"except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Wrong! Jesus made it clear that divorce and remarriage was not allowable except in the case of immorality! Unless someone can empirically prove that Matthew is in error both in grammar and adding that clause! This is not a general principle but a specific instruction! It is very easy to discern generalities from specifics.
Paul gives a different exception. So how do you explain the lack of exception in Mark?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
(1) to be precise, the clause in Matthew 19:9 is "mey epi inappropriate contenteia", where the "epi" means "over" rather than "for".
(2) you bring forward a very interesting point about Matthew 5:32. If Jesus had intended an "except" also in Matthew 19:9, why not simply use "parektos" which explicitly means "except"?
(3) since then we do have an "except" in Matthew 5:32, how is this verse then to be understood.
"but I say to you, that whosoever divorces his wife except for inappropriate contenteia, causes her to commit adultery"
My personal belief is that "causes" in that sentence is a legal term, which means that God will hold that man responsible for the adultery of his wife except if he divorces her on the ground of inappropriate contenteia.

Again in the context of the verse, two bible passages are in play, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Deuteronomy 22:13-21, or to say it like that, such is my interpretation. When Jesus says, "you have heard" he is referring to a ruling in rabbinic teaching, and when Jesus says "but I say to you" he is pointing back to the correct interpretation of the Bible. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Jesus pretty much discredits the rabbinic understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but actually this verse retains some of the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:4, namely that "he has caused her to defile herself", so this "caused" seems to be found and validated in the new testament.

(4) thanks for your kind words. I also enjoy the discussion :)

Thanks for the reply. :)


To clarify, my version translates epi as "for," so I went with that wording.


The Greek phrase in Matthew 19:9 is ei me. It appears that "if not" and "except" are interchangeable, having the same meaning. Notice that ei me means "if not, except, but" and that "if not" and "except" are both listed as definition I. (They aren't considered two separate definitions, in other words.)

Therefore, it looks like ei me also means "except," making it a synonym of parektos. What do you think?


I'm not sure that Matthew 5:32 is stating the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Rather, it appears to be separate teaching similar to Matthew 19:9. After all, under Mosaic law, you wouldn't divorce your wife for fornication; you'd execute her (Deuteronomy 22:13-24), making a fornication exception for divorce unnecessary.


And thank you for your kind words. :)

I may be wrong, @PeterDona, but I think you missed my reply to your message. There are so many posts, that it wouldn't be surprising if one could be missed. My most recent post can be read here:

"except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit

Sincerely,
Kilk1
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I may be wrong, @PeterDona, but I think you missed my reply to your message. There are so many posts, that it wouldn't be surprising if one could be missed. My most recent post can be read here:

"except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit

Sincerely,
Kilk1
Hello Kilk1, yes many posts, and I do remember your post, but I thought that was a finished of a conversation.

The basis for this whole thread is whether there is an "if" or "ei" in the original text.
Here are 2 links
Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9
Did Erasmus von Rotterdam deliberately add εἰ to Matthew 19:9? - Logos Bible Software Forums
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VI. On Monogamy. Chap. IX.
So far as regards the non-
destruction of the will of God, and the restruction of the law of “the beginning.” But another reason, too, conspires; nay, not another, but (one) which imposed the law of “the beginning,” and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce: the fact that (he) who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a (woman) dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery. (Mat_5:32)

Theophilus to Autolycus. [a.d. 115-168-181.] Book III.Chap. XIII
And he that marrieth,” says [the Gospel], “her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” (Mat_5:32) Because Solomon says: “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent.” (Pro_6:27-29)

Cyprian [A.D. 170-236] Treatises on Questionable Authority.
Yet he adds, and says: “Because he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ the Church.” (
Eph_5:28, Eph_5:29) From this passage there is great authority for charity with chastity, if wives are to be loved by their husbands even as Christ loved the Church and wives ought so to love their husbands also as the Church loves Christ.
6. Christ gave this judgment when, being inquired of, He said that a wife must not be put away, save for the cause of adultery; such honour did He put upon chastity.

Origen [a.d. 185-230-254.] Commentary on the Gospel of MatthewBook XIV.
I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.” (Mat_5:32) For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;” (Rom_7:3) and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Eloy Craft
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
A reply to "Der Alte", posting a lot of copy-pastes without stating any intention with his post. I guess one just has to make a qualified guess as to what was his intention.

The quotes of Church Fathers are of course interesting, yet will you expect them to understand the intricacy of the jewish legal system, or will you maybe expect them to confuse the "except" in Matthew 5:32 with the "not" in Matthew 19:9. I am not surprised. The question raised in this thread is not what the Church Fathers wrote, although I can assure you that their teaching was absolute strict permanence, for a resource click: https://marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf

The question raised in this thread is what to make of the "not" in Matthew 19:9.
I have offered a simple explanation, one that is consistent with all Bible passages, with Jesus statements, with Church tradition, and very importantly with the greek manuscript evidence.
 
Upvote 0

solid_core

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
2,695
1,579
Vienna
✟50,919.00
Country
Austria
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
"I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries..."
Jer 3:8

God divorced Israel because of her adultery. So, it seems to be an accepted condition for a divorce, in God's eyes, no?

I know its not exactly about the verse in the OP, but I think its a good help to understand how Jesus or biblical Jews could see the issue. So that it may help us to understand ambiguous verses.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A reply to "Der Alte", posting a lot of copy-pastes without stating any intention with his post. I guess one just has to make a qualified guess as to what was his intention.
The quotes of Church Fathers are of course interesting, yet will you expect them to understand the intricacy of the jewish legal system, or will you maybe expect them to confuse the "except" in Matthew 5:32 with the "not" in Matthew 19:9. I am not surprised. The question raised in this thread is not what the Church Fathers wrote, although I can assure you that their teaching was absolute strict permanence, for a resource click: https://marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf
The question raised in this thread is what to make of the "not" in Matthew 19:9.
I have offered a simple explanation, one that is consistent with all Bible passages, with Jesus statements, with Church tradition, and very importantly with the greek manuscript evidence.
I have found that it is very helpful to actually read a post before replying. Did Matthew say one thing in vs. 5:32 and something different in 19:9?
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VI. On Monogamy. Chap. IX.
So far as regards the non-
destruction of the will of God, and the restruction of the law of “the beginning.” But another reason, too, conspires; nay, not another, but (one) which imposed the law of “the beginning,” and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce: the fact that (he) who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a (woman) dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery. (Mat_5:32)

Theophilus to Autolycus. [a.d. 115-168-181.] Book III.Chap. XIII
And he that marrieth,” says [the Gospel], “her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” (Mat_5:32) Because Solomon says: “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent.” (Pro_6:27-29)

Cyprian [A.D. 170-236] Treatises on Questionable Authority.
Yet he adds, and says: “Because he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ the Church.” (
Eph_5:28, Eph_5:29) From this passage there is great authority for charity with chastity, if wives are to be loved by their husbands even as Christ loved the Church and wives ought so to love their husbands also as the Church loves Christ.
6. Christ gave this judgment when, being inquired of, He said that a wife must not be put away, save for the cause of adultery; such honour did He put upon chastity.

Origen [a.d. 185-230-254.] Commentary on the Gospel of MatthewBook XIV.
I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.” (Mat_5:32) For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;” (Rom_7:3) and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Paul gives a different exception. So how do you explain the lack of exception in Mark?

Paul was instructed to go to the Gentiles and was taught what to establish for the gentiles!

But based on the whole counsel of the New Testament Christiansd can divorce and remarry without sin for these reasons:
1. Immorality of the offending spouse (Matt.)
2. Death of a spouse (Romans)
3. An unbelieving partner leaving a believer over the faith (Corinthians)

Any other reason for remarriage is adultery.

As to why Mark excluded the exception clause, I can only speculate. But the synoptics were written to differing mindsets and not all facts for all events were included in each of the synoptics., this, the resurrection account and the Olivet discourse are three examples where the synoptics talk about the same thing but each brings some different information of the event the others did not add to the account.

I just trust God He knew what He wads doing when He inspired each account to bring only part of teh whole.
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I have found that it is very helpful to actually read a post before replying. Did Matthew say one thing in vs. 5:32 and something different in 19:9?
I will answer it with my opinion, based on my studies, as to whether Matthew said one thing in 5:32 and another in 19:9. (in a later post I will try to respond to your Church Father quotes)
The two passages both regard the interpretation of the controversial passage Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Well at least that is my opinion. I find it remarkable that the whole sermon on the mount has been deleted from Mark, and that the Matthew 19 conversation has been reworded to show no "exception". But that can easily be understood when one considers that Matthew was written for a hebrew christian audience, and Mark was a redacted version suited for a gentile audience.
(how many Church Fathers do even mention this fact?)

On Matthew 5:31-32
This is found in a part of the sermon on the mount focused on correcting contemporary rabbinic teaching.
In Matthew 5:31 Jesus quotes a saying "whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement".
Jesus corrects this view, but how the correction is made, is probably not at first glance obvious.
"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.
First I want to point out, that the word "cause" is the greek word "logon", which we would understand to be relating to some scripture, i.e. Jesus says that except a scripture of fornication applies (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21), the husband will be held responsible ("causes") for any later adultery. The fact that he calls it "adultery" (greek "moicheia"), also denies the validity of the divorce paper, so that is one way in which he rejects the practice of the divorce paper. The original union is still valid - except if following a process related to Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
Now, where does Jesus get this principle of responsibility from? He actually gets it from Deuteronomy 24:4, where the ruling is, that the husband can not take the wife back because he has CAUSED her to defile herself.

OK this is probably not something you will find in your translation, but the point is that the grammatical tense of the verb ("she has been defiled"), the hithpael tense, according to a 16th century scholar Henry Ainsworth (a biography here, with links to his digitalized work, where you can look this up, in his "annotations on the pentateuch" Henry Ainsworth - Wikipedia)
“she is caused to be defiled”, or “is caused to defile herself”. The gr and chald translate “she is defiled”, but the hebr word Huttamaah is of such composition as implieth both the defiling of herself and the cause thereof by her husband who put away first.
So my final conclusion: the "except" in Matthew 5:32 IS an "except" ("parektos"), and it regards the law of sex before marriage and the obligation to kill the woman if she is not a virgin - see Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

On Matthew 19:7-9
First I should explain, that I read Matthew 19:3-12 as a structure of 3 question-and-answer substructures.
The question being raised in Matthew 19:7 "why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away".
I will have to say, that this question shows a severely distorted reading of the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage. Moses certainly did not command neither. The structure if Deuteronomy is an "if and if and if and if and if then ...".
But anyway, Jesus brings in another "I say unto you". This is where we will expect to get the correct interpretation of the questioned passage,
"and I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife not over fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"
Agian, for me it is simple to understand, that "not over fornication" refers to a divorce according to the rabbinic practice derived from their reading of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. That is, any practice of ending a marriage or betrothal not using Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

One more detail, while we are at it. In Matthew 19:10 the disciples ask Jesus "if the case of a man be so with his wife it is not good to marry". Actually the word for "case" is the greek "aitia" (Strongs 156), which means "cause" or even by implication "accusation". Can you answer me, why do the disciples suddenly begin talking about a "cause" / "aitia" ? I think this has reference to what I mentioned with respect to the Matthew 5:31-32 passage, namely that the man "causes" or "will be accused of" adultery.

So in *conclusion*, after all these considerations, do I consider the "except" in Matthew 5:32 and the "except" in Matthew 19:9 to be the same? No, in my interpretation they work not exactly in the same way.
And I have already posted earlier in this thread a link to some research into the difference of "not over" from "if not over". And I will repeat it here for the interest of clarity
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
Timothy Sparks has more relevant stuff on his page, but ok I will spare you for now - if you are still alive after a 2-page post (!)

(I will try to make one more post covering your quotes of Church Fathers)

regards. Peter
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello Kilk1, yes many posts, and I do remember your post, but I thought that was a finished of a conversation.

The basis for this whole thread is whether there is an "if" or "ei" in the original text.
Here are 2 links
Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9
Did Erasmus von Rotterdam deliberately add εἰ to Matthew 19:9? - Logos Bible Software Forums
Oh, I see now. I didn't understand that you were denying ei ("if") as being in the text. Reading over the links, I better understand the argument now. However, even if (no pun intended) ei wasn't in the original, does the meaning change? Does the statement, "Whoever divorces his wife not over inappropriate contenteia..." have much different of a meaning than, "Whoever divorces his wife if not over inappropriate contenteia..."? Notice what David Staveley says in the second link, saying the "not" is sufficient by itself to be translated "except":

Firstly, to answer your question why μή ["not"] has been translated "except" on this occasion, you need to understand how a Greek particle of negation works (μή is a particle of negation). Sometimes the clause it negates becomes an exception to the primary clauses, setting it over against it - as in this case. It's use here in Mt 19.9 is to mark out the only exception to absolute rule of no divorcing and re-marrying. Literally, it reads "not for sexual immorality", but idiomatically it reads "except for immorality". Another way of translating it would be "excluding [the case of] sexual immorality". Or, yet another would be "notwithstanding sexual immorality". So, it is perfectly in keeping with the meaning of μή to translate it as "except".

Secondly, εἰ μή does not actually change the meaning of verse at all. εἰ used in conjunction with μή simply reinforces it as a marker of negation: "if not for this"; "excepting this only"; "notwithstanding this only"; etc. As such, it is difficult to work out why some scribal copyists have inserted it in the handful of manuscripts that have it, since putting it in or leaving it out, the meaning of the exception remains exactly the same: the only exception to rule of "no divorce whatsoever" is the one exception - the case of sexual immorality. As such, we will just have to give this one over to the "we don't know" folder of history. Some stuff we know; Some we don't.

On the second page of the second link, Kennet had this to say:

D. Instone-Brewer writes in ”Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition” Page: 215

”The clause in Matthew 19:9 could indicate either an exception or an exclusion. If it is an exclusion, it means “Anyone who divorced his wife, even for immorality [which is not a permissible ground for divorce], and . . .” If it is an exception, it means “Anyone who divorced his wife, except for immorality [which is a permissible ground for divorce], and . . .” Virtually all translations assume that it means the latter, because Matthew 5:32 is unambiguous: parektos indicates an exception.”

With these things in mind, it appears that ei ("if") doesn't change the meaning much. According to David Staveley, ("not") sometimes can mean "except" since what Jesus says in Matthew 19:9 is said "not" to apply over inappropriate contenteia. While some say it could actually be translated "even for immorality," it can be translated "except for immorality." Which one should be chosen? According to D. Instone-Brewer, virtually all translates render the expression in light of Matthew 5:32 since it unambiguously has an exception.

Wouldn't this approach be letting Scripture interpret Scripture, making it the superior option? If not, what reason(s) would shift the weight in a different direction? Sorry I wasn't following the nuance regarding ei until now.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Oh, I see now. I didn't understand that you were denying ei ("if") as being in the text. Reading over the links, I better understand the argument now. However, even if (no pun intended) ei wasn't in the original, does the meaning change? Does the statement, "Whoever divorces his wife not over inappropriate contenteia..." have much different of a meaning than, "Whoever divorces his wife if not over inappropriate contenteia..."?

Hi again, Kilk1. Nice that you now see what my contention is. I remember vividly myself being unable to process why it would matter if there was an "ei" or not, first time I became acquainted with the research of Leslie McFall.
For my opinion on what the text means, I have tried to clarify that as well as my opinion on Matthew 5:32 right above your post "except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit


Notice what David Staveley says in the second link, saying the "not" is sufficient by itself to be translated "except":

Firstly, to answer your question why μή ["not"] has been translated "except" on this occasion, you need to understand how a Greek particle of negation works (μή is a particle of negation). Sometimes the clause it negates becomes an exception to the primary clauses, setting it over against it - as in this case. It's use here in Mt 19.9 is to mark out the only exception to absolute rule of no divorcing and re-marrying. Literally, it reads "not for sexual immorality", but idiomatically it reads "except for immorality". Another way of translating it would be "excluding [the case of] sexual immorality". Or, yet another would be "notwithstanding sexual immorality". So, it is perfectly in keeping with the meaning of μή to translate it as "except".

Secondly, εἰ μή does not actually change the meaning of verse at all. εἰ used in conjunction with μή simply reinforces it as a marker of negation: "if not for this"; "excepting this only"; "notwithstanding this only"; etc. As such, it is difficult to work out why some scribal copyists have inserted it in the handful of manuscripts that have it, since putting it in or leaving it out, the meaning of the exception remains exactly the same: the only exception to rule of "no divorce whatsoever" is the one exception - the case of sexual immorality. As such, we will just have to give this one over to the "we don't know" folder of history. Some stuff we know; Some we don't.
Now, I do not know David Staveley, but it seems that he has some training in greek. I will however say, that he does not substantiate his claim, that "idiomatically it reads except for immorality". I cannot say if such is acceptable on the forum that I linked to - my motivation was to link to some people who had diverging opinions on the issue.
The study on idioms is interesting, I guess that would be some more advanced greek level.
On the second page of the second link, Kennet had this to say:

D. Instone-Brewer writes in ”Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition” Page: 215

”The clause in Matthew 19:9 could indicate either an exception or an exclusion. If it is an exclusion, it means “Anyone who divorced his wife, even for immorality [which is not a permissible ground for divorce], and . . .” If it is an exception, it means “Anyone who divorced his wife, except for immorality [which is a permissible ground for divorce], and . . .” Virtually all translations assume that it means the latter, because Matthew 5:32 is unambiguous: parektos indicates an exception.”
David Instone-Brewer is a notorious person in the field of biblical teaching on marriage: https://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Church-Solutions-Realities/dp/0830833749
He certainly holds a liberal position
Yes, it seems that my view on the phrase as a legal term is in a 3rd category, neither an exception or totally an exclusion, but a categorical statement, dividing divorces into 2 categories, "over inappropriate contenteia" and "not over inappropriate contenteia", both categories based on Deuteronomy scriptures.
Instone Brewer connects 5:32 with 19:9. I do not agree with that connection, believing that "parektos" is substantially different from "(ei) me epi".

Wouldn't this approach be letting Scripture interpret Scripture, making it the superior option? If not, what reason(s) would shift the weight in a different direction? Sorry I wasn't following the nuance regarding ei until now.
Ehm, if you are sure that 2 scriptures focus on the same matter, then yes you can look at them both - but I am not convinced that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 consider the same matter to such an extent, that we can just superimpose the "parektos" with the "me epi".
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
I have found that it is very helpful to actually read a post before replying. Did Matthew say one thing in vs. 5:32 and something different in 19:9?
Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] VI. On Monogamy. Chap. IX.
So far as regards the non-
destruction of the will of God, and the restruction of the law of “the beginning.” But another reason, too, conspires; nay, not another, but (one) which imposed the law of “the beginning,” and moved the will of God to prohibit divorce: the fact that (he) who shall have dismissed his wife, except on the ground of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and (he) who shall have married a (woman) dismissed by her husband, of course commits adultery. (Mat_5:32)

Theophilus to Autolycus. [a.d. 115-168-181.] Book III.Chap. XIII
And he that marrieth,” says [the Gospel], “her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” (Mat_5:32) Because Solomon says: “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goeth in to a married woman shall not be innocent.” (Pro_6:27-29)

Cyprian [A.D. 170-236] Treatises on Questionable Authority.
Yet he adds, and says: “Because he who loves his wife, loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ the Church.” (
Eph_5:28, Eph_5:29) From this passage there is great authority for charity with chastity, if wives are to be loved by their husbands even as Christ loved the Church and wives ought so to love their husbands also as the Church loves Christ.
6. Christ gave this judgment when, being inquired of, He said that a wife must not be put away, save for the cause of adultery; such honour did He put upon chastity.

Origen [a.d. 185-230-254.] Commentary on the Gospel of MatthewBook XIV.
I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.” (Mat_5:32) For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;” (Rom_7:3) and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress.
OK friends, I promised a reply to these Church Father quotes. I want to say before I start, that I am no expert on Church Fathers, probably not even strong enough to spell their names right.

So I think that the contention from these quotes could be that, see, the Church Fathers certainly allowed divorce in case of adultery. And the tacit contention, that if divorce is allowed then certainly remarriage to a new partner is allowed.

Hold your horses :)

First, I believe the first paragraph of this quote by Hermas explains well what was the practice of the early Church: Commandment Fourth. On Putting One's Wife Away for Adultery.

So the quotes found by Der Alte do not refer to putting away and marry someone else. Also, I take note that they all quote from Matthew 5:32 rather than Matthew 19:9. So we wouldn't immediately know their view on the Matthew 19:9 passage.

And finally, if we should reconstruct the original wording of the gospel of Matthew from Church Fathers, we should be careful. Making an internet search for Erasmus' addition, I stumbled upon this history: Did Erasmus change Matthew 28:19? - Quora
Erasmus felt that maybe we should just baptize in Jesus' name, another controversy out there, and so maybe we could just "change back" the ending of Matthew to "the original".

OK if there be no more answers to this thread, I will consider it closed, and again thanks to all who participated. Some time in the future I will try to pull up a thread on 1 Cor 7:15, when I have read some material and feel better equipped.

GBY <3 <3
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I will answer it with my opinion, based on my studies, as to whether Matthew said one thing in 5:32 and another in 19:9. (in a later post I will try to respond to your Church Father quotes)
The two passages both regard the interpretation of the controversial passage Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Well at least that is my opinion. I find it remarkable that the whole sermon on the mount has been deleted from Mark, and that the Matthew 19 conversation has been reworded to show no "exception". But that can easily be understood when one considers that Matthew was written for a hebrew christian audience, and Mark was a redacted version suited for a gentile audience.
(how many Church Fathers do even mention this fact?)

On Matthew 5:31-32
This is found in a part of the sermon on the mount focused on correcting contemporary rabbinic teaching.
In Matthew 5:31 Jesus quotes a saying "whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement".
Jesus corrects this view, but how the correction is made, is probably not at first glance obvious.
"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.
First I want to point out, that the word "cause" is the greek word "logon", which we would understand to be relating to some scripture, i.e. Jesus says that except a scripture of fornication applies (see Deuteronomy 22:13-21), the husband will be held responsible ("causes") for any later adultery. The fact that he calls it "adultery" (greek "moicheia"), also denies the validity of the divorce paper, so that is one way in which he rejects the practice of the divorce paper. The original union is still valid - except if following a process related to Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
Now, where does Jesus get this principle of responsibility from? He actually gets it from Deuteronomy 24:4, where the ruling is, that the husband can not take the wife back because he has CAUSED her to defile herself.

OK this is probably not something you will find in your translation, but the point is that the grammatical tense of the verb ("she has been defiled"), the hithpael tense, according to a 16th century scholar Henry Ainsworth (a biography here, with links to his digitalized work, where you can look this up, in his "annotations on the pentateuch" Henry Ainsworth - Wikipedia)
“she is caused to be defiled”, or “is caused to defile herself”. The gr and chald translate “she is defiled”, but the hebr word Huttamaah is of such composition as implieth both the defiling of herself and the cause thereof by her husband who put away first.
So my final conclusion: the "except" in Matthew 5:32 IS an "except" ("parektos"), and it regards the law of sex before marriage and the obligation to kill the woman if she is not a virgin - see Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

On Matthew 19:7-9
First I should explain, that I read Matthew 19:3-12 as a structure of 3 question-and-answer substructures.
The question being raised in Matthew 19:7 "why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away".
I will have to say, that this question shows a severely distorted reading of the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage. Moses certainly did not command neither. The structure if Deuteronomy is an "if and if and if and if and if then ...".
But anyway, Jesus brings in another "I say unto you". This is where we will expect to get the correct interpretation of the questioned passage,
"and I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife not over fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"
Agian, for me it is simple to understand, that "not over fornication" refers to a divorce according to the rabbinic practice derived from their reading of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. That is, any practice of ending a marriage or betrothal not using Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

One more detail, while we are at it. In Matthew 19:10 the disciples ask Jesus "if the case of a man be so with his wife it is not good to marry". Actually the word for "case" is the greek "aitia" (Strongs 156), which means "cause" or even by implication "accusation". Can you answer me, why do the disciples suddenly begin talking about a "cause" / "aitia" ? I think this has reference to what I mentioned with respect to the Matthew 5:31-32 passage, namely that the man "causes" or "will be accused of" adultery.

So in *conclusion*, after all these considerations, do I consider the "except" in Matthew 5:32 and the "except" in Matthew 19:9 to be the same? No, in my interpretation they work not exactly in the same way.
And I have already posted earlier in this thread a link to some research into the difference of "not over" from "if not over". And I will repeat it here for the interest of clarity
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
Timothy Sparks has more relevant stuff on his page, but ok I will spare you for now - if you are still alive after a 2-page post (!)

(I will try to make one more post covering your quotes of Church Fathers)

regards. Peter

Hi again, Kilk1. Nice that you now see what my contention is. I remember vividly myself being unable to process why it would matter if there was an "ei" or not, first time I became acquainted with the research of Leslie McFall.
For my opinion on what the text means, I have tried to clarify that as well as my opinion on Matthew 5:32 right above your post "except" for fornication - a Matthew 19:9 revisit


Now, I do not know David Staveley, but it seems that he has some training in greek. I will however say, that he does not substantiate his claim, that "idiomatically it reads except for immorality". I cannot say if such is acceptable on the forum that I linked to - my motivation was to link to some people who had diverging opinions on the issue.
The study on idioms is interesting, I guess that would be some more advanced greek level.
David Instone-Brewer is a notorious person in the field of biblical teaching on marriage: https://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Church-Solutions-Realities/dp/0830833749
He certainly holds a liberal position
Yes, it seems that my view on the phrase as a legal term is in a 3rd category, neither an exception or totally an exclusion, but a categorical statement, dividing divorces into 2 categories, "over inappropriate contenteia" and "not over inappropriate contenteia", both categories based on Deuteronomy scriptures.
Instone Brewer connects 5:32 with 19:9. I do not agree with that connection, believing that "parektos" is substantially different from "(ei) me epi".


Ehm, if you are sure that 2 scriptures focus on the same matter, then yes you can look at them both - but I am not convinced that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 consider the same matter to such an extent, that we can just superimpose the "parektos" with the "me epi".

Thanks for all the info; I definitely will need to look into this in further detail. Before doing that, and looking over what you said more quickly, here are some questions that come to mind:

1. Are you saying that Matthew 19:9 is Jesus' correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, meaning the verse is simply saying what Deuteronomy already taught, or are you instead saying that Matthew 19:9 differs from the passage?
2. In defining "not over inappropriate contenteia" as "not using Deuteronomy 22:13-21," would you extend the passage to include verses 22-24 as well?
3. Are Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 both passages in which Jesus is reacting to the divorce certificate of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
4. (If the answer to 3. is "Yes"): Wouldn't this mean "that [the] 2 scriptures focus on the same matter"?

Again, thanks. While I'm still not sure about all this, I definitely don't want to teach an exception if there isn't really one, so I really appreciate reasoning through this with you! :)
 
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Hi again kilk1, yes it is good to take the time to get to the bottom of issues like this.
The major contention of my view is that the 2 passages in Matthew must be read together with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to be understood. Probably also a little bit of understanding of the rabbinic teaching of the day is useful. Here is a link to what is recorded about the matter in the jewish mishnah: Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 90
It is commonly believed that these pages in the jewish mishnah is enough information to undestand the rabbinic teaching that Jesus was addressing.
1. Are you saying that Matthew 19:9 is Jesus' correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, meaning the verse is simply saying what Deuteronomy already taught, or are you instead saying that Matthew 19:9 differs from the passage?
To be short, No and No. I believe that Jesus is in Matthew 19:7-9 addressing not the Scripture, but the rabbinic practice, which differed from the intention of the Scripture. When Jesus said "from the beginning it has not been so" he was not addressing the Scripture, but the practice of a divorce paper. From the beginning divorce has not existed.
Whatever interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, choose Shammai or Hillel or even Akiba, Jesus calls it all "not over fornication", and he disowns any divorce performed using any of these interpretations.

So you may well ask, what then is the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4? And the correct interpretation should be one that satisfies Jesus claim, that this command was only given for the hardness of heart. And he claims that "Moses gave you this command", meaning that this should be a command that was not found in the original sinaitic covenant but was a later addition by Moses, as we also see, as we find it first time in Deuteronomy, which is a speech by Moses 40 years after Sinai.

So I believe that the correct interpretation is, that the "matter of indecency" relates simply to the incest laws of Leviticus 18 + 20. And so since human nature is swift to find loopholes, surely already the jewish people were beginning to use these incest laws to divorce their wives since the relation was forbidden.

And so the statement of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 becomes, that if you use those incest laws to divorce your wife, then you will be bound by your decision, and can not at a later point take her back.
2. In defining "not over inappropriate contenteia" as "not using Deuteronomy 22:13-21," would you extend the passage to include verses 22-24 as well?
Interesting find. Yes, personally I would like that, but that enters into the discussion on precisely how much is covered by the word "inappropriate contenteia". The word itself means sex before marriage, but there is a debate out there as to whether adultery would also be included in that word.
One facebook poster wrote this a few days ago: "If you search for a 'logos inappropriate contenteia' in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, you will eventually find it in Deu. 22:13-21. If a man takes a wife, and he detests her, and he brings a 'logos' against her by saying she wasn't a virgin (v14), and the 'logos' is true (v20), then she 'ekinappropriate contenteuo' (gave herself over to 'inappropriate contenteia') in her father's house (v21)."

I have not yet tested his claim, I should probably do so.
3. Are Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 both passages in which Jesus is reacting to the divorce certificate of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
I would say yes.
In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus is pointing out that while the rabbis put their focus on how to get the divorce, God puts his focus on the legal consequence, namely that a man who divorces his wife will have a criminal accusation on him (from God).
In Matthew 19:9, we can call it the ruling of Jesus, he is focusing on explaining that any divorce based on the rabbinic practices is invalid. Any "not over fornication" divorce is invalid.
Jesus does not in that text answer how to deal with events of fornication or adultery.
4. (If the answer to 3. is "Yes"): Wouldn't this mean "that [the] 2 scriptures focus on the same matter"?
With a broad stroke you can say that both texts concern the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 versus the rabbinic interpretations.
Again, thanks. While I'm still not sure about all this, I definitely don't want to teach an exception if there isn't really one, so I really appreciate reasoning through this with you! :)
Thanks and you are welcome to come back. I am working on a debate on 1 cor 7:15, which you will probably also enjoy :)
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Okay, I'm back! Let's look at your last post. :)

Hi again kilk1, yes it is good to take the time to get to the bottom of issues like this.
The major contention of my view is that the 2 passages in Matthew must be read together with Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to be understood. Probably also a little bit of understanding of the rabbinic teaching of the day is useful. Here is a link to what is recorded about the matter in the jewish mishnah: Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 90
It is commonly believed that these pages in the jewish mishnah is enough information to undestand the rabbinic teaching that Jesus was addressing.
I agree that the Jewish teachings of the time can help shed light on the controversies of both Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9.

To be short, No and No. I believe that Jesus is in Matthew 19:7-9 addressing not the Scripture, but the rabbinic practice, which differed from the intention of the Scripture. When Jesus said "from the beginning it has not been so" he was not addressing the Scripture, but the practice of a divorce paper. From the beginning divorce has not existed.
Whatever interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, choose Shammai or Hillel or even Akiba, Jesus calls it all "not over fornication", and he disowns any divorce performed using any of these interpretations.

So you may well ask, what then is the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4? And the correct interpretation should be one that satisfies Jesus claim, that this command was only given for the hardness of heart. And he claims that "Moses gave you this command", meaning that this should be a command that was not found in the original sinaitic covenant but was a later addition by Moses, as we also see, as we find it first time in Deuteronomy, which is a speech by Moses 40 years after Sinai.

So I believe that the correct interpretation is, that the "matter of indecency" relates simply to the incest laws of Leviticus 18 + 20. And so since human nature is swift to find loopholes, surely already the jewish people were beginning to use these incest laws to divorce their wives since the relation was forbidden.

And so the statement of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 becomes, that if you use those incest laws to divorce your wife, then you will be bound by your decision, and can not at a later point take her back.
I'm not sure myself what specifically was addressed in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but I agree that it was "not over inappropriate contenteia." :) In the case of inappropriate contenteia, the wives would be executed, not divorced, per Deuteronomy 22:13-24, which I'll get to below.

Interesting find. Yes, personally I would like that, but that enters into the discussion on precisely how much is covered by the word "inappropriate contenteia". The word itself means sex before marriage, but there is a debate out there as to whether adultery would also be included in that word.
One facebook poster wrote this a few days ago: "If you search for a 'logos inappropriate contenteia' in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, you will eventually find it in Deu. 22:13-21. If a man takes a wife, and he detests her, and he brings a 'logos' against her by saying she wasn't a virgin (v14), and the 'logos' is true (v20), then she 'ekinappropriate contenteuo' (gave herself over to 'inappropriate contenteia') in her father's house (v21)."

I have not yet tested his claim, I should probably do so.
So here's a question I have: In all the scenarios covered by Deuteronomy 22:13-24, the wife would be executed, not divorced. This suggests that Deuteronomy 22 is not what Jesus is referencing, either in Matthew 5:32 or Matthew 19:9, as there was no such thing as "divorce based on Deuteronomy 22:13-24." If so, wouldn't this suggest that Jesus' teaching differs from the Old Testament, being separate teaching?

I would say yes.
In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus is pointing out that while the rabbis put their focus on how to get the divorce, God puts his focus on the legal consequence, namely that a man who divorces his wife will have a criminal accusation on him (from God).
In Matthew 19:9, we can call it the ruling of Jesus, he is focusing on explaining that any divorce based on the rabbinic practices is invalid. Any "not over fornication" divorce is invalid.
Jesus does not in that text answer how to deal with events of fornication or adultery.
Just to clarify, do we agree that Deuteronomy 22 involves inappropriate contenteia and that those guilty of such, whether married or betrothed, would be executed?

With a broad stroke you can say that both texts concern the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 versus the rabbinic interpretations.
Earlier, you said, "Ehm, if you are sure that 2 scriptures focus on the same matter, then yes you can look at them both - but I am not convinced that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 consider the same matter to such an extent, that we can just superimpose the 'parektos' with the 'me epi.'"

However, it does appear that they're strongly connected and in some sense "focus on the same matter," right? Therefore, the almost identical wording may be more than coincidental. To make up an example, if I say, "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful," wouldn't this mean the same thing as, "Anyone who rebukes except over sin is hateful"? In both cases, wouldn't the understanding be that rebuking over sin is not hateful (making rebukes that are "over sin" an exception to the general statement given)?

Put another way, is it possible to say, "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful" while simultaneously leaving open the possibility that rebuking "over sin" could be sinful? I can't see how such could be the case, right?

Thanks and you are welcome to come back. I am working on a debate on 1 cor 7:15, which you will probably also enjoy :)
Thanks for letting me know and thanks for continuing to answer my questions! :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Hello Kilk1, hope you are doing well.
I have a tendency to shut down my internet, therefore it took a few days.

I'm not sure myself what specifically was addressed in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but I agree that it was "not over inappropriate contenteia." :) In the case of inappropriate contenteia, the wives would be executed, not divorced, per Deuteronomy 22:13-24, which I'll get to below.
Yes, I believe that is a key point in my understanding
So here's a question I have: In all the scenarios covered by Deuteronomy 22:13-24, the wife would be executed, not divorced. This suggests that Deuteronomy 22 is not what Jesus is referencing, either in Matthew 5:32 or Matthew 19:9, as there was no such thing as "divorce based on Deuteronomy 22:13-24." If so, wouldn't this suggest that Jesus' teaching differs from the Old Testament, being separate teaching?
hmm, I would not want to think that Jesus introduced new teaching in the gospel of Matthew. That is my working hypothesis, that Jesus simply was laying out the law as what God was saying.
Which is also a key reason for me to be satisfied with identifying
"over inappropriate contenteia" -> Deuteronomy 22:13-21
"not over inappropriate contenteia" -> Deuteronomy 24:1-4
It represents a challenge to go backwards in time and reconstruct the legal understanding of Christ, and I believe it can be important to watch how the gospel of Mark deals with the same topic. So that is one source of reference for finding a satisfactory interpretation of the passages of the gospel of Matthew.
We do know, that the apostles spent a lot of time with Jesus, so they should have had the time to inquire also into this matter, which would then be reflected in subsequent apostolic writings.
Therefore a solution to what is the meaning of those 2 passages in Matthew should be essentially in agreement with later writings - that is my expectation of a good interpretation.
Just to clarify, do we agree that Deuteronomy 22 involves inappropriate contenteia and that those guilty of such, whether married or betrothed, would be executed?
yes
Earlier, you said, "Ehm, if you are sure that 2 scriptures focus on the same matter, then yes you can look at them both - but I am not convinced that Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 consider the same matter to such an extent, that we can just superimpose the 'parektos' with the 'me epi.'"

However, it does appear that they're strongly connected and in some sense "focus on the same matter," right? Therefore, the almost identical wording may be more than coincidental. To make up an example, if I say, "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful," wouldn't this mean the same thing as, "Anyone who rebukes except over sin is hateful"? In both cases, wouldn't the understanding be that rebuking over sin is not hateful (making rebukes that are "over sin" an exception to the general statement given)?

Put another way, is it possible to say, "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful" while simultaneously leaving open the possibility that rebuking "over sin" could be sinful? I can't see how such could be the case, right?
First of all I must state the difference I see in the 2 passages
In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus is talking about rabbinic practice of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
"you have heard" references a focus in 24:1-2, i.e. the rabbis were reading into the passage a favorable permission for divorce if you just remembered to produce a writ of divorce. (and here is where I think that translations like ESV get the passage better than the KJV)
Jesus simply turned the focus to verse 24:4 "she is defiled" (she is caused to defile herself) and said that this was his focus. And then, yes, we have the "parektos inappropriate contenteia" shot in.
But basically Matthew 5:31-32 is a correction of people putting the emphasis of a passage at the wrong point.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus is stating his ruling after a more full discussion of the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage, and his ruling is that "whosoever uses Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to divorce his wife and marries another is committing adultery". This implies many things. (which I will leave to you to work out)

There is always a risk of putting the emphasis at the wrong point, and I think that examples of this abound, especially regarding the teaching on marriage. People seem to target those "exception" passages, to make the most of them.

When I took a law course, I learned that there is the main rule, and then the exceptions. I would say that most people do not even worry about the main rule, they are only interested to find exceptions. Such an attitude will produce problems.

And finally, you bring up this sentence "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful,", and whether it would be equal to "Anyone who rebukes except over sin is hateful".
Again, you are sharp and to the point. If there is not a legal category called "not over sin", then the 2 statements would be identical, I think. It has been my contention in this thread, that the "not over fornication" reflects a legal category. So it is not just Jesus sharing his personal opinion, or Jesus declaring how it will be from now on. It is spoken in the context of a debate over how to perform the priestly duty of administering the divorce court, and in such a context it would not be surprising to find some law lingo.
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello Kilk1, hope you are doing well.
I have a tendency to shut down my internet, therefore it took a few days.


Yes, I believe that is a key point in my understanding

hmm, I would not want to think that Jesus introduced new teaching in the gospel of Matthew. That is my working hypothesis, that Jesus simply was laying out the law as what God was saying.
Which is also a key reason for me to be satisfied with identifying
"over inappropriate contenteia" -> Deuteronomy 22:13-21
"not over inappropriate contenteia" -> Deuteronomy 24:1-4
It represents a challenge to go backwards in time and reconstruct the legal understanding of Christ, and I believe it can be important to watch how the gospel of Mark deals with the same topic. So that is one source of reference for finding a satisfactory interpretation of the passages of the gospel of Matthew.
We do know, that the apostles spent a lot of time with Jesus, so they should have had the time to inquire also into this matter, which would then be reflected in subsequent apostolic writings.
Therefore a solution to what is the meaning of those 2 passages in Matthew should be essentially in agreement with later writings - that is my expectation of a good interpretation.

yes

First of all I must state the difference I see in the 2 passages
In Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus is talking about rabbinic practice of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
"you have heard" references a focus in 24:1-2, i.e. the rabbis were reading into the passage a favorable permission for divorce if you just remembered to produce a writ of divorce. (and here is where I think that translations like ESV get the passage better than the KJV)
Jesus simply turned the focus to verse 24:4 "she is defiled" (she is caused to defile herself) and said that this was his focus. And then, yes, we have the "parektos inappropriate contenteia" shot in.
But basically Matthew 5:31-32 is a correction of people putting the emphasis of a passage at the wrong point.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus is stating his ruling after a more full discussion of the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage, and his ruling is that "whosoever uses Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to divorce his wife and marries another is committing adultery". This implies many things. (which I will leave to you to work out)

There is always a risk of putting the emphasis at the wrong point, and I think that examples of this abound, especially regarding the teaching on marriage. People seem to target those "exception" passages, to make the most of them.

When I took a law course, I learned that there is the main rule, and then the exceptions. I would say that most people do not even worry about the main rule, they are only interested to find exceptions. Such an attitude will produce problems.

And finally, you bring up this sentence "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful,", and whether it would be equal to "Anyone who rebukes except over sin is hateful".
Again, you are sharp and to the point. If there is not a legal category called "not over sin", then the 2 statements would be identical, I think. It has been my contention in this thread, that the "not over fornication" reflects a legal category. So it is not just Jesus sharing his personal opinion, or Jesus declaring how it will be from now on. It is spoken in the context of a debate over how to perform the priestly duty of administering the divorce court, and in such a context it would not be surprising to find some law lingo.
Thanks for the response! I'm also a fan of law, so I find it interesting that you brought up the concept of main rules and exceptions. And as you've done, I've also said recently in discussing Matthew 5:32 that we often focus on the exception while Jesus' emphasis is on the rule: that divorce is wrong. It appears the primary gap between what I've believed and what you're saying is whether a) Jesus is interpreting, promoting what the Old Testament already taught in the first place, or b) Jesus is demoting the Old Testament position in favor of separate teaching. The former (your position, as I'm understanding it) would better fit your understanding of Matthew 19:9's "not over inappropriate contenteia" as being a legal term, whereas the latter (my current understanding) would "divorce" (no pun intended) such a meaning from the clause. So if the latter is true, there would be just as much reason to understand "not over inappropriate contenteia" to be an exception, as it would be to understand "not over sin" to be an exception in my made-up sentence. Do we agree up to this point?

Assuming we agree, I'll explain now why I currently hold the latter position. If my train of thought contains any gaps or problems, thanks in advance for letting me know! So again, I believe both Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 differ from the Old Testament, rather than reaffirm what it already taught. The reason I believe Matthew 5:32 differs is due to our agreement that parektos creates an exception for divorce in cases of inappropriate contenteia. As said before, nowhere in the Old Testament--neither in Deuteronomy 22 nor Deuteronomy 24--is inappropriate contenteia considered an exception for divorce. The passage that deals with inappropriate contenteia, Deuteronomy 22, instead teaches that you were to execute your wife in such circumstances by stoning.

I also believe Matthew 19:9 differs from the Old Testament, as the verses before verse 9 bear out. In Matthew 19:7-8, the Pharisees cite the divorce certificate of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as proof favoring divorce. Jesus disagrees with their conclusions, but what He does not say here is anything to the effect of, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." (He actually says this about the Sadducees' anti-resurrection argument in 22:29, NKJV.) Instead, Jesus agrees with them that Moses (i.e., the law of Moses, the Old Testament) permitted divorce. However, He said such is irrelevant because it was written due to hard hearts and because such wasn't the case from the beginning. The bottom line: Instead of denying that Moses permitted divorce as they claimed, Jesus instead speaks against Moses' permission!

For these reasons, I believe that Jesus' teaching on divorce differs from Moses' Old Testament teaching. Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17), though, so I would love to hear your thoughts! :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Assuming we agree, I'll explain now why I currently hold the latter position. If my train of thought contains any gaps or problems, thanks in advance for letting me know! So again, I believe both Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 differ from the Old Testament, rather than reaffirm what it already taught. The reason I believe Matthew 5:32 differs is due to our agreement that parektos creates an exception for divorce in cases of inappropriate contenteia. As said before, nowhere in the Old Testament--neither in Deuteronomy 22 nor Deuteronomy 24--is inappropriate contenteia considered an exception for divorce. The passage that deals with inappropriate contenteia, Deuteronomy 22, instead teaches that you were to execute your wife in such circumstances by stoning.

I also believe Matthew 19:9 differs from the Old Testament, as the verses before verse 9 bear out. In Matthew 19:7-8, the Pharisees cite the divorce certificate of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as proof favoring divorce. Jesus disagrees with their conclusions, but what He does not say here is anything to the effect of, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." (He actually says this about the Sadducees' anti-resurrection argument in 22:29, NKJV.) Instead, Jesus agrees with them that Moses (i.e., the law of Moses, the Old Testament) permitted divorce. However, He said such is irrelevant because it was written due to hard hearts and because such wasn't the case from the beginning. The bottom line: Instead of denying that Moses permitted divorce as they claimed, Jesus instead speaks against Moses' permission!

For these reasons, I believe that Jesus' teaching on divorce differs from Moses' Old Testament teaching. Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17), though, so I would love to hear your thoughts! :)
Hello again Kilk1,
yes, this is a point that one must have an attitude towards. It does rub me the wrong way to think that Jesus introduced new teaching, especially when we are dealing with the gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus make some high claims about keeping the law and being righteous. I would not expect in such a gospel to see Jesus be lax at the law or to introduce new teaching.
Here is a reference on the matter, which seems acceptable to me: Jesus - Scribes and Pharisees
I believe that I made a detailed description of my understanding in post #114, so I will here only make a few added comments to your thoughts

(1) with respect to Matthew 5:32
you state that you do not think that Jesus would refer to Deuteronomy 22:13-21 in this context. Does this imply that you understand the "matter of indecency" to refer to fornication? I do not, but I can refer to a video that claims precisely that:
This man refers to the "betrothal solution", a position that I do not (no longer) hold.
Personally, since Jesus is simply in his "main rule" in 5:32 dealing with the culpability of a man divorcing his wife, it would not be odd to me that his culpability would be deleted if there were the cause of fornication (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). I do not see the verse discussing the option of remarriage at all, but yet some seek out this verse for that purpose, and this is what I consider majoring on the exception rather than the main rule.

(2) On you view of Matthew 19:7-9
This simply rubs me the wrong way, even though I must admit that it would not be far-fetched to think along such lines. I will just shortly line up a few thoughts that I have had regarding this question
This is actually going to be about Greek grammar in both cases, how to understand the tenses of verbs. While yes I know Jesus did speak aramean rather than Greek, then however Matthew did speak Greek, and he had been with Jesus and understood his position.
- when Jesus is saying "from the beginning it was not so" he (say, Jesus, or Matthew rendering Jesus) is using a past continuous tense, which would be understood as "from the beginning and still ongoingly it is not so".
- when Jesus is saying "Moses ... suffered" I believe that this refers to suffering other people's sins, not condoning them or permitting them. In this context I think that the ESV renders the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage better than the KJV. There is a grammar glitch in the KJV, which makes it look like the law now institutes divorce, but it is more like it suffers the writing of a divorce paper than positively reaffirms it.
- when Jesus then in 19:9 brings his ruling, he is using the aorist tense in the 2 first verbs and the present continuous in the last verb. I have found out, that the aorist tense is "a simple occurrence which is best translated as a past perfect tense". So I could think that the translation then should be something like
"and I say to you, that whosoever has divorced his wife and has married another is committing adultery ongoingly, and whosoever has married her which has been put away from her husband is committing adultery ongoingly".

Wow! that is a blunt statement, and I even read here Jesus disqualifying all divorces that have been done under the "permission" of Moses! What a slammer! Wow!

I remember a year ago sharing this latter insight with a friend who is studying theology, and he immediately shouted "NO!". This was much too far for him.
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
607
193
Washington State
✟103,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hello again Kilk1,
yes, this is a point that one must have an attitude towards. It does rub me the wrong way to think that Jesus introduced new teaching, especially when we are dealing with the gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus make some high claims about keeping the law and being righteous. I would not expect in such a gospel to see Jesus be lax at the law or to introduce new teaching.
Here is a reference on the matter, which seems acceptable to me: Jesus - Scribes and Pharisees
I believe that I made a detailed description of my understanding in post #114, so I will here only make a few added comments to your thoughts

I see how it could rub you the wrong way to think Jesus teaching could go against what the Law already taught, especially in the book of Matthew. Therefore, I agree we should be careful before adopting interpretations of a passage that would differ from the law of Moses.

That being said, this doesn't make an extra-Law interpretation of what Jesus taught insurmountable. After all, Jesus's blood would eventually bring in the new covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25), so it is not impossible for His teaching to ever be outside the old covenant. Furthermore, He spoke with authority, unlike the scribes (Matthew 7:28-29). This seems to suggest He didn't have to mimic the Old Testament in what He taught but could speak for Himself about the new covenant without sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15). As a potential example, assuming the Majority Text and Received Text are correct to include John 8:1-11, Jesus's teaching regarding the woman taken in adultery would go against Deuteronomy 22, but due to His authority, this didn't mean He sinned.

Therefore, Jesus' teaching could certainly override Deuteronomy 22 and Deuteronomy 24 if the text demands such. As for whether it does, let's consider Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 again.

(1) with respect to Matthew 5:32
you state that you do not think that Jesus would refer to Deuteronomy 22:13-21 in this context. Does this imply that you understand the "matter of indecency" to refer to fornication? I do not, but I can refer to a video that claims precisely that:
This man refers to the "betrothal solution", a position that I do not (no longer) hold.
I do not hold to the position that the "matter of indecency" is fornication, but the video you embedded did cause me to wonder such. Could it be that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 permits divorce for fornication committed during the pre-consummate, betrothal stage of marriage? If so, Matthew 5:32 could be construed to be consistent with the law of Moses. I've been thinking about this interpretation, but I don't think the video is correct, and it sounds like you agree with me. The problem I have with the video is that Deuteronomy 22 is the passage that deals with fornication--including those committed during betrothal (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)--and in each case, the woman was to be executed by stoning, not divorced.

Therefore, I think we agree that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not about fornication, while Deuteronomy 22 is. However, I do find interesting the video's rebuttal that, instead of being obligated to comply with Deuteronomy 22, the husband instead had a choice to either do so or resort to Deuteronomy 24. This interpretation would allow the "matter of indecency" to be fornication, but I'm not sure a "Deuteronomy 22-is-optional" interpretation is correct. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Personally, since Jesus is simply in his "main rule" in 5:32 dealing with the culpability of a man divorcing his wife, it would not be odd to me that his culpability would be deleted if there were the cause of fornication (Deuteronomy 22:13-21). I do not see the verse discussing the option of remarriage at all, but yet some seek out this verse for that purpose, and this is what I consider majoring on the exception rather than the main rule.
Majoring on the exception is a problem, and using Matthew 5:32 to allow remarriage might make one guilty of such. That being said, if Matthew 19:9's use of "not" means "except," then there would be justification, but we'll get to that later.

Here's the argument that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:32 differs from the Old Testament: Assuming Deuteronomy 22 wasn't optional in Old Testament times, the woman guilty of fornication had to die; therefore, "divorce for fornication" would be redundant in Old Testament law. The woman guilty of such would be dead, not divorced, as a result. The only way that Matthew 5:32's exception makes sense is 1) if Deuteronomy 24 can refer to fornication and can optionally be followed instead of Deuteronomy 22, or 2) Jesus' teaching allows divorce over a scenario in which the Old Law required execution by stoning--proving a difference in teaching.

(2) On you view of Matthew 19:7-9
This simply rubs me the wrong way, even though I must admit that it would not be far-fetched to think along such lines. I will just shortly line up a few thoughts that I have had regarding this question
This is actually going to be about Greek grammar in both cases, how to understand the tenses of verbs. While yes I know Jesus did speak aramean rather than Greek, then however Matthew did speak Greek, and he had been with Jesus and understood his position.
- when Jesus is saying "from the beginning it was not so" he (say, Jesus, or Matthew rendering Jesus) is using a past continuous tense, which would be understood as "from the beginning and still ongoingly it is not so".
I'm afraid I don't know about this. Even if this is the meaning, it must have been "so" during the law of Moses, at least in some sense, because divorce was "permitted." More on this below.

- when Jesus is saying "Moses ... suffered" I believe that this refers to suffering other people's sins, not condoning them or permitting them. In this context I think that the ESV renders the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage better than the KJV. There is a grammar glitch in the KJV, which makes it look like the law now institutes divorce, but it is more like it suffers the writing of a divorce paper than positively reaffirms it.
- when Jesus then in 19:9 brings his ruling, he is using the aorist tense in the 2 first verbs and the present continuous in the last verb. I have found out, that the aorist tense is "a simple occurrence which is best translated as a past perfect tense". So I could think that the translation then should be something like
"and I say to you, that whosoever has divorced his wife and has married another is committing adultery ongoingly, and whosoever has married her which has been put away from her husband is committing adultery ongoingly".

Wow! that is a blunt statement, and I even read here Jesus disqualifying all divorces that have been done under the "permission" of Moses! What a slammer! Wow!

I remember a year ago sharing this latter insight with a friend who is studying theology, and he immediately shouted "NO!". This was much too far for him.
I have generally heard that the Greek of Matthew 19:9 means that if you've divorced your wife and married another, then you're continuously committing adultery until you leave the adulterous relationship, so I don't have a problem with your rendering. The only question is whether "not over inappropriate contenteia" is 1) a legal term that means, "based on Deuteronomy 24" or 2) an exception allowing a man to divorce his wife and remarry over inappropriate contenteia.

In addition to Matthew 5:32 differing from the law of Moses (assuming that the video you posted is wrong), Matthew 19:9 also differs from the Old Testament law of Moses. This is so because in verse 8, Jesus explicitly contrasts His teaching with Moses' permission. You said that "when Jesus is saying 'Moses ... suffered' I believe that this refers to suffering other people's sins, not condoning them or permitting them." I agree that Moses didn't condone them; he only did what he did due to the hardness of the people's hearts. I therefore don't have any problem with the ESV's translation of Deuteronomy 24 and likely prefer it. However, it is true that Moses "permitted" (NKJV) or "allowed" (ESV) them to divorce. "Suffered" is just an older word for "permitted," explaining its appearance in the KJV and ASV. To prove the word refers to allowing or giving permission, here's the definition of the Greek word in question, epitrepó:

Strong's Greek: 2010. ἐπιτρέπω (epitrepó) -- to turn to, entrust, hence to permit

Also notice the Englishman's Concordance, also accessible via the link, and how every time the word's used in the Bible, it refers to permitting or allowing. Therefore, Jesus says that Deuteronomy 24 gave "permission" that Jesus does not like. He says that Moses' permission wasn't the case "from the beginning" (verse 8) and that what He (Jesus) says is that whoever divorces His wife not for inappropriate contenteia and marries another commits adultery (verse 9).

Isn't it clear then that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:9 differs from Moses' instruction, instruction that's spoken out against in Matthew 19:8? If so, then Jesus' usage of "not over inappropriate contenteia" isn't a Mosaic legal category but rather is an exception, just like how "not over sin" means "except over sin" in the sentence, "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful." Does this make sense? I wrote a lot, so feel free to take your time replying. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeterDona

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 13, 2010
742
181
Denmark
✟348,585.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
A time for long posts, but on the other hand we are probably the only 2 in this thread at the moment so not a big problem
That being said, this doesn't make an extra-Law interpretation of what Jesus taught insurmountable. After all, Jesus's blood would eventually bring in the new covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25), so it is not impossible for His teaching to ever be outside the old covenant. Furthermore, He spoke with authority, unlike the scribes (Matthew 7:28-29). This seems to suggest He didn't have to mimic the Old Testament in what He taught but could speak for Himself about the new covenant without sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15).

Jesus was / is the new Moses. Therefore he should perform a new exodus, and he could make a new law if he desired. As regards the sermon on the mount, it seems however in Matthew that he spoke with authority on their law, rather than break down their law.



assuming the Majority Text and Received Text are correct to include John 8:1-11, Jesus's teaching regarding the woman taken in adultery would go against Deuteronomy 22, but due to His authority, this didn't mean He sinned.

As regarding John 8:1-11, interpretations are that Jesus could lawfully dismiss the case since (1) the male offender was not there, thereby the demand of the law that they should both be killed could not be fulfilled (2) according to practice, those who were guilty of a crime could not convict others, this is why Jesus said, he who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Not just any sin, but this sin. And concerning his finger writing in the sand, do you remember what the finger wrote on the wall? "mene mene tekel ufarsin", which means "you have been weighed and found too light".



Therefore, Jesus' teaching could certainly override Deuteronomy 22 and Deuteronomy 24 if the text demands such. As for whether it does, let's consider Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 again.

hmm careful now :) Any other place in Matthew that you observe Jesus overriding the law? I mean, not the tradition, but the law itself? So why go to these 2 verses with that intent?



I Could it be that Deuteronomy 24:1-4 permits divorce for fornication committed during the pre-consummate, betrothal stage of marriage? If so, Matthew 5:32 could be construed to be consistent with the law of Moses. I've been thinking about this interpretation, but I don't think the video is correct, and it sounds like you agree with me. The problem I have with the video is that Deuteronomy 22 is the passage that deals with fornication--including those committed during betrothal (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)--and in each case, the woman was to be executed by stoning, not divorced.

My attitude to that video is like yours. I do not see zanah as possibly being that "erwat dabar". I think he is making a (pedagogical) stretch.

I should add to this, that in both hebrew and greek there are specific words for fornication and for adultery, so one would not be in doubt as to what was addressed

greek 4202 inappropriate contenteia and 3431/3429 moicheia

hebrew 2181 zanah and 5003/5004 na'aph





Here's the argument that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:32 differs from the Old Testament: Assuming Deuteronomy 22 wasn't optional in Old Testament times, the woman guilty of fornication had to die; therefore, "divorce for fornication" would be redundant in Old Testament law. The woman guilty of such would be dead, not divorced, as a result. The only way that Matthew 5:32's exception makes sense is 1) if Deuteronomy 24 can refer to fornication and can optionally be followed instead of Deuteronomy 22, or 2) Jesus' teaching allows divorce over a scenario in which the Old Law required execution by stoning--proving a difference in teaching.

This may be considered a good argument, but again, I think the argument is "exception-centered", and loses sight of the main rule. I have stated in my interpretation, that Jesus seems to disown the divorce allowance (Deuteronomy 24:1), while upholding the legal culpability (Deuteronomy 24:4). The only instance where a culpability would be relaxed, was if Deuteronomy 22:21 could be invoked. In my understanding, a reference to Deuteronomy 22:13-21 would not be obsolete, but would however state, that this is the very only exception possible regarding the culpability. Whether or not the wife would subsequently be stoned does to me not impact the release of culpability.



But as regarding the latter, it is of course interesting that Joseph "was minded to put her away privily", as if seemingly there was a way to avoid that death penalty.



Strong's Greek: 2010. ἐπιτρέπω (epitrepó) -- to turn to, entrust, hence to permit



Also notice the Englishman's Concordance, also accessible via the link, and how every time the word's used in the Bible, it refers to permitting or allowing. Therefore, Jesus says that Deuteronomy 24 gave "permission" that Jesus does not like. He says that Moses' permission wasn't the case "from the beginning" (verse 8)



Greek 2010 epetrepsen epitrepo

to turn over (transmit) i.e. allow



OK, point taken. Well done :)

I will need to build a little argument here.



So Moses allowed them to divorce (by force of what is written in Deuteronomy 24:1), but it does not say that Moses instituted a divorce paper, or that God from now on approved of the divorce paper.



There is a verse that Paul speaks in a totally different context, that for me gives some view about what Paul thought

Acts 17:30 “and the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent”

Also another funny expression from Paul I found in

Acts 13:18 “and about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness”

the word for suffering their manners is in greek one word 5159 tropoforeo. And it means just that, tolerating another person’s quirks.



So just to make the argument, that “suffer” is not a far-fetched idea, comparing to “allow” or even “prescribe”. I do think the idea holds that when Jesus speaks about “it” not having been so since the beginning, the “it” refers to God favorably instituting divorce. Remember the question “why did Moses command?”, and the answer being that Moses did not ( ←) command, but he permitted, and from / since the beginning it has not ( ←) been so.



and that what He (Jesus) says is that whoever divorces His wife not for inappropriate contenteia and marries another commits adultery (verse 9).



Isn't it clear then that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:9 differs from Moses' instruction, instruction that's spoken out against in Matthew 19:8? If so, then Jesus' usage of "not over inappropriate contenteia" isn't a Mosaic legal category but rather is an exception, just like how "not over sin" means "except over sin" in the sentence, "Anyone who rebukes not over sin is hateful." Does this make sense? I wrote a lot, so feel free to take your time replying.

It isn't very clear to me that Jesus should differ from Moses, but again I see how one can with a little mingling arrive at it. To sum up how we arrive at 2 different positions:

(1) the understanding whether or not Jesus could overrule the mosaic law in the gospel of Matthew

(2) whether Jesus actually overrules D24 in Matthew 5:31-32

(3) the question of what "was not so" in Matthew 19:8

(4) the question whether "not for/over inappropriate contenteia" reflects a legal categorization or a genuine exception

(5) whether Matthew 19:9 is to be understood reflexively (pointing back) or declaratively (pointing forward)

These are the differences which I can think of just out the top of my head. More may apply. I think we are here testing the strength of the "exception" position, do we agree?

And I will also give you the privilege of time to think through my answers. Feel free to focus on the most relevant parts. I for my part feel a little bit obliged to respond to almost your entire post, in order to honor your desire to work through the matter.

I guess at present we are not debating, but more like exploring the different options.
 
Upvote 0