Another Angle on the Exceptive Clause of Matthew 19:9

A reader has a question about the “exceptive clause” in Matthew 19:9 and its' relation to Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18, where the remark (“except it be for fornication”) is absent. He wants to know about the difference between Matthew's audience and Mark's audience – since Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience and Mark to a Gentile one, should we see the “exception” only as pertaining to the Jews and not being a thing for the Gentiles?

Lots to unpack here . . .

First, we need to examine the intent of Matthew's scope. It seems obvious to me, for several reasons, that Matthew is writing for “the church” and not for a Jewish commonwealth. Matthew's writing is later than A.D. 60. This means at least two things: one, it was intended as part of a New Testament “canon” and, two, it was not intended for the Old Testament “canon,” which had been “closed off” nearly 400 years prior. The dating of Matthew insists that he is writing for “the church.”

Second, the idea that there is some distinction between Jewish requirements and Gentile requirements in the gospel is pure myth. Paul goes to pains to insist that both are amenable to the same gospel, same system of faith and same salvation (cf. Rom. 10:12,13; 1 Cor. 12:13). Perhaps, most striking is the fact that Paul insists that he preached the same gospel that he had once destroyed (cf. Gal. 1:23). Hmm . . . Maybe, there is not some distinction between a Jewish gospel and a Gentile gospel. There is “one” faith (Eph. 4:4-6). To create distinctions for Jew-Gentiles is problematic. (There's more that needs to be said about the Jew-Gentile, male-female, slave-master scenarios; obviously, I believe that there are “roles” that are filled by some that are not by others, but that's a long discussion and not for us, here.)

Third – and probably most forceful – is the fact that Paul writes to Gentiles in “1 Corinthians” (see 12:2) and insists that the teachings of Jesus, the Lord, are what he follows and what he provides to his Gentile converts at Corinth. See, when Paul addresses married Gentiles, he reminds them that he's appealing to an earlier word of the Lord that was provided in His (Jesus') personal ministry (7:10); he says, “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband.” This evokes the exact kind of thing that Jesus had said in Matthew 5:28-32 and Matthew 19:3-12. But, the next verse (7:11) says that if the Gentile husband-wife do get a civil, legal divorce (“she does leave”) then – because there is no fornication – Paul insists (like Jesus in Matthew 19:9) that there is no cause for an actual “disjoining” of the marriage; he says, “she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to the original husband” (7:11). In other words, Paul is in perfect agreement with the teachings of Jesus (and he says that explicitly [7:10]) – now, why would we say that Paul is applying Jesus' words (to Jews?) on everything except for the exceptive clause? Isn't this quite arbitrary and unproven? In fact, given Paul's exact agreement with Jesus' teachings, we'd probably be on much safer ground to realize that the teachings on “marriage” are the same for Jews and Gentiles.

Finally, this raises one more problem . . . When Paul writes, he's not thinking of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as four distinct texts, because they've not written yet. All of the four gospel writers record words of Jesus and write them AFTER Paul writes to Corinth. So, when Paul evokes the words of Jesus, he certainly doesn't have a text in mind. Instead, he's echoing an oral word of Jesus. Now, which words might those have been? And, obviously, Paul knows nothing about Jesus' teachings only being for Jews! Instead, Paul treats Jesus' words as equally fitting for Gentiles. Now, why would we exclude only the “exceptive clause” and make everything else of Jesus' oral sayings (as Paul does) as applicable to Gentiles?

See, this also sends us down the path of raising the question, then, as to where the “exceptive clause” originated. Did Jesus utter the “exceptive clause” or is it an addition from Matthew's pen? Why is this important? Well, if Jesus did utter the “exceptive clause,” the way that Paul treats Jesus' words makes us realize that he knows no distinction of their applicability for Jew as over against Gentile. If the words are authentic, from Jesus, then the “exceptive clause” is as fitting for Gentile as for Jew. (An arbitrary distinction of which words of Jesus are for Gentiles and Jews is out of place, as per Paul.) But, if the words are a Matthean addition and Jesus never uttered them – well, then I suppose the “exceptive clause” could be intentionally directed at Jews only, but this would cast severe doubt on Matthew's Gospel itself. If Matthew slipped the clause in, then it'd be a complete fabrication . . . and what kind of trust would we have in his whole gospel, then? Additionally, there's no evidence that Matthew's “exceptive clause” is a fabrication or later insertion from a redactor, a later hand. The remark is authentic to Matthew.

So, here's what I'm thinking . . .

While Matthew's Gospel may have a Jewish audience and Paul's letters may have a Gentile audience, Jesus and the apostles don't see a distinction between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to the gospel message. In fact, Paul insists that Gentiles are not second-rate covenant people (Eph. 2; Rom. 11); they are full citizens in the covenant people of God. If that's true, then the covenant legislation is not based on ethnicity but on covenant membership. The distinction isn't there; to suggest that there is a distinction on ethnicity is pure myth. I think that the “exceptive clause” is an authentic saying of Jesus and another saying in His teachings on “marriage” (as part of a broader teaching on “all things kingdom”) that, per Paul, is to be read to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Of One the Lord has made the race, through one has come the fall, where sin has gone must go His grace, this “Gospel” is for all . . .