved in Mary's case, there was no ground
for divorce and consequently Joseph did not put her away. Of course
the Holy Spirit also convinced Joseph to take Mary as his wife
and not divorce her. This may further indicate that divorce under
these kinds of circumstances dealt with something other than a
legitimately established "marriage." Another school
of thought and practice was promoted by Shammai who believed that
adultery committed in the established marriage was a ground for
divorce and remarriage. He substituted divorce as an acceptable
alternative to death by stoning. Death by stoning, however, was
what the Law required. The third group, headed by Hillel, believed
that divorce could be obtained essentially for any cause whatsoever.
This sounds for all practical purposes like the position of many
Christians and pastors today (physical adultery, mental adultery,
all the forms of sexual evil they say are implied in Jesus' use
of the word "fornication", ad infinitum, ad nausaum).
"Augustine holds that the Pharisees were trying to trick
Jesus into entering a debate between the liberal school of Hillel
and the more conservative school of Shammai, but Christ did not
take the bait. Instead He deftly avoided that issue until He was
in private with His disciples (Mark 10:10-12). The controversy
was over the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1, 'some uncleanness.'
They asked Christ to comment."
The Lord says in contrast to these latter two schools of thought,
"But I say unto you . . ." By the use of these words,
He does not necessarily set aside the Law at that point in time.
Especially is this true in Matthew 19. Rather, He reminds them
that He is the Fulfiller of the Law. He, as God, gives the Law
its true intent, explanation, and interpretation. By these words,
the Lord gave the Mosaic statute of divorce, which had been perverted
by the teachers in Israel, its true interpretation and proper
design. He taught that divorce under the Law of Moses was strictly
limited to one cause --fornication. Consequently all other causes
were unscriptural and sin.
If the current view of most modern Christians and Christian interpreters
has an inherent illogicality about it in regard to Matthew 5:32,
this is even more true in Matthew 19:9. Exegetes agree that in
verses 3-8 of Matthew 19 Jesus has slammed both the liberal Hillelite
and the conservative Shammaite views of divorce by affirming the
strict indissolubility of marriage. Then suddenly in verse 9,
according to modern proponents of divorce, Jesus backtracks in
allowing real divorce for adultery just as the Shammaites would.
In this passage, "put away" means "separate"
or "divorce" but definitely does not imply permission
to do so for adultery since adultery does not break the marriage
bond. The view that adultery dissolves the marriage bond degrades
the conception of marriage by making its physical side the dominant
consideration. This incorrect view involves two absurdities. First,
a man may cease to be married and yet be unaware of the fact.
Secondly,
it makes adultery, either mental or physical, the one way to get
rid of a marriage which has become distasteful. Thus it puts a
premium on adultery. The text indicates that if a marriage was
dissoluble under the Law, it was dissoluble only upon one ground.
Jesus specifically called that one ground "fornication."
He did not necessarily or actually call it "adultery"
(cf. Matthew 19:9 with Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
