The Disappearing Exclusion

I am working through a Biblical understanding of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9. These two verses have been misunderstood by many within the church (and more than a few outside of it) and have undermined the institution of marriage. If you are new to the series, please first check out the introduction as well as the first contextual argument. Also check out why I believe our discipleship must be different for the one considering divorce than it is for the one already divorced.

Context Argument B1—Missing Phrase

Not only do we gain insight from the context of Matthew 5, but we can also gain understanding as we consider parallel passages in other gospels. Consider Luke 16:18

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

and Mark 10:11-12

And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

It is interesting, and should not be lightly dismissed, that a major phrase is “missing” from these passages that we see in the passages in Matthew. Neither Mark nor Luke insert the phrase “except for the reason of unchastity” or “except for immorality.”

Some have tried to reconcile this “omission” by claiming that Mark and Luke did not see it necessary to enclose the entire phrase. Many claim that Mark and Luke intentionally left this phrase out of their gospels. There are a few obvious problems with this perspective.

Maybe a scribe took it out.

In the science of textual criticism (not “higher criticism,” but the art and science of comparing variant copies of the ancient texts to determine which is probably the true original) you work from shortest and simplest out. In other words, if this were an issue of textual criticism (which I believe it is not) a person would have to conclude that Mark and Luke provide the original quote, whereas Matthew (or a scribe later) added to the text. From a textual critical perspective, the argument that there is no exception is only strengthened.

Excuse me boys, but this is a biggie.

Some argue that Mark and Luke just didn’t think it was necessary to include the phrase. But consider what happens when you exclude the phrase. Suddenly, Jesus offers an escape from an unfaithful spouse, and Mark and Luke take that escape away by not including it. If one believes that Jesus was offering permission for divorce in the passage (as some misunderstand), Mark and Luke take it away from their audience by it’s omission. This could not be considered just a casual act.

You have to see it between the lines.

Some argue that you must read Mark and Luke within the context of Matthew as well and realized they assumed we would realize this provision. They claim, that allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture (which is what we are called to do, but this isn’t a case of actually doing that), we get the fuller meaning from Matthew. A couple of problems with this view.

Few actually consider Matthew to be the first gospel that was written. Therefore, it is not probable that Mark and Luke were expecting the reader to cross reference their words with Matthew.

Each was written to a different audience. (This is a critical point we will return to later.) For now, simply consider Luke, who is writing to Theophilus. Are we to suppose that this man had a better knowledge of marriage and divorce than the Jews to whom Matthew wrote? This does not seem a proper assumption.

You can’t exegete what isn’t there.

Some people have made some pretty silly arguments to provide for reading this exception into Luke and Mark. However, a faithful exegesis of each passage must cause a person to see silence as to whether adultery abolishes marriage vows. No faithful reader of Mark or Luke can read their texts and believe that Jesus sees an exception for marriage vows.

Did Mark and Luke choose to leave this “exception” out? If so, why would they choose to make Jesus’ words more binding than originally? Did they accidentally omit the phrase? If so, what does that do to our understanding of the Holy Spirit’s divine working to inspire the texts.

No, we must examine these texts and find ourselves driven back to the Matthew passages. For a proper handling of the text requires us to see that Matthew must have been the one to take the deliberate action to insert the phrase.

But does that mean Matthew changed the words of Jesus? We’ll examine this tomorrow.