"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen 2-23-24)

The Berean Christadelphians

Index

An Exception is not a Contradiction

It is argued by some of the divorce groups that to accept the Exceptive Clause as written in Matt. 19:9 is to have a contradiction in the Word of God, and there can be no contradiction in God's word.  

In his discourse, Jesus stated the Divine Law.

Matt. 19:4-6  "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

It is argued that Jesus could not have stated the Divine law in verses 4-6, and then "contradicted" it just a few verses later, in verse 9.

It is absolutely right that there can be no contradiction! But we must be careful not to infer and create contradiction when there is none, just to support a theory. I am tremendously saddened at attempts to see 'contradiction' both in Jesus' clear and consistent teaching, and also in the writings of our pioneer brethren on those teachings.

An exception is not a contradiction. It is axiomatic that "the exception proves the rule." An exception confirms and establishes a rule, showing the rule is not just indefinite and general, but universal outside the stated exception. Many rules are general and exceptions are understood to be possible, but if we say "This is the only exception", we confirm the rule's universality in every other case. This is surely an obvious and elementary fact of language and reason, and to try to stigmatize a clearly expressed exception as a contradiction is to make language and reasoning meaningless.

It is recorded in Mark 8:12 that Jesus said (to the Pharisees - note) "There shall no sign be given unto this generation" - PERIOD - no exception.

In Matt. 16:4, the same incident is recorded -- "There shall no sign be given unto it, BUT the sign of the prophet Jonas."

It is not essential that we prove this is the same incident. The illustration is just as clear otherwise, but actually this can be demonstrated to be the same incident beyond any reasonable doubt. Why did Mark omit the exception that Matthew recorded in the same incident?

Are we to throw out this beautiful exception - the sign of the prophet Jonas -- just because Mark does not mention it? Are we to demand that Mark have it in before we will believe? Are we to charge "Contradiction" as the world is so quick to do in any seeming discrepancy? Note again,

Matthew gives the exception; Mark recording the same incident does not. Is it conceivably possible that the supporters of the divorce groups have any difficulty with this contradiction?

Let us consider another similar "contradiction". Exo. 22:16-17 describes the same circumstances as Deut. 22:28-29: the violated unbetrothed virgin. Yet no one seems to find a "contradiction" in the fact that the Exodus account gives an exception not contained in Deuteronomy 22.

The Exodus account gives an exception not contained in Deuteronomy 22, and (curiously) this very exception is essential to certain arguments advanced by the divorce groups. Deut. says the man must marry her --PERIOD , no exception. Exodus says the man must marry her - BUT if the father refuse to give her, the offender must pay a fine. Now it is this last exception, only given in Exodus, that some divorce groups depend on to make the woman available to fit their various theories of Deut. 24:1-4 ie. that the "uncleanness" of Deut. 24:1-4 must be limited to pre-marital unchastity.

Twisting Words

Exception Clause Home Page

The School of Shammai and Hillel

Did Jesus Teach the Mosaic Law?

Berean Home Page