The Exceptive Clause

One of the basic principles Of Bible study is that the meaning of a writing should be understood against the background in it is presented — in context, we frequently say. It of course, true that statements are made in Scripture which are timeless, and so can be applied directly to our own experiences, and be as binding in our as in the day as in the days that they were made.

But there are other statement which cannot be directly so applied, as we all readily acknowledge when we agree that the Sabbath law as given to Moses for Israel does not have a direct bearing on our lives; consequently, our community does not observe the Sabbath in the way Israel should have done. In our studies, however, we are not always mindful of this principle of interpretation; and it seems to me that if we are to know exactly what God is saying to us, we cannot be too careful in our handling of Scripture.

One case in point is the way in which the gospel records often present slightly different accounts of some words or activity of Jesus. How are we to look at these variants? A popular view is to bring all the accounts together, to treat them as one story, and so harmonise them. It might be thought that by this method we whould be in a position to gain the most information and the most telling lesson; but to my mind the technique needs using with some caution.

Before beginning to harmonise in this way, we ought, I think, to ask why the accounts differ. It might be that they are not intended to be understood as one story. It be that each writer had a different point to make to his readers. True, the accounts accurately reflect godly principles; but one account might be more practically meaningful to our situation than others.

An example might help to illustrate the point. There is much discussion at the present concerning the well-known “exceptive” clause which appears in Matthew’s gospel, but not in Mark’s or Luke’s. It has been argued that it is a principle of interpretation that ought to accept, in our understanding of the intention Of Jesus, that in the comparison of two accounts of the same statement, the briefer one cannot override the longer one. In this case it follows that we in our day ought to take account of the exceptive clause in our treatment of marital-problems. It also follows (if this principle is accepted) that the statement of Jesus in Matthew is the definitive, full statement of Christian teaching on this matter. However, this Leaves us with the question as to the situation in which Mark’s and Luke’s readers found them-selves, having the words of Jesus with no ecceptive clause. If they disallowed remarriage, were they guilty of a lack of mercy?

This difficulty Leads me to think that accepting the longest account account as applicable to ourselves may not be the best thing; it would be wiser to look more closely at the different records to discover reasons for the presentation of this teaching in different ways to different groups of people. In this respect, it noteworthy that in the comparable records of the incident recorded in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, Matthew records Jesus’ (including the exceptive clause) to the Pharisees, whilst Mark records Jesus ‘ words (without the exceptive clause) spoken to his disciples afterwards, in the house. It looks as though the two writers have different objectives.