IV. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light
Of The Historical Context Of The Book Of Matthew
The gospel of Matthew is a distinctly Jewish-oriented book. Matthew
himself was a Jew who also had the Jewish name Levi. His book
forms a bridge between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Matthew quotes the Old Testament more times than any other New
Testament book. In fact, he quotes from at least twenty-five of
the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. Christ is referred
to as the Son of David several times in the book indicating its
Jewish flavor and orientation. There is also a significant amount
of Jewish material in Matthew which is not included in the other
gospels. This historical context to the book will shed light on
the reasons for the inclusion of the exception clauses in Matthew
and their omission from the other New Testament books. Ultimately,
however, this situation is a result of the Divine design and purpose
for Matthew's gospel via verbal, plenary inspiration.
One thing that cannot be ignored is the fact that only Matthew
mentions the phrase, "except it be for fornication."
Why does Matthew alone use this statement? The answer to this
question will show that the exception clauses are not applicable
to us today. The answer depends to a degree on the chronology
of the Lord's utterances on divorce as well as His audiences.
Matthew writes for the Jews to whom the Law of Moses was given.
Mark writes particularly for Roman Gentiles who had no Law. Luke
writes for the Greeks, who were a Law unto themselves. The Jews
knew perfectly well that with few rare exceptions in the Law,
a fornicator was always stoned to death. In the case of adulterers,
the guilty parties were always to be killed. The specific reason
that the permission for divorce is found only in Matthew is because
divorce was connected only with the Law of Moses and the nation
of Israel. Consequently, it has no applicability to the Christian
today (Galatians 3:24-25).
"Since Matthew primarily addressed the Jews in his Gospel,
it was necessary for him to clarify the true meaning of the Mosaic
Law on various issues and especially on divorce. In the days of
Jesus, many of the Jews, and especially the Pharisees, had almost
made the Law of no effect. They had the Word of God all wrapped
up in their own
interpretations and dead traditions, just as many people do today.
But Jesus broke through the layers of misinterpretation and false
tradition that surrounded many of these issues. Because of this,
He drew a violent reaction from the Jews."
Why, then, is the exception clause in Matthew's Gospel and not
in Mark's? It is obvious to students of Matthew's Gospel that
he is greatly concerned with issues important to the Jewish conscience.
"Few evangelicals take these cultural/Jewish legal considerations
into account when examining the exception clauses in Matthew.
This is the reason the 'plain' or 'natural' meaning idea, which
contemporary theologians [like Thomas Edgar] so often urge in
support of their view of Matthew's teaching, does so little to
clarify the real issues involved. Theirs is not the only possibility
when it comes to what is in fact 'natural' to Matthew's Gospel.
When Jesus spoke these words, and when Matthew's largely Jewish
audience heard and read them, they were understood within a Scriptural
and cultural context that is unlike that of the modern reader
[or even necessarily of the other gospel accounts]. On this understanding,
the exception clauses in Matthew's Gospel were never intended
to give 'grounds' for divorce today."
In the general context of this passage, Jesus' gives His explanation,
interpretation, and correct application of the seventh commandment.
If lust is seen as a violation of the seventh commandment (Matthew
5:27-30), it is not surprising to find divorce condemned as well.
Matthew apparently wants his readers to understand that Jesus'
sayings are concerned with thoughts and actions that violate the
spirit of the seventh commandment. Verses 27-32 of Matthew 5 are
concerned with the Law against adultery, that is, thoughts or
actions that violate the spirit of the seventh commandment. Jesus
gives two examples of such violations which His specific Jewish
audience had probably not contemplated as adulterous. This is
an important contextual consideration. Thus in verse 32 we have
two cases cited which violate the commandment against adultery:
(1) Divorce (unless it be for fornication); (2) Remarriage after
a divorce for whatever cause. In the first case, the husband is
guilty of violating the seventh commandment because he divorces
his wife unjustly. In other words, he puts her away for some cause
other than the one which was permitted by the Mosaic Law (one
specific kind of fornication). All of this seems to indicate that
Matthew knows of a saying of Jesus that placed all but one divorce
action (in the Jewish, Mosaic-Law, Deuteronomy 24 legal practice
of Jesus' audience) in the category of violating the spirit of
the seventh commandment. This is reflected in the context. Why
then is divorce wrong if in one case under the Law it is not adulterous
in the sense of violating the seventh commandment? This is probably
the chief point under discussion in Matthew 19. The Pharisees
asked Jesus about divorce clearly expecting Him to rule against
it. He does indeed do so, grounding His objections in Genesis
(Matthew 19:4-8). It is only after explaining His reason for not
permitting divorce that Jesus repeats His statement of Matthew
5:32, that divorce is, in all but one case (and that only under
Mosaic Law) adulterous and therefore sin. Thus in Matthew 19:9
He adds to the wrongfulness of divorce, in that He declares that
divorce is wrong, not only because man cannot or should not sunder
what God has joined together, but because divorce is an example
of adultery. The context of the divorce sayings is above all else
the indicator that, if there is a meaning to the exception, it
is that there is one kind of divorce for one specific kind of
fornication under the Law which is not necessarily adulterous.
Jesus, therefore,
does not offer the post-Law possibility of exceptions to His law
against divorce. Thus in Matthew 5:32 divorce is seen minimally
as a violation of the seventh commandment, and in Matthew 19:9
divorce is presented as additionally incompatible with the permanent
union of husband and wife taught in the trans-dispensational ordinance
of creation regarding marriage. From the Matthew 5 and Matthew
19 passages three propositions about divorce can be deduced: (1)
To divorce one's spouse is tantamount to committing adultery (Matthew
5:27-32a); (2) To divorce one's spouse for fornication (the correct
understanding of it and under the Law of Moses) is not tantamount
to committing adultery (Matthew 5:32a); (3) To marry a divorced
person is to commit adultery (Matthew 5:32b). The same conclusions
can be drawn from Matthew 19. The idea that divorce is not always
sin is an idea peculiar to Matthew's Gospel. He alone includes
the exception (for the cause of fornication under the Mosaic Law).
Mark, Luke, and Paul state that divorce is always wrong. When
Matthew 19:9 is analyzed into its constituent parts and in light
of its context, the ambiguity disappears. It makes a fitting punch
line to the dispute with the Pharisees over Moses' permission
for divorce for one and only one cause in the Law dispensation.
They asked essentially: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce
his wife for any cause at all?" Jesus replies in essence:
"It is always wrong to divorce or sunder what God has joined
together: what is more, divorce, except for fornication (and under
the Law) is adulterous; and remarriage after divorce is always
so." Naturally the disciples object and the mouths of the
Pharisees are shut. Unabashed, Jesus replies in a vein reminiscent
of His remarks about cutting offhand or eye to avoid committing
adultery (Matthew 5:29-30), "You are indeed able to live
up to this teaching."
