VIII. The Exception Clauses Are Dispensationally Limited In Light
Of The Exegesis Of Matthew 5
In the structure of Matthew's gospel, one finds his presentation
of Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah and King of Israel. He
quotes many Old Testament prophesies as being fulfilled by Jesus
Christ as part of the proof for Christ's Messiahship. The following
brief outline displays this divine design in the structure of
Matthew's writing: (1) The Preparation of the King (chapters 1-4),
(2) The Preaching of the King concerning the Kingdom of [from]
Heaven (chapters 5-7), (3) The Proof of the King (chapters 8-9),
(4) The Program of the King (chapters 10-18), (5) The Pronouncements
of the King (chapters 19-23), (6) The Predictions of [by] the
King (chapters 24-25), (7) The Passion of the King (chapters 26-27),
(8) The Power of the King (chapter 28).
In chapter four, Jesus begins to preach that the kingdom of Heaven
is at hand (Matthew 4:17,23). As has been shown previously, this
concept is a decidedly Jewish one. From the above mentioned outline,
the exception clause is seen to occur in a section describing
the preaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom of Heaven. Thus
it is not surprising to find that Jesus is explaining a specifically
Jewish concept regarding divorce. This is further proven by the
specific contextual clues in Matthew chapter five.
In Matthew 5 (as well as the entire Sermon on the Mount) one finds
a passage in which Jesus explains the laws of life in the Kingdom
of Heaven (Matthew 5:3,5,10,19,20). As the reader arrives at verse
17, Jesus makes a very clear statement about His ministry of truly
fulfilling the Law. Jesus also makes clear assertions regarding
God's universal, trans-dispensational standard of holiness and
righteousness (Matthew 5:20,48).
Seen in the light of this Jewish legal milieu, it is not surprising
to find a series of six antitheses in Matthew 5 which contrast
Jesus' teaching with that of the Law, or which contrast His teaching
with the misinterpretations of the Law by the Pharisees (cf. Matthew
5:20). In the first antithesis, for example, Jesus contrasts the
misunderstanding of the Law, with His correct interpretation (Matthew
5:21-22). Of course there are other New Testament Scriptures which
teach that the concepts outlined by Jesus in this antithesis are
indeed for us today. But Matthew 5:21-22 specifically refers to
Jesus' interpretation of the Mosaic Law and more specifically
to one of the ten commandments. Jesus essentially follows this
same procedure with each of these antitheses. Attention must be
paid, however, to the second antithesis which occurs in verses
27 and 28. Here, Jesus contrasts His understanding of the seventh
commandment with the rather superficial understanding that the
Scribes and Pharisees had of it. If lust is seen as a breach of
the seventh commandment, "adultery in the heart" (Matthew
5:27-30; cf. Exodus 20:17 with
Deuteronomy 5:21 and Exodus 20:14 with Deuteronomy 5:18), it is
not surprising to find divorce condemned in similar terms (Matthew
5:31-32). The divorce saying in Matthew 5:32 is one in which Jesus
draws a contrast between the interpretations of the "men
of old" (or what had been "said in ancient times")
and either His own teaching or His correction of the misinterpretations
of the "men of old." Matthew apparently wants us to
understand that Jesus' teaching on divorce is concerned with thoughts
and actions that violate the spirit of the seventh commandment.
This is structurally suggested by the link between Matthew 5:27-30
and Matthew 5:31-32 established by "de" (verse 28 with
verse 31, 32). This is lexically and linguistically suggested
by the occurrence of "moicheu-oo" ("to commit adultery")
and its cognates which are found in Matthew 5:27, 28, and 32.
There may be something unique about the formulation of the antithesis
here in Matthew 5:31 in distinction from the other five antitheses
in the Sermon on the Mount. This is suggested by the shortening
of the formula "Ye have heard that . . . " to "It
hath been said . . . " This is confirmed in the Greek expressions
also. The significance of this is that it seems to confirm that
Jesus is in fact giving the correct interpretation of the Mosaic
Law, rather than primarily giving some sort of permanent principle.
His correction in the verse involving the exception clause is
not necessarily presenting an antithesis between Moses' teaching
and Jesus' permanent, post-Law teaching. Rather, His correction
is giving a contrast between the Pharisees' misunderstanding of
the Mosaic teaching and Jesus' proper explanation of the Mosaic
teaching.
Verse 31 begins with the phrase, "It hath been said,".
The Greek word "de" is not translated since it is connected
syntactically with the "de" ("but") found
in verse 32. The conjunction "[h]oti" ("that")
is also left untranslated because it is used pleonastically in
citing another's words; it is also connected syntactically with
the "[h]oti" ("that") of verse 32. The verb
[verb phrase in English], "It hath been said," is an
aorist passive indicative which implies that either the Pharisees
said this or the Mosaic Law said this (or possibly both). One
question which needs to be answered is, "Who said this?",
or "Where was this quotation taken from?". The only
logical answer is that it is taken from Deuteronomy 24 (cf. Matthew
19:7). There are no other passages in the Old Testament which
specifically permit putting away and command a writing of divorcement.
Verse 31 continues with the phrase, "Whosoever shall put
away his wife,". This reflects the aorist active subjunctive
("apoloosee") used as a type of dramatic aorist - present
or future certitude expressed with the aorist tense. It is subjunctive
because of the controlling subjunctive idea in "[h]os an"
("whoever," "if anyone"). The next phrase,
"let him give [aorist, active, imperative] her," reflects
the necessity of and gives the Mosaic Law regulation for a Jewish
man in divorcing his wife. He is told by the Law in Deuteronomy
24:1-4 that he must give her a "writing [written bill, written
deed] of divorcement" ("apoloosian"). The rabbis
said this was possible "for any cause" (though the school
of Shammai said, "for the cause or ground of adultery")(see
verse 32 and Matthew 19:3).
The resultant meaning of the verse is that the Law of Moses said
that divorce was permissible (but for one and only one cause).
Divorce was strictly regulated in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 including
the necessity of giving the woman a written bill of divorcement.
However the rabbis said that there were either many acceptable
grounds for divorce, or perhaps only one acceptable ground for
divorce (adultery). Jesus points out in
verse 32 that both of these understandings of the Mosaic permission/concession
for divorce were wrong.
For the purposes of this study, an examination of the last part
of Matthew 5:32 (regarding remarriage) will not be made. Suffice
it to say that the last part of Matthew 5:32 clearly teaches that
anyone who marries a person who is divorced commits (at least
at that moment) the sin of adultery (cf. Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3).
In Matthew 5:32, Jesus proclaims a contrast between the liberal
understanding of the place where something "has been said"
concerning divorce and the Divine intent and interpretation of
the passage (in Deuteronomy 24). He begins by saying, "But
["de"] I [emphatic] say unto you,". Now He is about
to give the true interpretation of the Old Testament passage regarding
divorce. Jesus says that "whosoever shall put away his wife"
(see the explanation above regarding this phrase), "saving
for the cause of fornication," causes his wife to commit
adultery. This "exception" clause, "saving for
the cause of fornication," has been the cause of much misunderstanding
and misinterpretation (and misapplication!) of the Scriptures
in the matter of divorce. The phrase "saving for the cause
of fornication" (parektos logou porneias - except for the
[one] cause [ground - singular] of [which is] fornication) in
Matthew 5:32 may be or seems to be a bit clearer than the Matthew
19:9 phrase "except it be for fornication" (mee epi
porneia). Consequently, Matthew 5 may form a "backdrop"
against which to understand the exception clauses in both passages.
Additionally, Jesus' comments in Matthew 19:9 may give supplemental
information regarding the meaning of Matthew 5:32. Especially
is this so when one takes a believing position regarding the accuracy
of the King James Bible and the Greek readings which underlie
it. The Scriptures thus become their own best dictionary and commentary.
This assumes, of course, the verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation
of the word and words of God. Nevertheless, light is shed on the
meaning of the phrases by comparing Scripture with Scripture.
The word "parektos" ("saving for") is not
usually used as a preposition with the genitive. It occurs in
the New Testament once as an adverb (11 Corinthians 11:28) and
only two or three times as a preposition (with the genitive =
"except for," "saving for," "apart from").
Though there are [incorrect] variant readings in Matthew 19:9,
this author believes that the reading of the Greek Received Text
underlying and correctly translated by the King James Bible (ei
mee epi porneia) is the correct one.
"The only other place this (Matthew 5) construction occurs
in the New Testament is in Acts 26:29 where Paul, a prisoner,
prays that not only King Agrippa, but all who heard him that day
might be as he is (i.e., saved believers) 'except' for his bonds
(chains). Besides these texts, the word appears in only two other
places in the Greek literature of the period. Thus 'saving for'
(parektos) must be given an exclusive sense ('except for')."
To what, then, does this "exception" clause refer? From
the Scriptural use of the term "fornication" (and especially
under the Mosaic Law - see the context of Matthew 5), it is clear
that it does not refer to adultery. Not only are two different
English words involved, but two different Greek words are involved.
Furthermore, the Scriptures use the words distinctly in at least
the following passages: Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, I Corinthians
6:9, Galatians 5:19, Hebrews 13:4, Hosea 4:14, and Ezekiel 16:31-32.
The Pharisees careful usage of the term "fornication"
in John 8:41 (as well as, conversely, their usage of "adultery"
in John 8:1-10) also proves this. A careful and detailed study
of these
two terms, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament
(a study which has been done by the author but which is beyond
the scope of this thesis - see also Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry)
will show that "fornication" in Matthew 5:32 does not
refer to adultery.
Consequently, the exception clause must refer to some form of
fornication which was not punishable by death under the Law of
Moses (additionally, the exception clause is not applicable to
those who are in the post-Law era of the Church). What specific
form of fornication is referred to in this exception clause? Out
of the few forms of fornication which were not punishable by death,
there are really only two which could involve the matter of permission
for divorce. One is an unwitnessed (in the Jewish legal sense
- Deuteronomy 19:15) act of sexual unfaithfulness during the Jewish
betrothal period. Joseph and Mary are the Scriptural example of
this "exception." The other possible exception is the
discovered marriage between two close relatives within the prohibited
Levitical degrees (Leviticus 18:6-18). Not all of these cases
required the death penalty and so could qualify as possible "candidates"
for the meaning of "fornication." The exact meaning
of this term will be reserved for the discussion concerning Matthew
19. However, enough information has been given to show that on
a dispensational/hermeneutical basis and on a linguistic/Scriptural
usage basis, there is no warrant whatsoever for anyone to use
the exception clause of Matthew 5:32 as an excuse for seeking
or obtaining a divorce today.
After reviewing the current interpretations of the exception clauses
in Matthew 5 and their relationship to Deuteronomy 24, it is obvious
that none of them properly understands the intent of the legislation
as Christ explained it. The proof texts given for the divorce
and remarriage statements in the Westminster Confession [and by
John Murray and his followers] reflect the opinion of John Lightfoot,
author of A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and
Hebraica. It is known that Lightfoot took part in the Westminster
Assembly, and in his writings he states clearly that he believes
"fornication" (porneia) in the Matthean exception clauses
is a reference to the "some uncleanness," "some
indecency," "some improper nudity" of Deuteronomy
24:1. In this he is correct. However, he wrongly thinks that "fornication"
(porneia) is "adultery."
Matthew may well intend for his readers and Jesus' hearers to
note a reference to Deuteronomy 24:1 in Matthew 5:32. However,
it is nearly impossible to say that the "fornication"
(porneia) as a reference to "some uncleanness" must
mean or must include the meaning of "adultery."
From Matthew 5:27-32 several propositions about divorce can be
deduced: (1) To divorce one's spouse is to commit adultery (Matthew
5:27-32a with Matthew 19:4-6), and (2) To divorce one's spouse
for fornication (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4) is not tantamount to
committing adultery under the Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:32a with Matthew
19:9).
