Hermeneutical Hypocrisy?

I have been pondering some things lately and in the process I came to a realization but want to get some feedback before I make any final conclusions on this thought. So for all you theologically and philosophically minded people out there, I could use your help.

The topic I am studying is the biblical teaching on divorce, and I was reading an article today from the theological journal Didaskalia, and it provoked some thoughts. If you are curious and have access, the article is titled “Divorce and Remarriage in Church History” and it is by David Smith (Sp 2000, p 59-75).

Here is the thought: in Matthew’s gospel is the primary teaching of Jesus on divorce, and there is the infamous clause that has created significant controversy. Either way, it seems Jesus gives the ok for a particular form of divorce related to some form of sexual immorality (see Matthew 5:31-32). The Greek word there is porneia, which is debatable as to what form of sexual immorality Christ is referring to, but most believe it to be adultery. This does not mean he is condoning divorce, only that he is allowing it in this particular case.

But let us consider this in its context. Just before our divorce text, Jesus gives a teaching on lust and adultery. The teaching there is that even lusting after a woman is committing adultery. He is getting at the heart of the law and going beyond the simple letter of the law. Even before that we have the passage on hating a brother is the equivalent of murder, again the heart of the law versus the letter of the law. Put all this together:

If looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and sexual immorality which is typically accepted as being adultery in Matthew 5:32 is grounds for divorce, is it possible to say Jesus was implicating lust as being legitimate grounds for divorce? I titled this blog “Hermeneutical Hypocrisy” because it seems we are forcing a limiter on Christ’s teaching on divorce, ignoring the context. We are forcing our desired understanding into the text?

Again, this is where I am asking for help out there, to see if there is a flaw in the logic. Any help would be greatly appreciated.