VI. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light
Of Their Specific And Immediate Dispensational Context
These passages must be interpreted according to their divine design,
always taking into account their contextual and dispensational
settings. This, in a sense, presupposes the basic correctness
of the dispensational method of interpretation (an application
of the truth of the progressive nature of revelation) for understanding
the Scriptures. Especially is this true in its application to
understanding God's viewpoint on the exception clauses of Matthew
5 and Matthew 19. Proving that the literal or dispensational approach
to interpretation is correct is beyond the scope of this thesis.
However, in the following paragraphs, this approach will be seen
to be the only sensible one from a Scriptural perspective. One
must always bear in mind that God has been revealing His truth
in progressive fashion up until the completion of the canon of
the Scriptures. Not only must this be recognized in relation to
the various eras and dispensations (entrustments of responsibility),
but the same must be done as to the application of this divine
revelation. In fact, the gospels often record commands and sayings
that are confined (in context) to a particular historical period
(Matthew 5:23, Matthew 10:5-6; Matthew 16:18-19; Matthew 24:20-22;
cf. Acts 1:3-8; 8:14-17). There is nothing in the doctrine of
verbal plenary inspiration that guarantees for future generations
the full or direct application of probably
limited teachings recorded in a first-century setting. If a person
takes a truth which belongs in its direct application to one dispensation
and applies it to another, he will be in danger of putting Scripture
at variance with Scripture. The practicing of misappropriated
truth has resulted in and will result in confusion and disruptive
consequences. This very condition is found today among Christians
on the matter of divorce.
"It has been a device of the devil down through the ages
to get the Lord's people occupied with and seeking to practice
truth that belongs to a past or a future dispensation. He has
thus diverted them from doing God's expressed will for them in
connection with
the dispensation in which they are living. This has created contention
and confusion among them. Many Christians have been caught in
this very snare in the matter of divorce. Such persons fail to
see that the acceptability of divorce is related to one dispensation
only --namely the Law, and to one people only -- namely the nation
of Israel, and was permitted for one cause only -- namely [a specific
kind of fornication."
There are good reasons for being persuaded that the Christian
who uses the exception clauses of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 as
his authority for divorce is just as guilty of misusing Scripture
as he who justifies his not eating certain kinds of meat by quoting
Scriptures from the book of Deuteronomy. Of course, the consequences
in the matter of divorce are far more damaging. It is also very
remarkable that many of the contentions and divisions in Christendom
have been caused by misappropriations of the teachings of the
book of Matthew (see for example Matthew 8:17). In comparing Scripture
with Scripture we find many words spoken in the gospels, and especially
in Matthew, that are countermanded in the epistles to the churches,
and sometimes even within the gospel writings themselves (see
for example Matthew 10:1-15 with II Corinthians 5:18-20). Matthew's
exception clauses stem from Christ Himself, still under the directives
of the Mosaic covenant when He spoke those clauses to the Pharisees.
The question directed to Jesus by the Pharisees concerned a matter
of Jewish law. Jesus' answer was given while His hearers were
still under the authority of that Law. Hence, the exception clauses
are probably a reference to a kind of divorce that acceptably
took place only under the Mosaic Law.
"But it may be said, Were not these two texts which allow
divorce, spoken by the Lord Jesus?' Yes, they were, but it does
not necessarily follow that everything spoken by Him applies to
this age, or that they should be practiced by all saved people
in all ages. Furthermore, the determining factor in the interpretation
of Scripture must be the light of its total context. It applies
primarily to those to whom it is addressed. The words of Matthew
5:32 and Matthew 19:9 were spoken exclusively to Jews who were
at that time under the Law of Moses. The word 'whosoever' in these
verses has led some to conclude that the doctrine taught is of
universal application. But the word 'whosoever' here is governed
by the antecedent 'you' which restricts the privilege of divorce
to those addressed, that is, to the nation of Israel and particularly
the Pharisees. This personal restriction is further implied in
the words, But I say unto you.' The Lord did not use these words
on the two other occasions when He spoke on divorce (Mark 10:11-12,
Luke 16:18)."
One must always take into account the textual and contextual clues
which occur in a particular book or passage. The writer's audience
and the speaker's audience, as well as other factors, must be
considered carefully in arriving at a proper interpretation. Attention
to the Mosaic Law can explain Matthew's concern to record Jesus'
explicit explanation and interpretation of the Mosaic divorce
passage of Deuteronomy 24 (Matthew 19:9).
"Still another problem with the Erasmian interpretation of
the Matthean account of Jesus' controversy with the Pharisees
is the contextual incongruency that arises at two points. First,
Matthew 19:3-12 begins with the Pharisees asking Jesus about possible
grounds for divorce (verse 3). They assume the then dominant Hillelite
position. Their question in verse 3 did not primarily concern
whether or not remarriage after divorce was allowed, but rather
on what ground or grounds under the Mosaic Law was such a complete
divorce allowed. Jesus responds with an absolute prohibition of
divorce based on His exegesis of Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24
(verses 4-6). The Pharisees recognize that this is exactly what
Jesus has done because they appeal to Deuteronomy 24 in hopes
of refuting the prohibition of divorce which Jesus derived from
Genesis (verse 7). Jesus resumes the controversy by interpreting
the Mosaic [italics not in the original] writing as a mere concession
to the Israelites' well-known track record: willful disobedience
to God's revealed [and commanded] will. Jesus refers to the Mosaic
[italics not in the original] concession which allowed [or at
least regulated] divorce and remarriage (verse 8). It is clear
that Jesus is referring to the Mosaic [italics not in the original]
concession which did not legislate against marrying a second time
after a man had put away his wife [for the Mosaically allowed
reason]. He restricted the common Jewish grounds for divorce to
one, namely, fornication [that is, one specific kind of fornication].
David Field, in a helpful survey of the voices involved in the
contemporary divorce debate, argues that the context of Matthew
19 is the rabbinic dispute about the meaning of Deuteronomy 24.
Then Jesus Himself brushes aside Deuteronomy's concession in favor
of Genesis 2:24 [because Christians who would be in the post-Mosaic
Law era are not directly under the Deuteronomic concession]."
Robert Banks writes in his study of Jesus and the Law:
"As for 'porneia' itself (in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19), in
keeping with its most general meaning, i.e., 'uncleanness', it
should be regarded as a reference to the Hebrew phrase 'erwat
dabar' (some uncleanness, some indecency, some improper nudity)
of Deuteronomy 24:1."
This means that the exclusion of divorce (the exception clauses
notwithstanding) and the emphasis upon the permanence of the marriage
bond (already present in the Greek phrase "gameesee alleen"
in Matthew) are both as strongly presented in Matthew as they
are in Mark and Luke. This has relevance particularly for post-Law
Christians.
"Two lines of evidence argue for the understanding that Matthew's
clauses make reference to the 'some uncleanness' or 'some indecency'
or 'some improper nudity' of Deuteronomy 24:1. First, it is not
so unusual to find 'aschemon pragma' (Deuteronomy 24:1 in the
Septuagint's Greek) for the Hebrew 'erwat dabar' ('some uncleanness,'
'some indecency,' 'some improper nudity') rendered by the 'logos
porneias' of Matthew 5:32. Hatch and Redpath's Concordance reveals
that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew 'dabar' by either 'logos'
or 'pragma', but that 'logos', the word which appears in Matthew
5:32, appears eight times as often. The second consideration in
favor of seeing the matter of 'fornication' in Matthew 5:32 as
a reference to the 'some uncleanness' of Deuteronomy 24:1 is the
near certainty that the phrase in Matthew 5:32 and the abbreviated
form in 19:9 correspond to Shammai's transposition of the Hebrew
words in Deuteronomy 24:1 (cf. m. Gittin 9:10). The exception clauses are formulated with reference
to the Old Testament Jewish marriage laws and apply only to the
situation that arose within this [Mosaic Law] framework. This
means that Jesus did not condone the Jewish marriage laws [as
permanent principles]."
It is significant to note that Jesus' "exception" statements
about Moses' permissive concession in the Law regarding divorce
are recorded only in the Gospel of Matthew, which was written
primarily with the Jews in view. The other gospels record no statement
concerning the acceptability of divorce because they are giving
the permanent, post-Law regulations on the matter. Although at
first glance, some might think this is an inconsistency or a side-stepping
of the issues, further consideration will cause Bible students
to recognize that there are many distinctions between the Israelites,
the Gentiles, and the Church (I Corinthians 10:32) which can and
must be applied.
There are several reasons for the distinctions made between the
Gospels. First, the Law of Moses was strictly for Israel, and
that nation was still living under the Law during the time Jesus
lived on earth. Second, inasmuch as Moses' permissive law of divorce
related only to the Israelites and not to the Gentiles or to the
Church, the Gospels of Mark and Luke do not record Jesus' statements
about the permissive regulation on divorce under the Law. That
God recognizes this permissive kind of will without making it
a permanent principle is evident from the Israelites desire for
a (mere human) king so that they could be like other nations.
Though this was not God's perfect will, He permitted the nation
to have a king (I Samuel 8). The other gospels were written for
the Gentiles who were not under the Mosaic Law. Still further,
Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:19; Romans
6:14; Colossians 2:14-17). The distinction between the Dispensation
of the Law of Moses and the Dispensation of the Grace of God is
also seen in Galatians 3:23-25, Galatians 4:4-5, and Galatians
5:18. These verses show that the Scriptures make a significant
distinction between the Dispensation (Age) of the Law and the
Dispensation (Age) of Grace. Concerning the matter of dispensations
and God's view of divorce, it is important to notice that there
are permanent principles which transcend all dispensations, especially
those principles which deal with marriage. But on the other hand,
the law of divorce was limited to the nation of Israel under the
Mosaic Law. Even then, divorce was allowed to be acceptably granted
only for fornication. Because the law of divorce related only
to the time of the Mosaic Law, it cannot be applied to the present
church age. It was Moses who conceded divorce. Christ never made
it a rule for the church. The Law of Moses is not for Christians,
and neither are the privileges, the curses, nor the bondage of
the Law. Divorce involved hardness of heart on the part of the
one divorcing -- an attitude that should be completely foreign
to Christians. Anyone who insists on taking the law of divorce
from the Mosaic Law (as reiterated by Christ in Matthew 5 and
Matthew 19) and applying it to today's situation must, logically
speaking, also apply other Mosaic laws. The inconsistency and
unbiblical nature of such a venture is seen most clearly in the
matter of meats. To apply the Mosaic law of divorce is to confuse
the distinctions in dispensations which God has set forth in His
Word.
There exists a further special circumstance which contributes
additional proof that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 should not
be used by the Christian today as authority for permitting divorce.
In answering the Corinthian church's question, the apostle Paul
does not direct people to the Law of Moses where the statute of
divorce is found. Nor does he make mention of the Lord's words found in Matthew 5:32
and Matthew 19:9, words that undeniably imply permission to divorce
in some particular circumstance. But on the contrary, Paul quoted
the Lord's command found in Mark 10:11-12 which entirely prohibits
divorce (I Corinthians 7:10-11). In light of Paul's remarks, a
question arises as to why, in answering the Corinthians, did he
not make reference to the Lord's words in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew
19:9, where it is plainly stated that divorce is permissible on
the ground of fornication (or as some would [wrongly] interpret
it, adultery). The answer should be obvious. The apostle knew
that the teaching of these two verses (which permit divorce for
one specific kind of fornication) was instruction about Mosaic
legislation and therefore applicable only to men under the Law.
Although these were the Lord's own words, one does no harm to
the doctrine of inspiration by noting that they were not His teaching
for the Church. The concession of divorce was given by Moses,
but it was never legislated for the church. It was a privilege
granted to men in Israel, but privileges of the Law per se do
not belong to the Christian. The Mosaic statute of divorce explained
by Jesus in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 is properly only suitable
and tenable to marriage as practiced by the Jews.
The full progressive revelation of the truth regarding divorce
is shown in the reiteration of the passages on divorce which follow.
Divorce was first legalized and circumscribed by Moses and permitted
only in Israel (Deuteronomy 24:1-2). The Lord Jesus allowed the
privilege as originally prescribed in the Law to remain in force
to men in Israel under the Mosaic economy (Matthew 5:32; Matthew
19:9). The Lord, when speaking on divorce privately to His disciples,
made no allowance for it (Mark 10:11-12). Approximately thirty
years after the Law of Moses had been absolutely abrogated for
the Christian, Paul gives the Lord's commandment for the churches
in I Corinthians 7:10-11.
The reader should have no difficulty in perceiving that the teaching
of Moses on divorce is distinct and distant from the Lord's teaching
to His disciples and the church. Though they vary, yet hermeneutically
they do not contradict each other. They are simply truths on divorce
that belong to two different dispensations. Deuteronomy 24:1-2,
Matthew 5:32, and Matthew 19:9 are (in context) for the Jew under
the Law. Mark 10:11-12, Matthew 19:4-6, Luke 16:18, and particularly
I Corinthians 7:10-11 are principles for the Lord's people in
the present dispensation.
"A reading of these passages and especially the Matthew 19
passage reveals that Jesus divides the history of marriage into
three periods. The first period, relatively brief in duration,
saw marriage in its ideal form in Paradise (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark
10:6-8). The second period coincided with the outworking of God's
kingdom under the Mosaic Covenant: it was a time of compromise
and concession to human sinfulness. Human 'hardness of heart'
(Matthew 19:7-8; Mark 10:4-5) made use of the open-ended Near
Eastern practice of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1). Yet when Jesus
came, He introduced a third period in the history of marriage,
the one in which we all now live (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9-12).
In this third and decisive era, Jesus not only redefines the popular
conception of divorce by reintroducing the Father's creation standard
for marriage from the first period [and the consequent absolute
prohibition of divorce], he also introduces the new possibility
that some may forgo marriage altogether."
Fundamental, Bible-believing students of the Word of God recognize
that there are distinct economies in the plan of God for the Jews,
the Gentiles, and the Church (I
Corinthians 10:32; Ephesians 3:1-10). The Jews had the Law of
Moses which was valid from the time of Moses until Christ's death
and resurrection (Galatians 3:16-25). Yet many Bible students
who recognize that we are no longer under the Law of Moses but
under grace turn to the permissive regulations of the Mosaic Law,
restated by Christ in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 (the proof of which
is contained in this paper) with reference to divorce. They accept
those regulations to which Jesus referred in Matthew 5 and Matthew
19 as the permanent and basic principles concerning marriage and
divorce. Concerning this one matter, they completely ignore the
fact that Christians now are not under the Law but are under grace
(Galatians 4:21-5:1). When the Lord Jesus restated what Moses
said concerning divorce, He did not give His consent to it as
a permanent principle, but simply answered the questions of the
Pharisees. The purpose of the Pharisees' question in Matthew 19
was to get from Jesus a decision on a much-disputed text of the
Mosaic Law, namely, Deuteronomy 24:1. The reference to "any
cause" is an allusion to the well-known Shammai-Hillel controversy
over the grounds for divorce permitted in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
The Pharisees took for granted that under the Law divorce was
acceptable but there was disagreement about what was the lawful
ground or grounds for divorce according to the Mosaic Law. Note
that Christians today are not specifically under any part of the
Mosaic Law per se (see the entire book of Galatians). Therefore,
whatever "exception" Jesus taught in the exception clauses
is not applicable to us today since He was explaining a Mosaic
permission.
"Christ would give no direct answer to this question posed
by 'outsiders.' Instead, He responds with a counter question intended
to expose the Pharisees. They would never have asked that question
had they understood the absolute indissolubility and permanence
of the marriage bond from the standpoint of the Scriptures as
recorded in Genesis 1:27
and Genesis 2:24 (Matthew 19:4-6). The Pharisees are astonished
with this response and so abandon their question about Hillel's
interpretation of the Mosaic Law only to ask another catch question
concerning the Mosaic Law itself why, then, the command to give
the bill of divorcement (Matthew 19:7)? Jesus plainly states that
Moses' concession was an interim legislation in the truest sense
and was contrary to the antecedent [and non-Mosaic Law] will of
God. The full answer, that not even fornication (porneia) constitutes
an exception or grounds for divorce for the age of Grace is given
by Christ to the disciples in private (Mark 10:10). Though they
had been granted to know many mysterious things and were better
disposed than the Pharisees to hear it, even to them it was a
shock (Matthew 19:10)."
According to Mark 10:10, the conversation with the Pharisees had
taken place outdoors. Mark would not have had reason to include
the allusions to Deuteronomy in his account and indeed they were
specifically omitted in Jesus teaching "in the house."
They would have had no bearing on Mark's Gentile audience who
would not know about nor have any interest in the Shammai-Hillel
controversy (or the Mosaic Law of Deuteronomy for that matter).
It was this controversy which provided the reason for the inclusion
of the exception clauses in Matthew. Particularly noteworthy has
been Matthew's desire to draw out the implications of Christ's
teaching for the Mosaic permission. It is Mark's desire to give
Christ's permanent, post-Law teaching with its wide, post-Law
application. After the initial comments of Mark 10:2-9, Christ
and the disciples entered the house. The disciples asked Him again
concerning divorce. He reiterated the principles as they were
laid down
in the beginning. He reminded them of the original foundational
principles without amending them or adding to them. He did this
especially for the disciples because they were to lay the foundation
for the church (Ephesians 2:20). In these essential matters, He
instructed them quite clearly. When these eras and their related
portions of Scripture are correctly interpreted in the light of
divine purpose and in their dispensational contexts and settings,
there will be no doubt as to the mind of God on the matter of
divorce. Divorce was a right or permission which belonged exclusively
to those under the Law of Moses and it could be obtained for one
cause only -- fornication (not adultery). Divorce is forbidden
for any reason today.
"Divorce is as much a sin today as it was when first introduced.
What was permitted in the lives of the 'uncircumcised of heart'
in Israel should never become the rule for the child of God who
lives under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is Christ in
us, living His life in us and through us."
