VII. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light
Of The Use Of Certain Dispensationally Unique Phrases In Matthew
And Their Implications For The Unique Use Of The Exception Clauses
In Matthew 5 And Matthew 19
While some might argue that these exception clauses are not part
of the genuine teaching of Jesus but represent either an adaptation
by Matthew or an interpolation by the early church, there are
no sound textual arguments against the genuineness of the clauses.
In his book, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple (pp. 66-115),
Abel Isaksson convincingly demonstrates that the sayings came
from the lips of Jesus Himself. The Received Text includes them.
The King James Bible (AV 1611) includes them. Therefore, this
author accepts the premise that the exception clauses in the divorce
passages of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 are authentic sayings of
Jesus and part of the original text. He further accepts the position
that the Received Text readings (published by Trinitarian Bible
Society of London in 1976) underlying the King James text are
the correct Greek readings (words).
"One must understand and appreciate the fact that each gospel
writer was selective in what he chose to include in his record
of Christ's life and teachings (cf. Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30; John
21:25). While Mark was led by the Holy Spirit to record Jesus'
teaching which applied the same rule of divorce and remarriage
to both the husband and the wife (in the house - Mark 10:12),
Matthew gives us no record of this teaching. Why is this so? Most
probably is this the case because it was common in Roman and Greek
society for a wife to divorce her husband, and vice versa Jewish
law, however, made no provision for this. Matthew, therefore,
omitted this teaching because it did not apply to the Jewish culture
and legal setting in which Jesus spoke the exception clauses.
On the other hand, Matthew does include the exception clauses.
He does this in view of the fact that he is writing to a Jewish
audience familiar with the Leviticus 18:6-18 prohibition against
marriage with a near relative. Mark apparently omits this because
of its lack of application to Roman society and marriage customs.
The Leviticus 18:6-18 interpretation of 'fornication' (porneia)
and its parallel in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 would well explain the
inclusion of the exception clauses in Matthew -- the Jewish gospel
-- and its absence in Mark, Luke, and Paul. If 'fornication 'has
this specialized 'Jewish' meaning and limitation (due to the context
of the exception clauses), then Jesus' teaching is consistent
with God's ideal for marriage as set forth in Matthew 19:4-6 and
Mark 10:6-8. God's plan for
marriage and His prohibition of divorce would not have included
a permission for divorce except in the case of what the Jews under
the Law would understand as an illegal marriage -- a marriage
relationship with a person near of kin. In all other situations
marriage is to be lifelong and binding until death. This restricted
view of 'fornication' (porneia) is consistent with other Scriptural
usages of the term and would also explain the startled reaction
of the disciples in Matthew 19:10. Had Jesus permitted divorce
for adultery or other illicit sexual behavior, His teaching would
not have risen above that of Shammai, and would not have provoked
such a shocked response."
To claim that Christ's saying something once (in the exception
clauses for example) allows us to imply the exception in other
statements by Christ and the apostle Paul is an unprovable conclusion.
Especially is this so when there are other feasible explanations
for the inclusion of the exception clauses in Matthew and their
exclusion in other New Testament passages. One feasible explanation
is that Matthew is an inherently Jewish book and Jesus is answering
a Jewish question about the Jewish Mosaic Law. Carl Laney emphasizes
this important point when he says:
"It is imperative to understand that Matthew's Gospel is
uniquely and thoroughly Jewish in orientation. This is evidenced
by the genealogy which traces Christ's lineage to David and Abraham
(Matthew 1:1); by the emphasis on the fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecy which the Jews would find meaningful (Matthew 1:22-23;
Matthew 2:15-18); and by the use of Jewish terminology such as
'Son of David' (Matthew 1:1; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 21:9). Probably
written around A.D. 50, the Gospel of Matthew was designed to
demonstrate and convince Jews everywhere that Jesus of Nazareth
is the promised Messiah and King prophesied about in the Old Testament.
Matthew repeatedly relates Old Testament messianic prophecies
to the life and ministry of Christ, showing how they were fulfilled
in the person of Jesus Christ. Some have wondered why all the
Lord's teaching on divorce is not recorded in Mark 10. As Matthew
wrote to Jewish readers, so Mark wrote for Roman readers. This
is readily observed from the fact that Matthew makes frequent
use of Old Testament quotations as compared to the relatively
few Old Testament references in Mark's gospel. Mark explains certain
Jewish traditions (cf. Mark 7:2,11; Mark 14:12) and translates
Aramaic words (Mark 5:41; Mark 7:34; Mark 9:43; Mark 14:36; Mark
15:22,34). To his Roman readers who were unacquainted with the
land of Israel, Mark explains the geographical relationship of
the Mount of Olives and the Temple area (Mark 13:3). An illustration
of the differences between Matthew and Mark is found in the context
of Jesus' teaching on divorce. Mark alone mentions the possibility
of a woman divorcing her husband (Mark 10:12). It is in light
of the needs of his Jewish readers (as well as Jesus' Jewish audience)
that Matthew makes several unique contributions to the teaching
of Jesus on divorce."
There are other unique phrases which occur in the Gospel of Matthew
which imply that Matthew had special reasons, by divine design
and via verbal inspiration, for using the special and specific
terms that he recorded. Particularly is this true with reference
to the inclusion of the exception clauses of Matthew 5 and Matthew
19.
The section in Matthew (4:17ff) dealing especially with the phrase
"Kingdom of Heaven" is omitted from Mark and Luke. Why
is it left out? A feasible explanation for this is the Jewish
character of the book of Matthew as well as God's divine purpose
for the books of Mark and Luke. Interestingly, the phrase "Kingdom
of Heaven" occurs only in
the book of Matthew. This phrase emphasizes the earthly aspects
(now the millennial aspects) of the kingdom reign of the promised
Messiah and King, Jesus Christ, on the earth. Though the kingdom
of heaven concept is included in the "kingdom of God"
concept, and though the method of entry into each is the same
(the new birth), nevertheless, there are clear distinctions between
the two. Additionally, the phrase "'kingdom of God"
occurs only six times in the book and each time the emphasis is
clearly on the spiritual aspects of that kingdom as distinct from
the earthly aspects. The other gospels also use the phrase "kingdom
of God" in perfect harmony with the purposes for those books
(that is, they do not focus on Jewish legal questions as does
Matthew).
It is characteristic and unique of Matthew's Gospel to mention
a topic twice or to quote a saying twice (Matthew 3:2 with Matthew
4:17; Matthew 3:10 with Matthew 7:19; Matthew 3:12 with Matthew
25:29; Matthew 5:29-30 with Matthew 18:8-9). The twin divorce
pericopae in Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 fit this same pattern. This
suggests that the exception clauses probably ought to be understood
in the same way in both passages even though the Greek is slightly
different. This also shows that Matthew had a specific, divinely
designed purpose for including them.
Modern interpreters do not generally discuss the fact that this
passage (Matthew 19:9) is one of the few (the only?) if/then constructions
in the New Testament in which the 'if portion contains a compound
conditional clause. Furthermore, this conditional clause consists
of two verbs connected by '
and' ('kai'). The first verb is closely
related to and qualified by a negated prepositional phrase ('except
for fornication') that is placed before the coordinating 'and'.
Prepositional phrases are adverbial and normally qualify the verb
which they follow. Yet before modern interpreters can make confident
assertions about what the exception clause qualifies and if it
is indeed applicable to us today, they must demonstrate from New
Testament word order in general and Matthean style in particular
that what they are saying is supported by other Scriptural usage
considerations.
One of the considerations in favor of the views which are held
by this author is the Jewishness of Matthew's gospel. A comparison
of Matthew's and Luke's records of Joseph and Mary's engagement
reveals Matthew's familiarity with the Jewish betrothal custom.
Though Luke does mention the engagement (Luke 2:5), he gives none
of the details of Matthew's account (Matthew 1:18-25). The binding
nature of betrothal and the distinction between the period of
betrothal and the time when the husband would take his betrothed
to his father's home and consummate the marriage is evident in
Matthew's account.
"We have found, perhaps by chance, that Keil and Delitzsch
list among those sins which break the ninth commandment (regarding
false witness) the case of Deuteronomy 22:13-21 in which a man
who had betrothed a woman found out after their wedding that his
wife did not have the tokens of her virginity. The crime she had
committed is described as 'fornication' (in Hebrew, 'zenut' and
in the Septuagint, 'ekporneusai'). The intensified form of 'porneuo'
(to commit fornication) is used to describe shameful behavior
that occurred during the period of betrothal before the actual
consummation of the marriage. In this connection, it is Matthew,
not Mark, who records among the list of sins that defile the man
and reside in the heart, the sin of bearing false witness (Matthew
15:19 with Mark 7:21-22)."
This virtually proves that "fornication" ("porneia")
does not mean "adultery" ("moicheia") in the
exception clauses of Matthew 5 and Matthew 19. Especially is this
true if Jesus is explaining the Mosaic Law where all adulterers
were to be stoned to death.
There appear to be indications that Matthew (at least and especially
in chapters five and nineteen) is concerned with Jewish customs
and Old Testament Mosaic Laws that affect the lives of those who
are under the Law of Moses. Consequently, it is possible (probable?!)
that the divorce which Jesus permits in Matthew's exception clauses
is that divorce which occurred for either some specific kind of
betrothal unfaithfulness or for a discovered marriage within the
prohibited Levitical degrees. Only the Jewish listeners (the gospel
of Matthew's focus) would have been attuned to these matters.
