III. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light
Of The Order Of Jesus' Utterances On Divorce Considered Chronologically
And Historically
"Of all that the Lord may have had to say
respecting divorce and remarriage, Scripture records only four
instances of His dealing with the subject. It is significant that
neither Mark nor Luke make any mention of the Lord's utterance
on divorce recorded in Matthew 5:31-32. Furthermore, when Mark
narrates the Lord's utterance on divorce recorded in Matthew 19:3-9,
he omits verse 9 which contains the permission to divorce on the
ground of fornication. This is significant and its reason must
be understood. Adequate reasons exist for these passages which
permit divorce to be in Matthew's account but not in the other
gospel accounts. This is important to understand since a knowledge
of Matthew in every local church in the first or even the second
century cannot necessarily be presupposed. Perhaps Gentiles would
not have understood them, or perhaps more likely they applied
specifically to the Jewish and Mosaic Law circumstances of the
hearers, or both. Biblical scholars acknowledge that by divine
design the book of Matthew was written with the Jewish reader
in mind. However the gospels of Mark and Luke were written primarily
for Gentile readers. How then can one account for the difference
in teaching? Some have said that both of these divergent teachings
are in agreement and that both are equally applicable to the Christian.
They justify this assumption and explain it by the principle that
the lesser statement is included in the fuller one. It is true
that some differences in the gospel narratives and other Scriptures
may be explained by this rule. But such a rule need not and cannot
be made to operate in this case for the simple reason that they
are four distinct and independent utterances. A difference of
vital importance exists between these parts of Scripture. The
solution to the difference lies in the acknowledgment of the fact
that these two passages in Matthew are simply a proper interpretation
of the Mosaic statute of divorce made by the Lord to correct the
loose views and false interpretations the Jews attached to it.
However, the passages in Mark and Luke present teaching (not necessarily
new but nevertheless the permanent post-Law standard) based on
marriage as originally constituted by God, which makes no allowance
for divorce."
The first utterance occurs in Matthew 5:31-32. A knowledge of
the moral, religious, and social conditions that existed in Israel
when these words were uttered is helpful in understanding their
meaning. One statute of the Law which was greatly abused, misinterpreted
and perverted was that which dealt with divorce.
"In the minds of some, our Lord seems to allow one cause
-- that of fornication [some would wrongly say that this means
adultery] -- as justification for divorce in our time. However,
if this is an allowable cause for divorce, it is a mere concession
to those under the Law and not a command. It was certainly a concession
on God's part in the Mosaic economy. God did not change His mind
about divorce (Malachi 2:14-16). Our Lord could be saying here
as He spoke to these Jews that as long as they were under the
old order of the Law, they could follow Moses' plan. Paul's command
in I Corinthians
7:10-11, however, would seem to give the New Testament post-Law
order in the churches. At any rate, the person who really wants
to go on and walk close with the Lord will want to obey God's
directive will and not merely His 'permissive' will. Additionally,
Moses gave his concession because of the hardness of the Israelites'
hearts. Surely this is a poor excuse for Christians to use in
contemplating, seeking, or obtaining a divorce."
The second utterance occurs in Luke 16:18. Here again, Christ
restated the basic principle of marriage and classified all divorce
as the sin of adultery. There is no indication of reprieve from
these statements of Jesus. As one studies further in the New Testament
concerning instructions for the present church age, the statements
of other inspired writers agree with what Luke here recorded concerning
no possibility of divorce.
"This statement on divorce and remarriage was made about
two years after His first recorded utterance. It seems totally
disconnected in the passage where it is found, and it appears
difficult to find a cause for its being spoken. The cause and
connection are as follows: Jesus had spoken in parabolic language
of an unjust steward who had been deposed of his stewardship.
The parable simply mirrored the situation among the leaders in
Israel who had not been good stewards in the things of God committed
to their trust and who were about to have their stewardship taken
away from them. Listening to the parable were the Pharisees. They
seemed to sense that the parable was directed against them, and
this may account for their deriding the Lord and making light
of His teaching. The words of Luke 16:16 clearly show that the
authority and teaching of the Kingdom of God supersedes that of
the Law and the prophets. But in case these Pharisees should construe
His words to mean the Law was at that time abrogated, the Lord
adds Luke 16:17 regarding the words of God. These Pharisees did
not know (at least we know they had previously rejected such a
thought, Luke 7:30) that the Kingdom of God and the Law of Moses
are two somewhat distinct systems which were coexistent and concurrent
during the lifetime of Jesus on earth. This concurrence ended
at the Cross when the Law was set aside (Colossians 2:14-17).
Now with all their professed zeal for the law and boasted reverence
for its sanctity, the Pharisees were the foremost transgressors
of it in the matter of divorce. Indeed, just before the Lord spoke
this parable of the unjust steward, they had been guilty of winking
at and condoning the sin of Herod Antipas in marrying his brother
Philip's divorced wife. Such a thing the Law expressly forbade
(Leviticus 18:16). All this may have been the reason for the Lord,
seemingly without cause, introducing at this time and place, and
in Herod's jurisdiction, His teaching on divorce and remarriage
(Luke 16:18). The statements of Luke 16:18 confirm the doctrine
of marriage, divorce, and remarriage as given in the beginning
wherein no provision was made for divorce and where it was literally
excluded. It is this doctrine, in contrast to Moses doctrine,
that is the rule for the Christian today."
The third utterance chronologically and historically is the one
in Matthew 19:3-9. It is shortly after the second recorded utterance
which has been considered in Luke 16:18 that the Pharisees come
with this twofold question which the Lord answers so comprehensively.
He answers in two parts. In the first part He reminds them of
marriage as it came originally from God the Creator to Adam. At
the institution of marriage there includes and is formed a real
non-physical unity and also a physical unity comprising one male
and one female. Here in the first part, Christ reminds Jew and
Gentile alike that God commanded a man to cleave unto his wife,
the very opposite to the practice of putting her
away. He further prohibits interference on man's part with the
institution of marriage (the "joining" of two people).
The use of the word "what" instead of "whom"
seems to imply that the Lord was speaking of the institution of
marriage rather than merely the people or the ceremony. The first
part of the Lord's answer would indicate that even though Moses
suffered (allowed or permitted) them to give a bill of divorcement,
still it did not in any way change that which God had given at
the beginning and what is in fact binding in any non-Mosaic dispensations.
However, the Pharisees still desired to tempt Him further and
asked, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement,
and to put her away?" In this second part of His answer,
the Lord places the responsibility for this deviation from the
first law of marriage (and its consequent prohibition of divorce)
directly on the hardness of man's heart. The "you" in
this passage most likely refers to Jews under the Law of Moses.
Christ does not deny these Pharisees and Jews the possible option
under the Law to correctly divorce their wives for the one Mosaically
allowed reason. The differences among Christians today on divorce
are due primarily to a failure to understand the dispensational
aspects of these two seemingly conflicting parts of Scripture.
The Lord corrected the loose views which were held on the matter
of divorce and gave the Mosaic statute its true interpretation.
He taught that only for the sin of fornication (not adultery)
could a man under the Law acceptably put away his wife.
"In effect, Jesus shows that divorce was simply a temporary
expedient permitted to men under the Law and was not meant to
apply to any other dispensation. Divorce is thus a privilege that
belongs only to the dispensation of the Law of Moses and only
to men under the Law. It was a thing which could be obtained only on
the one ground of fornication (called 'some uncleanness' in Deuteronomy
24:1)."
The fourth utterance chronologically and historically is the one
in Mark 10:11-12. This statement of Jesus concerning
divorce is recorded in the midst of a longer passage on the matter
(Mark 10:2-12). Verses 2-9 record the same incident
as Matthew 19:3-9. However, Mark records some comments
of Jesus which Matthew did not record. The reasons for this should
not be overlooked in interpreting the exception clauses. After
Jesus had answered the Pharisees, He and His disciples went into
a house where the disciples asked Him about His comments. Jesus
then spoke the words found in Mark 10:11-12. If Matthew's
exception is understood within the pattern of Jesus' public teaching
in parables and enigmas versus His private instruction for the
disciples, then modern interpreters who contend that in Matthew
Jesus spells out in detail regarding when a divorce would be acceptable,
could not be more mistaken. How could it be possible to derive
a specific, permanent, "clear," "natural,"
"obvious" teaching of our Lord on divorce from a text
in which Jesus was deliberately waiting to later give clear instructions
for His true disciples? Evidently the disciples were impressed with the Lord's
strictness in connection with marriage. So they first queried
Him about this outside the house. Their thinking was that if marriage
is so binding as to shut up a man to one living wife for life,
and "fornication" is the only cause under the Law for
ever being divorced from her, one might as well not be married.
The Lord's answer to the disciples' first query is recorded in
Matthew 19:11-12. The disciples then asked the second
question inside the house. The words, "they asked Him again
of the same matter," imply that they asked Him again concerning
the strictness of marriage about which they had just previously
queried Him.
The Lord answers with the words of Mark 10:11-12. The conclusion
drawn is that there is an even higher standard for the Christian
under grace than for those who were under the Law of Moses.
"Mark narrates two distinct utterances, verses 4-9 being
one, and verses 11 and 12 the other. Verses 4-9 are simply a repetition
of the third utterance recorded in Matthew 19:4-9 with this difference
-- Mark's account omits certain words. Mark omits the words, 'And
I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be
for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.'
The omissions of Scripture as well as the mentions of Scripture
carry significance and can be attributed to divine design and
purpose in the inspired writings. On the basis of such a principle,
we conclude that the omitting of the Mosaic statute of divorce
in Mark as well as the recording of it in Matthew are additional
strong proofs and evidences that divorce belongs only to those
under the Law of Moses. Notice that it was to those who knew the
Law that Jesus spoke and Matthew wrote, whilst Mark's writing
was specially designed for Gentile readers who were ignorant of
the Law and not specifically under it."
Notice that in Jesus' comments at this point there was no possibility
for divorce on any grounds. He simply stated that any man who
puts away his wife and marries another is guilty of adultery and
that any woman who puts away her husband and marries another is
also guilty of adultery.
"This passage provides the basis for desired behavior during
the church age because Jesus Christ was talking to His disciples,
who laid the foundation for the church. Because the Mosaic Law
and the Jews were not being considered at this point in Mark,
no reference was made to fornication as there was in the Gospel
of Matthew. But desiring to promote the permanent principles regarding
marriage and their relationship to the matter of divorce, Christ
restated the most basic and permanent principle of marriage. He
also classified all divorce as the sin of adultery."
Some of the characteristic differences in the Lord's utterances
are here restated in the hope that the recapitulation may clarify
and help to distinguish vital differences between them. In the
first utterance (Matthew 5:31-32) the Lord Jesus is seen acting
in the capacity of a God-sent prophet to Israel, correcting errors
and abuses that had become attached to the law of divorce. In
doing this, He gave the statute of divorce its true interpretation
and proper application. It was only for fornication, and only
under the Law, that divorce was permitted. The second utterance
(Luke 16:18) is distinctly related to and connected with the universal
teaching concerning the Kingdom of God (as distinct from the Kingdom
of Heaven -- a term used and developed only in Matthew). For this
reason, no cause for divorce is given. The third utterance (Matthew
19:4-9) was directly addressed to the Pharisees. This utterance
is an answer to their question regarding what was the legal ground
or grounds for divorce under the Law. This accounts for the Lord
stating that fornication (not adultery - adultery was punished
by stoning to death) was the only Lawful reason for divorce and,
at the same time, allowing it for fornication in the case of the
Pharisees because they were under the Law. The fourth utterance
(Mark 10:11-12) is very closely associated with the third because
it grew out of it and has its roots in it. Nevertheless, it is
in its entirety an independent and distinct saying. There is also
an additional noteworthy difference. This utterance is the only
one spoken privately in
a house and exclusively to the Lord's disciples who were the nucleus
of His then-future church. This also accounts for no mention of
a cause being given as grounds for divorce. This is confirmed
by the fact that Mark was written for a Gentile (Roman) audience.
Jesus clearly intended to take His hearers back to the creation
standard for divorce and consequently explained Moses' "allowance"
for divorce. Furthermore, if our Lord had not ultimately intended
to forbid divorce, why did the Holy Spirit allow Mark and Luke
to lead so many early Christians astray? That Jesus in Mark's
account permitted no exception which would allow divorce is practically
unassailable as the statements in his writing stand. Mark is writing
his gospel with a particular group of people in mind who in all
probability (even if Marcan priority is denied) did not have Matthew's
account before them. If Marcan priority is assumed, there can
hardly be any doubt that Jesus teaches that all divorce is sin
and all remarriage is adulterous (and therefore sin). We cannot
presume that Mark's, or Luke's, or even Paul's readers had access
to all the book or all the teaching of Matthew's gospel (even
if Matthean priority is assumed) in the early stages of the transmission
of the Word of God. Not until toward the end of the first century
or possibly even into the second century did every church have
all four gospels.
