Why did Matthew mention "except for sexual immorality" for divorce but Mark and Luke didn't?

[tonychanyt]

Mark 10:

1 And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan,

that's the location

and crowds gathered to him again. And again, as was his custom, he taught them.
2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,a 8and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.

target listeners: disciples in the house

11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Here inside the house, Jesus didn't mention the exception: sexual immorality.

Matthew 19:

1Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.

same location as Mark 10:1

2 And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, Again, Pharisees were around. “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Jesus mentioned the exception in the hearing of the Pharisees.

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus often spoke to the disciples privately afterward.

11But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

It seems that Jesus mentioned the exception clause publicly to the Pharisees (Matthew 19:9) and didn't repeat it privately to his disciples afterward (Mark 10:11).

Now, it seems that Luke 16 took place in a different setting/occasion:

14The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him. 15And he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
16“The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it.e 17But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
18“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

On this occasion, Jesus did not mention the exception.

The three sayings happened at three different times.

 

[hedrick]

Most commentators think Jesus didn’t actually give the exception. But I would say that Matthew was correct that it was understood. Presumably he didn’t think his readers would all realize that.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Heres one in Matt

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Man joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Paul also says here,

1 Cr 6:15-18 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

1 Cr 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Then the cause of fornication comes up here also

1 Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

So the one is joined unto his wife and is one flesh, but he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit, and here is a similar situation with
them and the LORD here in respects to "the cause" and harlotry

Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

So Jesus speaks of the cause of fornication, and below it the causes whereby they commited adultery (and given a bill of divorce) for their harlotry, Paul adresses joining oneself to a harlot and becoming one body with the same.

Which again

Mat 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Seems to be a similar thing between them in respects to fornication

1 Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

 

[tonychanyt]

Most commentators think Jesus didn’t actually give the exception.

reference?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

The Greek work for "fornication" was "inappropriate contenteia". I've heard it said that this could include any kind of behavior that would be a violation of the terms of any marital covenant. In other words, "inappropriate contenteia" would not necessarily be limited to fornication as we would understand the term. I'm not necessarily endorsing this view per se, but it does make some sense...

If "fornication" (ie" sexual immorality) committed prior to the marriage consummation would be grounds for terminating the marital agreement, then how could the very same offense NOT be a valid ground for divorce if committed after the marriage is consummated? If "inappropriate contenteia" is read in broad terms, you don't have that problem.

At 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul the Apostle also mentioned the case of abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, with an apparent presumption that a believing spouse would not be so vile as to just walk away from a family and faithful spouse (1 Timothy 5:8). I've heard a lot of people claim that abandonment is not a valid ground for divorce or any subsequent remarriage, but it's hard to read verse 15 and come to any other conclusion without using some linguistical trickery fit for a George Orwell novel. If "inappropriate contenteia" is read in broad terms, you don't have to worry about reconciling Paul's words to Jesus.

Then you have the issue of other serious offenses that do not involve sexual immorality. Are we supposed to believe domestic violence, drug use, gambling away the next three mortgage payments, refusing sexual intercourse, and attempted murder are not valid grounds for divorce? If there is someone who has the misfortune of being married to some lowlife who practices these things - would God punish them for divorcing? I would find such an insinuation blasphemous and slanderous to God. It would imply that God cares more about symbols and institutions than He does about people. Of course I will have none of it.

 

[tonychanyt]

The Greek work for "fornication" was "inappropriate contenteia". I've heard it said that this could include any kind of behavior that would be a violation of the terms of any marital covenant. In other words, "inappropriate contenteia" would not necessarily be limited to fornication as we would understand the term.

reference?

 

[ZephBonkerer]

reference?

It was a YouTube video - I would have to find it...

 

[ZephBonkerer]

It was a YouTube video - I would have to find it...

I found the YouTube video:

At 3:24 of the video, the preacher defined the grounds "except for..." as "licentiousness, which is a disregarding of accepted rules and standards - unrestrained, especially toward sexual sins, but not exclusive to sexual sins". It goes on "when applied to marriage, it means a refusal to conform to covenant standards".

Now this makes perfect sense. I have long found it highly illogical that Jesus would allow for divorce ONLY for sexual misconduct, but not drug use, domestic violence, gross irresponsibility, refusing marital intimacy, attempted murder, etc. I held this position prior to my own marital woes which forced me to consider the issue in a way I didn't have to before.

I've heard a lot of preachers say things like "separate, but don't divorce" when dealing with the other sins. But mere separation is oftentimes not an adequate remedy in these cases.

 

[Aaron112]

Most commentators think Jesus didn’t actually give the exception. But I would say that Matthew was correct that it was understood. Presumably he didn’t think his readers would all realize that.

I think that that presumption would not be in line with Scripture, and specifically with the Creator's Directing all Scripture Himself, not by man's desires, whims, thoughts or ideas.
Each writer inspired by the All-Knowing Creator wrote as directed by the Creator, not subject to human/man's/ interpretations , but
rather directly from God.

 

[Aaron112]

I've heard a lot of preachers say things like "separate, but don't divorce" when dealing with the other sins. But mere separation is oftentimes not an adequate remedy in these cases.

In all and any cases, breaking God's Word and teaching others to do so, or even just going along with such,
might be worse, if not just as wrong and bad and subject to God's Judgement,
than breaking what God has put together.
God hates divorce.
Man came up with many devices /traditions/ put over and opposed to God's Word.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

In all and any cases, breaking God's Word and teaching others to do so, or even just going along with such,
might be worse, if not just as wrong and bad and subject to God's Judgement,
than breaking what God has put together.
God hates divorce.
Man came up with many devices /traditions/ put over and opposed to God's Word.

Actually, God doesn't hate divorce. He hates cruelty, treachery, and other things that could make divorce the only viable course of action.

Is a battered wife "breaking God's word" by divorcing the worthless bum she has the misfortune of being married to? Is a neglected husband "breaking God's word" by freeing himself from his drug-addicted wife after giving her multiple opportunities to clean up her act? I believe it is those who make an idol out of marriage who are violating God's standards, not those who seek a divorce for serious and compelling reasons. This is especially true in cases where "separate, but don't divorce" is not a viable remedy and where seeking reconciliation is impossible or inappropriate.

Edit: while I don't mean to be pedantic on this point, not all translations of Malachi 2:16 read the same way.

 

[Aaron112]

Yahweh, the Creator, hates divorce.
Mankind dismisses that.

 

[ZephBonkerer]

Yahweh, the Creator, hates divorce.
Mankind dismisses that.

Says who? Not Malachi, that's for sure. Refer to Malachi 2:16 in the NIV and ESV. The KJV says the Lord hates "putting away", not divorce. I ask that you refrain from repeating the tired mantra that "God Hates Divorce". It's simply not true. God doesn't hate divorce. He hates cruelty, treachery, abuse, etc.

I'm not trying to be pedantic. Really, I'm not. And don't get me wrong: I don't offer any defense for someone who cats aside a faithful spouse for some selfish or frivolous reason. But I've seen one too many cases where someone is pressured into staying married to some worthless bum by their church assembly even under the most compelling circumstances. That is idolatry, and it discredits the Faith and slanders God in the process.