Matthew 19:9

Jesus introduced His position on this subject with words that stressed His authority: "I say to you" (cf. Matthew 5:18; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:28; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44; Matthew 8:10; Matthew 16:18; Matthew 16:28). His was the true view because it came from Him who came to fulfill the law. Matthew recorded only Jesus’ words concerning a man who divorces his wife, probably because in Judaism wives could not divorce their husbands. However, Mark recorded Jesus saying that the same thing holds true for a woman who divorces her husband (Mark 10:12). Mark wrote originally for a Roman audience. Wives could divorce their husbands under Roman law. Matthew’s original readers lived under Jewish law that did not permit wives to divorce their husbands.

There are four problems in this verse that account for its difficulty. First, what does the exception clause include? The best textual evidence points to the short clause that appears in both the NASB and the NIV translations, "except for immorality" or "except for marital unfaithfulness." [Note: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 47-48.]

Second, what is the meaning of porneia ("immorality" NASB, "marital unfaithfulness" NIV, "fornication" AV) in the exception clause? Some interpreters believe it refers to incest. [Note: E.g., J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence," Theological Studies 37 (1976):208-11.] Paul used this word to describe prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 6:16. Others believe porneia refers to premarital sex. If a man discovered that his fiancé was not a virgin when he married her, he could divorce her. [Note: E.g., Mark Geldard, "Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce," Churchman 92 (1978):134-43.] Even though the Jews considered a man and a woman to be husband and wife during their engagement period, they were not really married. Consequently to consider this grounds for a divorce seems to require a redefinition of marriage that most interpreters resist. Still others define porneia as adultery. [Note: E.g., T. V. Fleming, "Christ and Divorce," Theological Studies 24 (1963):109; and Toussaint, Behold the . . ., p. 225.] However the normal Greek word for adultery is moicheia, which Matthew used back to back with porneia previously (Matthew 15:19). Therefore they must not mean the same thing. It seems unlikely that porneia refers to spiritual adultery in view of 1 Corinthians 7:12.

The best solution seems to be that porneia is a broad term that covers many different sexual sins that lie outside God’s will. This conclusion rests on the meaning of the word. [Note: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "porne . . .," by F. Hauck and S. Schulz, 6:579-95. See also Joseph Jensen, "Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina," Novum Testamentum 20 (1978):161-84.] These sexual sins, fornication, would include homosexuality, bestiality, premarital sex, incest, adultery, and perhaps others. Essentially it refers to any sexual intercourse that God forbids (i.e., with any creature other than one’s spouse).

A third problem in this verse is why did Matthew alone of all the Synoptic evangelists include this exception clause, here and in Matthew 5:32, when the others excluded it? To answer this question we must also answer the fourth question, namely, what does this clause mean?

Some scholars believe that Matthew simply added the clause himself to make what Jesus really said stronger. They assume that what Mark wrote represents what Jesus really said. This view reflects a low view of Scripture since it makes Matthew distort Jesus’ words.

Another answer is that the exception clause does not express an exception. This view requires interpreting the Greek preposition epi ("except") as "in addition to" or "apart from." However when me ("not") introduces epi it always introduces an exception elsewhere in the Greek New Testament.

Another similar answer is that the exception is an exception to the whole proposition, not just to the verb "divorces." [Note: Bruce Vawter, "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 9" class="scriptRef">19, 9," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (1959):155-67; idem, "Divorce and the New Testament," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):528-48.] In this case the porneia is not involved. We might translate the clause as follows to give the sense: "Whoever divorces his wife, quite apart from the matter of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." Thus in this view, as in the one above, there is no real exception. The main problem with this view, as with the one above, is its unusual handling of the Greek text. One has to read in things that are not there.

A fourth view is that when Jesus used the Greek verb apolyo ("divorces") He really meant "separates from" and so permitted separation but not divorce. [Note: G. J. Wenham, "May Divorced Christians Remarry?" Churchman 95 (1981):150-61. See Tim Crater, "Bill Gothard’s View of the Exception Clause," Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-12.] Therefore there can be no remarriage since a divorce has not taken place. However in Matthew 19:3 apolyo clearly means "divorce" so to give it a different meaning in Matthew 19:9 seems arbitrary without some compelling reason to do so.

Other interpreters believe Jesus meant that in some cases divorce is not adulterous rather than that in some cases divorce is not morally wrong. [Note: John J. Kilgallen, "To What Are the Matthean Exception-Texts [5, 32 and 19, 9] an Exception?" Biblica 61 (1980):102-5.] In the case of porneia the husband does not make her adulterous; she is already adulterous. However the text does not say he makes her adulterous or an adulteress; it says he makes her commit adultery. If the woman had committed porneia, divorce and remarriage would not make her adulterous. However divorce and remarriage would make her commit adultery. The major flaw in this view is that in Matthew 19:9 it is the man who commits adultery, not his wife.

Probably it is best to interpret porneia and the exception clause as they appear normally in our English texts. Jesus meant that whoever divorces his wife, except for some gross sexual sin, and then remarries someone else commits adultery (cf. Matthew 5:32).

"On any understanding of what Jesus says . . ., he agrees with neither Shammai nor Hillel; for even though the school of Shammai was stricter than Hillel, it permitted remarriage when the divorce was not in accordance with its own Halakah (rules of conduct) (M[ishnah] Eduyoth Matthew 4:7-10); and if Jesus restricts grounds for divorce to sexual indecency . . ., then he differs fundamentally from Shammai. Jesus cuts his own swath in these verses . . ." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 411.]

Divorce and remarriage always involve evil (Malachi 2:16). However just as Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of man’s heart, so did Jesus. Yet whereas Moses was indefinite about the indecency that constituted grounds for a divorce, Jesus specified the indecency as gross sexual sin, fornication. [Note: See Craig L. Blomberg, "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12," Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):161-96.]

Why then did Mark and Luke omit the exception clause? Probably they did so simply because it expresses an exception to the rule, and they wanted to stress the main point of Jesus’ words without dealing with the exceptional situation. Since Matthew wrote for Jews primarily, he probably felt, under the Spirit’s inspiration, that he needed to include the exception clause for the following reason. The subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews in view of Old Testament and rabbinic teaching on this subject. Mark and Luke wrote primarily for Gentiles, so they simply omitted the exception clause.