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

[PeterDona]

Thanks 2 all for your comments.
I should tell that I am in the marriage permanence camp, and this may be due to my own heart issues. I was married to a woman whose husband had recently left her, and at the time I felt helpless to resist. Can such a thing happen? Yes, given the right conditions. Weak people are weak people. Not that it should be an excuse, Scripture tells us to be strong, not weak. But just so you also know my bias.

The posted solution is however what I believe is the final answer to the Matthew 19:9 question. On the 1 Cor 7:15 question I am not so strong. Also, other questions remain, like, do we get to heaven by following (sola) Scripture, or does the e.g. the earthly residing Church have a say in what rules apply?

Also, some people in hard situations have been open here, we should walk with compassion.

Blessings

 

[Eloy Craft]

What about the exception being about couples who were cohabitating?

 

[PeterDona]

What about the exception being about couples who were cohabitating?

I can not really answer that question, since the whole point of this thread was that the "exception" is a very old mistranslation, and should be read as a category or an exclusion instead.

Before I got to this conclusion, I considered also the possibility that it might refer to people who are in an illegal marriage, a marriage that God has not joined together, thereby being in Gods eyes a cohabitation and adulterous. Maybe this is what you are asking for? If you are referring to people simply cohabiting as many do today, then they are not married, and there need be no divorce. So I do not think such a situation would apply.

 

[DamianWarS]

It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi inappropriate contenteia”, which translates as “not over inappropriate contenteia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.

So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.

So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.

I fail to see how this changes the meaning. "anyone who divorces his wife, [not over] sexual immorality, and marries another woman..."

In practice the meaning is "except"

 

[Eloy Craft]

then they are not married, and there need be no divorce.

Thus Jesus calls their union inappropriate contentea. Those situations require their own particular solutions but separating those couples would not be dividing what God has joined. Thank you PeterDona for your informative response.

 

[nolidad]

Very scholarly of you
but you must know, that the "ei" in that sentence is a personal addition of Erasmus to the Textus Receptus. In none of the 6 greek manuscripts that he had on his table was there an "ei".

This is the whole basis for this thread. The speculation about and solution to, what means the phrase "not over fornication".

Here are 2 resources on the Erasmus addition:
Except for Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9
https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/critique_of_david_pawson.pdf (only page 1 is relevant)

Well all these translators would disagree!
New International Version
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

New Living Translation
And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.”

English Standard Version
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Berean Study Bible
Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

Berean Literal Bible
And I say to you that whoever shall divorce his wife except for sexual immorality, and shall marry another, commits adultery."

New American Standard Bible
"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

New King James Version
And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

King James Bible
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Christian Standard Bible
I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

Contemporary English Version
I say if your wife has not committed some terrible sexual sin, you must not divorce her to marry someone else. If you do, you are unfaithful."

Good News Translation
I tell you, then, that any man who divorces his wife for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, commits adultery if he marries some other woman."

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."

International Standard Version
I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

NET Bible
Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery."

New Heart English Bible
I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. And he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But I say to you, “Whoever divorces his wife apart from adultery and will take another, commits adultery, and whoever will take her who is divorced commits adultery.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
I can guarantee that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than her unfaithfulness is committing adultery if he marries another woman."

New American Standard 1977
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

King James 2000 Bible
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her who is put away does commit adultery.

American King James Version
And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery.

American Standard Version
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Darby Bible Translation
But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery.

English Revised Version
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Webster's Bible Translation
And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.

Weymouth New Testament
And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery."

World English Bible
I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery."

Young's Literal Translation
'And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.'

Why they made ei "except" I do not know.

 

[nolidad]

Very scholarly of you
but you must know, that the "ei" in that sentence is a personal addition of Erasmus to the Textus Receptus. In none of the 6 greek manuscripts that he had on his table was there an "ei".

This is the whole basis for this thread. The speculation about and solution to, what means the phrase "not over fornication".

Here are 2 resources on the Erasmus addition:
Except for Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9
https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/critique_of_david_pawson.pdf (only page 1 is relevant)

Well when one unpublished person submits a thesis, we should be very careful.

I know of 6 Greek texts that add that as well as many of the ante-nicene Fathers validating this!

"Even" is an added word not found in texts. And Nestles-Aland has had problems, which is why they have had 28 editions!

But when I have a few hours, I will look at His work and see what He has to say. I do not place much credence to the Latin translations. that is a translation of the greek. And English Bibles coming from the Vulgates are translations of a translation and that poses its own set of problems.

 

[Der Alte]

Previously posted in this thread
.....Greek is now, and for 2000+ years has been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the “literal” Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words.

Matthew 9-19 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality) and marries another commits adultery; <and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”>
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 19:9). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be viewed or D/L at the above link. For any doubts/questions about the EOB version please read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

 

[Kilk1]

As I stated, I believe that there were 2 categories of ways to get out of marriage in rabbinic teaching
- the non-sexual ones, using deut 24:1-4 (a matter of nakedness - which was extended to become almost any matter, hence the wording in matthew 19:3)
- the sexual ones, using deut 22:13-21 (the woman not being a virgin) and leviticus 20:10 (adultery)

And it is my observation, that in Matthew 19:8-9 Jesus is answering a specific question regarding the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage. Therefore the categorization "not over fornication" is completely appropriate.

I would encourage you to be aware of the structure of the whole passage
It is question-answer, question-answer, question-answer
in 19:3-6 Jesus goes back to the genesis account for his doctrine on marriage
in 19:7-9 Jesus answers a specific question on the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 passage
in 19:10-12 Jesus lays out principles of how to live, given that marriage is unbreakable

When asked about Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (the non-sexual divorces), Jesus could've just said that divorce is now wrong, period. Instead, He added "not over fornication" to make clear that His prohibition against divorce applies only to the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ones under discussion, the ones "not over fornication," which are non-sexual.

Does this make sense? If not, how do you determine such to be false? Thanks!

 

[Eloy Craft]

Thou shalt not divide what God has joined except in cases of sexual immorality, for you would force her to be sexually immoral. Wait...wasn't she already sexually immoral? HMMM This is stickier than I thought

 

[PeterDona]

When asked about Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (the non-sexual divorces), Jesus could've just said that divorce is now wrong, period. Instead, He added "not over fornication" to make clear that His prohibition against divorce applies only to the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ones under discussion, the ones "not over fornication," which are non-sexual.

Does this make sense? If not, how do you determine such to be false? Thanks!

Jesus could not "just say divorce is now wrong"
I think ....
Because basically we see Jesus laying out how the law is to be interpreted. That is a thread that is running through the whole gospel of Matthew. So when Jesus says something, he is not adding a new thing, or changing things.
As for your point, yes, in Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus does not even enter into the question of what should happen in case of fornication or adultery. Would have been interesting to know from his own mouth if he wanted to keep the death penalties for fornication and adultery.

Maybe the gospel of Mark represents that angle. In Mark 10 we get the picture, that divorce is simply invalid no matter the reason, but also we see no mention of a death penalty. It has been said that the gospel of Mark was written under the direction of Peter, and then Peter would have to make that ruling of how to apply God's word in a gentile christian context.

Personally I believe, that there was an element of "keeping the bloodline pure" until the Messiah had come, as to why there were so harsh penalties on fornication and adultery in the mosaic law. I cannot quote a verse on it, it is simply an opinion that I heard.

 

[Kilk1]

Jesus could not "just say divorce is now wrong"
I think ....
Because basically we see Jesus laying out how the law is to be interpreted. That is a thread that is running through the whole gospel of Matthew. So when Jesus says something, he is not adding a new thing, or changing things.
As for your point, yes, in Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus does not even enter into the question of what should happen in case of fornication or adultery. Would have been interesting to know from his own mouth if he wanted to keep the death penalties for fornication and adultery.

Maybe the gospel of Mark represents that angle. In Mark 10 we get the picture, that divorce is simply invalid no matter the reason, but also we see no mention of a death penalty. It has been said that the gospel of Mark was written under the direction of Peter, and then Peter would have to make that ruling of how to apply God's word in a gentile christian context.

Personally I believe, that there was an element of "keeping the bloodline pure" until the Messiah had come, as to why there were so harsh penalties on fornication and adultery in the mosaic law. I cannot quote a verse on it, it is simply an opinion that I heard.

It seems to me that Jesus does address sexual immorality. By specifying that His teaching is for divorce "not for inappropriate contenteia," rather than saying it applies to divorce (general), wouldn't this imply that divorces which are for inappropriate contenteia are different? I do get that Mark 10 omits the "not for sexual immorality" clause. However, since Matthew 19:9 has it, I'm not sure what point the "not for inappropriate contenteia" clause serves in the text if it doesn't affect the meaning.

What's interesting is Matthew 5:32, which uses a different clause than "not for inappropriate contenteia." Instead of ei mé ("if not," as used in Matt. 19:9), Matt. 5 instead uses παρεκτός (parektos, Strong's 3924), which apparently does mean "except" in Matt. 5:32:

Strong's Greek: 3924. παρεκτός (parektos) -- in addition, except

Whoever divorces his wife παρεκτός (except) for the cause of sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery, then. Wouldn't this be explicitly teaching an exception?

Let me know if I'm not following right, but the term definitely looks to me like it means "except" according to the source I gave. Thanks for the time! I'm enjoying this discussion!

 

[Der Alte]

Thou shalt not divide what God has joined except in cases of sexual immorality, for you would force her to be sexually immoral. Wait...wasn't she already sexually immoral? HMMM This is stickier than I thought

Only remarriage is adultery, divorce without remarriage is not adultery.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Only remarriage is adultery, divorce without remarriage is not adultery.

You make no distinction between remarriage of a spouse that instigated a divorce, and one who did not. This particularly applies when one spouse comes to faith and the other unbelieving partner leaves then co-habits with another and files for divorce against the believers will.

It is a harsh judgement against the one who came to faith, looses the marriage unwillingly and then in your opinion must never remarry in the future under any circumstances.

In my opinion this position does not reflect the heart of God.

 

[PeterDona]

I know of 6 Greek texts that add that as well as many of the ante-nicene Fathers validating this!

As to the research that i am acquainted with, no greek text before 1500 has the "ei mey epi inappropriate contenteia" reading, except one has it - as a marginal note.
As per the question of "ante-nicene Fathers validating this", I think you would have to severely qualify that statement by a scholarly paper, especially given that no Church Father before 400 considered any exception to marriage permanence, and that it is still today not part of official Church teaching.

If you ask of me a reference for what early church fathers taught, here is my reference, not a scholarly paper, but at least a thorough paper: https://marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf this paper is by Stephen Wilcox who can be seen as one of the leaders of the marriage permanence movement in which I am.

 

[PeterDona]

It seems to me that Jesus does address sexual immorality. By specifying that His teaching is for divorce "not for inappropriate contenteia," rather than saying it applies to divorce (general), wouldn't this imply that divorces which are for inappropriate contenteia are different? I do get that Mark 10 omits the "not for sexual immorality" clause. However, since Matthew 19:9 has it, I'm not sure what point the "not for inappropriate contenteia" clause serves in the text if it doesn't affect the meaning.

What's interesting is Matthew 5:32, which uses a different clause than "not for inappropriate contenteia." Instead of ei mé ("if not," as used in Matt. 19:9), Matt. 5 instead uses παρεκτός (parektos, Strong's 3924), which apparently does mean "except" in Matt. 5:32:

Strong's Greek: 3924. παρεκτός (parektos) -- in addition, except

Whoever divorces his wife παρεκτός (except) for the cause of sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery, then. Wouldn't this be explicitly teaching an exception?

Let me know if I'm not following right, but the term definitely looks to me like it means "except" according to the source I gave. Thanks for the time! I'm enjoying this discussion!

(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

 

[nolidad]

As to the research that i am acquainted with, no greek text before 1500 has the "ei mey epi inappropriate contenteia" reading, except one has it - as a marginal note.
As per the question of "ante-nicene Fathers validating this", I think you would have to severely qualify that statement by a scholarly paper, especially given that no Church Father before 400 considered any exception to marriage permanence, and that it is still today not part of official Church teaching.

If you ask of me a reference for what early church fathers taught, here is my reference, not a scholarly paper, but at least a thorough paper: https://marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf this paper is by Stephen Wilcox who can be seen as one of the leaders of the marriage permanence movement in which I am.

Or just qualify it with the 30 volume set of the writings of the ante nicene fathers.

Hermas c. 125
1. 1. Failure to divorce a recognized, adulterous wife is complicitous adultery (v. 5).

2. 2. Failure of a disciplining husband to remain unmarried is adultery (v. 6).

3. 3. Failure of a disciplining husband to forgive a repentant wife is a sin worse than adultery (v. 8).

4. 4. The reason that remarriage is prohibited of the disciplining spouse is that remarriage blocks repentance (v. 10).

Theophilus of Antioch c.180

Iranaeus c. 185 all validate the except clause

Jesus could not "just say divorce is now wrong"
I think ....
Because basically we see Jesus laying out how the law is to be interpreted. That is a thread that is running through the whole gospel of Matthew. So when Jesus says something, he is not adding a new thing, or changing things.
As for your point, yes, in Matthew 19:3-12 Jesus does not even enter into the question of what should happen in case of fornication or adultery. Would have been interesting to know from his own mouth if he wanted to keep the death penalties for fornication and adultery.

Maybe the gospel of Mark represents that angle. In Mark 10 we get the picture, that divorce is simply invalid no matter the reason, but also we see no mention of a death penalty. It has been said that the gospel of Mark was written under the direction of Peter, and then Peter would have to make that ruling of how to apply God's word in a gentile christian context.

Personally I believe, that there was an element of "keeping the bloodline pure" until the Messiah had come, as to why there were so harsh penalties on fornication and adultery in the mosaic law. I cannot quote a verse on it, it is simply an opinion that I heard.

Well you can try to opine as to why Jesus did what He did, but being God in flesh, I do not think He was trying to interpret but declare!

(1) to be precise, the clause in Matthew 19:9 is "mey epi inappropriate contenteia", where the "epi" means "over" rather than "for".

Actually over is a tertiary definition for "epi". One has to be compelled by the construct to bypass the primary and secondary definitions to use the tertiary.

I read Mcfails paper and am unimpressed with several of HIs conclusions. The writing of the KJV brought about the most Greek Manuscripts ever to that time. Not Just Erasmuses.

But let us assume for a moment that McFail is correct and that "ei" was only in some "questionable"manuscripts. It still doesn't alter teh meaning.

mey is a negative preposition which means no or not
epi -we will use the tertiary "over' for you
inappropriate contentea sexual immorality.

It still strills rtranslates out If anyone divorces his wife (not for immorality) and marries another commits adultery! teh me causes an exception to be carved.

If Jesus wished to ban all remarriage (remember the issue is remarriage and not adultery) He would have simply siad, If anyone divorces his wife and she marries another, commits adultery!

Paul gave two more clauses for remarriage to the church.

Widowhood and tthe offending spouse leaving due to the faith! Meaning they want nothing more to do with the believer.

I agree with you that God designed marriage as a permanent bond between a man and woman. But I also realize that God through His Word has given three reasons why remarriage can take place.

 

[PeterDona]

Or just qualify it with the 30 volume set of the writings of the ante nicene fathers.

Hermas c. 125
1. 1. Failure to divorce a recognized, adulterous wife is complicitous adultery (v. 5).

2. 2. Failure of a disciplining husband to remain unmarried is adultery (v. 6).

3. 3. Failure of a disciplining husband to forgive a repentant wife is a sin worse than adultery (v. 8).

4. 4. The reason that remarriage is prohibited of the disciplining spouse is that remarriage blocks repentance (v. 10).

Ok that was quite a long post you made, so I will answer in 2 separate posts.

First, concerning Hermas. Are you referring to this quote:
""I charge you," said he, "to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another man's wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart, then you will sin; and if, in like manner,you think other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked deed, he works death for himself. Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man." I said to him, "Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions.""Say on," said he. And I said to him, "Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented...In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way.–The Shepherd 4:1-10. (I copied it from this paper https://marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf)

Now, nolidad, it is your stated interpretation that remarriage is only not permitted because it blocks repentance. I will put forward something different.

What I see in this passage is something that we never hear about today. What if the wife persists in sex outside marriage? The husband is still one flesh with her, and therefore one body. So he is partaking in her sin - and he has to separate from her as long as she commits this sin. So far does the one flesh principle go. I believe this is a reiteration of the passage 1 Cor 6:16, where Paul talks about being joined to an harlot. I believe that 1 Cor 6:16 talks about being married to an harlot, but I have until now not met many folks who agree with me on that. And the reason for my interpretation is exactly that I read stuff like Hermas. You do know that at one time Shepherd of Hermas was part of the Bible?

So in my interpretation, this just goes to show how seriously the early Church took the principle of one-flesh.

 

[fwGod]

It is my belief, that the whole passage of Matthew 19:3-12 is constructed as a discussion of the much debated passage of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. I believe that the wording “except” in Matthew 19:9 is a mistranslation since the original greek says “mey epi inappropriate contenteia”, which translates as “not over inappropriate contenteia”. In my understanding, there were 2 kinds of validation for divorce in rabbinic teaching, (1) the sexual ones, which required a death penalty on the incontinent spouse, and (2) the non-sexual ones, using Deuteronomy 24:1-4 for their blueprint.

So when Jesus says “not over fornication” in Matthew 19:9, he is not suddenly introducing an “exception” into the debate, he is simply referring to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 using different language. So in effect he says, whosoever divorces his wife using arguments based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and marries another, is committing adultery. This means that the first marriage has NOT been ended by the divorce paper, and the man is still married to his first wife. Also, his cohabiting with the new woman is an act of adultery, an ongoing act for that.

So to reiterate my main point: “not over fornication” is simply a technical term to distinguish different kinds of divorce. It does not introduce an exception.

That all has to do with the Jewish culture of arranged marriages. So it doesn't apply for cultures who don't practice it because the marriage choices of a spouse is strictly up to the single man and the single woman. And if an occasion arises, the married couple is free to divorce for any reason, free of those textually religious condemnations.

 

[PeterDona]

Well you can try to opine as to why Jesus did what He did, but being God in flesh, I do not think He was trying to interpret but declare!

I may get you wrong, but I will react to what I believe you say here.
If really Jesus went around declaring a new or hidden teaching, that would in my view contain an enormous problem as to his credibility. Especially given the setting of Matthew 19:3-12, where it is the pharisees desiring to hear his view on marriage based on the law of Moses.

Actually over is a tertiary definition for "epi". One has to be compelled by the construct to bypass the primary and secondary definitions to use the tertiary.

What greek lexicon are you using? I use this version of Strongs: https://www.amazon.com/Strongs-Expanded-Exhaustive-Concordance-Supersaver/dp/1418542377
"epi, a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order etc) i.e. over, upon, With the dative case this preposition has meanings like "on" etc. And I believe that "inappropriate contenteia" which is a feminine noun is either nominative or dative case, likely dative.
To cut a long story short, this lexicon lists both "because of" and "over" as possible translations, so that in itself is not so decisive.

However, if really Jesus intended an exception pure and simple, why not just use "parektos" as in Matthew 5:32. Why this more elaborate structure of words?

I read Mcfails paper and am unimpressed with several of HIs conclusions. The writing of the KJV brought about the most Greek Manuscripts ever to that time. Not Just Erasmuses.

interesting, I would like if you can give me a source for that statement - just to increase my knowledge.

But let us assume for a moment that McFail is correct and that "ei" was only in some "questionable"manuscripts. It still doesn't alter the meaning.

mey is a negative preposition which means no or not
epi -we will use the tertiary "over' for you
inappropriate contentea sexual immorality.

It still translates out If anyone divorces his wife (not for immorality) and marries another commits adultery! the me causes an exception to be carved.

If Jesus wished to ban all remarriage (remember the issue is remarriage and not adultery) He would have simply said, If anyone divorces his wife and she marries another, commits adultery!

Paul gave two more clauses for remarriage to the church.

Widowhood and the offending spouse leaving due to the faith! Meaning they want nothing more to do with the believer.

I agree with you that God designed marriage as a permanent bond between a man and woman. But I also realize that God through His Word has given three reasons why remarriage can take place.

Are you able to follow my idea, that "me epi inappropriate contenteia" is a legal term, as in a government law, where "if this argument is produced, then this ruling must be applied". And "not inappropriate contenteia" refers to cases where a divorce is attempted "for any cause" i.e. using the rabbinic "for any cause" divorce.

As to whether there is an "exception" in 1 Cor 7:15 - well John Chrysostom in the 4th century interpreted it like that, which has become a precept in the Catholic Church. When determining whether someone is a believer or unbeliever, the Church looks at baptism. If there has been a baptism then the person is a believer.