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

Saint Steven · Sep 4, 2020

Not sure if this came up anywhere in the discussion, but two different words are being used in Matthew 19:9, "fornication" and "adultery". (in the KJV) The NIV uses "sexual immorality" instead of "fornication". The term "fornication" seems to point to sexual relations BEFORE marriage. As in, the wife being divorced because she was found to not be a virgin in the consummation. (broken hymen?)

Matthew 19:9 KJV
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.

Matthew 19:9 NIV
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Saint Steven · Sep 4, 2020

Kilk1 said:
I see how it could rub you the wrong way to think Jesus teaching could go against what the Law already taught

Jesus' teaching on this DID go against what the Law already taught.

Matthew 19:7-9 KJV
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 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.

Matthew 19:7-9 NIV
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

PeterDona · Sep 4, 2020

hm - hm, so then we are 3 people still in this thread
I would not expect many people to stay, when it becomes technical and when the posts become very long. But welcome.

Saint Steven said:
Not sure if this came up anywhere in the discussion, but two different words are being used in Matthew 19:9, "fornication" and "adultery". (in the KJV) The NIV uses "sexual immorality" instead of "fornication". The term "fornication" seems to point to sexual relations BEFORE marriage. As in, the wife being divorced because she was found to not be a virgin in the consummation. (broken hymen?)

Matthew 19:9 KJV
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.

Matthew 19:9 NIV
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

I think we only briefly touched upon that matter. It sort of belongs to the discussion if we can establish that there is even an exception - but after that, yes, very strongly debated whether it is only sex before marriage, or any sexual offense whatsoever.

Saint Steven · Sep 4, 2020

PeterDona said:
hm - hm, so then we are 3 people still in this thread
I would not expect many people to stay, when it becomes technical and when the posts become very long. But welcome.

I think we only briefly touched upon that matter. It sort of belongs to the discussion if we can establish that there is even an exception - but after that, yes, very strongly debated whether it is only sex before marriage, or any sexual offense whatsoever.

Two completely different NT Greek words are used. Therefore not the same thing.
In this case, I think the KJV seems more correct.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Not sure if this came up anywhere in the discussion, but two different words are being used in Matthew 19:9, "fornication" and "adultery". (in the KJV) The NIV uses "sexual immorality" instead of "fornication". The term "fornication" seems to point to sexual relations BEFORE marriage. As in, the wife being divorced because she was found to not be a virgin in the consummation. (broken hymen?)

Matthew 19:9 KJV
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.

Matthew 19:9 NIV
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Saint Steven · Sep 5, 2020

Saint Steven said:
Two completely different NT Greek words are used. Therefore not the same thing.
In this case, I think the KJV seems more correct.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Not sure if this came up anywhere in the discussion, but two different words are being used in Matthew 19:9, "fornication" and "adultery". (in the KJV) The NIV uses "sexual immorality" instead of "fornication". The term "fornication" seems to point to sexual relations BEFORE marriage. As in, the wife being divorced because she was found to not be a virgin in the consummation. (broken hymen?)

Matthew 19:9 KJV
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.

Matthew 19:9 NIV
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

@PeterDona
So, to more directly answer your OP question...
It seems to me that Jesus was objecting to the Law of Moses, saying there was no provision for divorce except in the case of the wife being found not to be a virgin. It seems that later in the NT this is extended into a case for adultery. Which is the common understanding now. The NIV translation broadens the term to accommodate modern doctrine. IMHO --- But I don't think that is what Jesus meant exactly.

Did anyone else address this issue of the wife being found to not be a virgin? It seems the Law of Moses says something about that. I found this below in a quick search.

Deuteronomy 22:13-18
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

PeterDona · Sep 5, 2020

Saint Steven said:
@PeterDona
So, to more directly answer your OP question...
It seems to me that Jesus was objecting to the Law of Moses, saying there was no provision for divorce except in the case of the wife being found not to be a virgin. It seems that later in the NT this is extended into a case for adultery. Which is the common understanding now. The NIV translation broadens the term to accommodate modern doctrine. IMHO --- But I don't think that is what Jesus meant exactly.

Did anyone else address this issue of the wife being found to not be a virgin? It seems the Law of Moses says something about that. I found this below in a quick search.

Deuteronomy 22:13-18
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

Saint Steven, beautiful
What you are jumping into here, is the beginning of what is known as "the betrothal solution", which is the solution most championed by the marriage permanence community.
the betrothal solution at DuckDuckGo
The first hit is interestingly the critique by Leslie McFall, a scholar who spent an enormous energy on this question. He was in opposition to the betrothal solution, but was before his death won over to it by Sharon Fitzhenry
She has written a long e-book, which I would like to link to, but since it is on FB, you will have to join a group to view it: Facebook Groups if you do, go to the files and find a pdf by Sharon. I think with your observations, you are well welcome to access it.

Saint Steven · Sep 5, 2020

PeterDona said:
... which is the solution most championed by the marriage permanence community.

I'm not familiar with that group. But it sounds as if anyone opposed would be supporting temporary marriage. I think I saw a sign about that on a boat, which read...

MARRIAGES PERFORMED BY
THE CAPTAIN OF THIS SHIP ARE ONLY VALID
FOR THE DURATION OF THE VOYAGE.

Kilk1 · Sep 5, 2020

PeterDona said:
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

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.

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".

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?

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 porneia and 3431/3429 moicheia

hebrew 2181 zanah and 5003/5004 na'aph

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.

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.

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 porneia" 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.

Hello, again, @PeterDona! Thanks for giving me opportunity to think things through. As you pointed out, there are a number of different issues and approaches that can be considered. This does have more of a unique feeling than a debate would typically have, as we seem to be working together as allies, not against each other as opponents. I think this conversation has been constructive so far, and I look forward to continuing it, going wherever the facts take us. I'm not ready to reply today, but I thought I'd at least post something to let you know I'll be looking over the options. I'm looking forward to thinking through what you've written!

PeterDona · Sep 15, 2020

One New Man Bible
I am impressed with the translation called “One New Man Bible”, so here is a little commercial, and a teaser.

Matthew 19:9 reads in this translation
“but I say to you that whosoever would divorce his wife not on account of fornication and would marry another is committing adultery”

I am not so impressed with the footnote on “fornication” which reads “any immorality”.

My joy is of course, that this is another translation that gets right the “not over fornication”. The author just fails to realize the connection to the Deuteronomy passages, and to the topic under debate, namely how the rabbinic interpretation should be.

Kilk1 · Sep 19, 2020

PeterDona said:
One New Man Bible
I am impressed with the translation called “One New Man Bible”, so here is a little commercial, and a teaser.

Matthew 19:9 reads in this translation
“but I say to you that whosoever would divorce his wife not on account of fornication and would marry another is committing adultery”

I am not so impressed with the footnote on “fornication” which reads “any immorality”.

My joy is of course, that this is another translation that gets right the “not over fornication”. The author just fails to realize the connection to the Deuteronomy passages, and to the topic under debate, namely how the rabbinic interpretation should be.

Hello again, @PeterDona! Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about this thread. I've been really busy recently, but hopefully I can reply soon. Again, thanks for the time and effort you've put into this!

Kilk1 · Oct 1, 2020

Okay, after all this time, I'm finally back. Things have been busy, but I'm here again.

PeterDona said:
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

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.

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".

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?

If it'd be better to focus on Matthew, here's a place where Jesus engages in extra‐law teaching: Matthew 18:15–20. Jesus outlines a three‐step procedure to resolve a situation in which “your brother sins against you” (NKJV). The first step is to talk with him one‐on‐one (v. 15). If that doesn’t work, you bring one or two additional people (v. 16). And if that doesn’t work, you then “tell it to the church” (verse 17). I don’t know of any three‐step process like this in the Old Testament.

Furthermore, while the Greek word ekklésia can refer to any assembly, it almost always refers to the church or churches when used in the New Testament, consistent with how most versions translate the term here. Just two chapters earlier, though, Jesus spoke of building the church in the future (Matthew 16:18). Combined with the fact that the three‐step process isn’t found in the law of Moses, Jesus’ mention of the church again in Chapter 18 further bolsters the case that His teaching here is outside the law of Moses. And if Jesus can speak outside the law of Moses in Chapter 18, He can do the same in Chapters 5 and 19 as well.

PeterDona said:
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 porneia and 3431/3429 moicheia

hebrew 2181 zanah and 5003/5004 na'aph

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.

We apparently agree “that Jesus seems to disown the divorce allowance (Deuteronomy 24:1).” This is significant, as we’ll see shortly.

PeterDona said:
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.

I’ll admit that the YouTube video you referenced does have an interesting point with Joseph. If it’s true that Deuteronomy 24 doesn’t include fornication, which is what I’ve been saying and I believe you agree with, how do we reconcile this with Joseph being called a “just man” for secretly divorcing on those grounds (Matthew 1:19)?

PeterDona said:
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.

I said above how we seem to agree that Jesus disowns the divorce allowance. And yet it appears we also agree that in the time of Moses, divorce was “permitted,” “allowed,” “tolerated,” etc. Putting the two together—that Moses did “permit” divorce but that Jesus disowns it—we are driven to the conclusion that the two differ. This alone is sufficient to show there’s a difference, at least assuming I’m following you correctly. Let me know if not.

PeterDona said:
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 porneia" 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?

So to reiterate, Matthew 18:15–20 is a good example showing (1) to be true, at least in the sense that He can introduce His own, extra‐law teaching. And since the divorce allowance was “permitted,” “allowed,” “tolerated” by Moses, and since Jesus disowned such allowance, this would require (2) to be true also. And if (1) and (2) are true, I assume (3) isn’t relevant, but you can correct me if I’m missing something. Also, (1) and (2) would imply (5), correct?

As for (4), it’s the issue this thread revolves around, I suppose. Assuming that (1), (2), and (5) are true, would this be sufficient to show that (4) is true also, or is there more to the story?

PeterDona said:
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.

Thanks again for giving me all this time to think through things. Reply whenever you have the time.

PeterDona · Oct 3, 2020

Kilk1 said:
Okay, after all this time, I'm finally back. Things have been busy, but I'm here again.

If it'd be better to focus on Matthew, here's a place where Jesus engages in extra‐law teaching: Matthew 18:15–20.

Hi again, Kilk1, nice to hear from you
It is always a game of weights, which side is up or down. I have found that this goes for a few long-lasting debates, one of them is over marriage.

I think very person after some reflection will think that the statements in 19:5 and 19:6 sound pretty much like a no-divorce-no-remarriage position.
Historically it has always been the exceptions in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that became the target of trying to lift the balance in the other direction. If there is an exception then to say it simply, what God has joined together CAN be put asunder. So it becomes basically really really important to establish or reject that there is an exception especially in 19:9.

Other go-to scriptures for exceptionalists (bear with my humor here) are 1 Cor 7:15, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and then the one about being a new creation in Christ forgot the exact reference.

There was a time when I hoped for exceptions, and being in that mood I enjoyed reading David Instone-Brewers "Divorce and remarriage in the Church - the social and literary context".
Instone-Brewer points to the "whosoever" (greek pas, "all") and points out that in the NT it does not really mean "all". His counterexample is of John Baptist where "all of Jerusalem" came out to be baptized by him, and obviously all of Jerusalem did not do that. So the "all" in 19:9 now is no more "all" but more like "most".

So the balance can be tipped by really smart arguments. But .... I guess the most smart thing I can say there is that I do feel that my interpretation does align with the whole flow of Matthew 19:3-9 very nicely, and does a simple job of finishing the discussion and tying together some loose ends, so the "beauty" of my solution could well be the best argument for it.

As regards the actual interpretation of Matthew 18:15-18, I must say that as a recent convert to catholicism I have started to hear about Church authority, and I believe that I did hear someone link Matthew 18:15-18 to something in the mosaic law, but it is kind of dim memory. The catholic church has a special hang of trying to find everything in the NT foreshadowed in the OT, so you might someday burst into it if you end up listening to catholic theology. For my part I can not remember, so I will have to pass on your find.

Kilk1 said:
And since the divorce allowance was “permitted,” “allowed,” “tolerated” by Moses, and since Jesus disowned such allowance, this would require (2) to be true also.

Hm, ehm sorry, I did get a little bit lost in all those numbers, trying to remember exactly the weight balance for each of those positions, and what would be the effect of throwing them in together. I think it was not ment as a list of arguments for one or the other position, I was just trying to make an overview where I could see we differ.

Kilk1 · Oct 10, 2020

Thanks again for spending time with me going over this issue.

PeterDona said:
Hi again, Kilk1, nice to hear from you
It is always a game of weights, which side is up or down. I have found that this goes for a few long-lasting debates, one of them is over marriage.

I think very person after some reflection will think that the statements in 19:5 and 19:6 sound pretty much like a no-divorce-no-remarriage position.
Historically it has always been the exceptions in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that became the target of trying to lift the balance in the other direction. If there is an exception then to say it simply, what God has joined together CAN be put asunder. So it becomes basically really really important to establish or reject that there is an exception especially in 19:9.

Other go-to scriptures for exceptionalists (bear with my humor here) are 1 Cor 7:15, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and then the one about being a new creation in Christ forgot the exact reference.

There was a time when I hoped for exceptions, and being in that mood I enjoyed reading David Instone-Brewers "Divorce and remarriage in the Church - the social and literary context".
Instone-Brewer points to the "whosoever" (greek pas, "all") and points out that in the NT it does not really mean "all". His counterexample is of John Baptist where "all of Jerusalem" came out to be baptized by him, and obviously all of Jerusalem did not do that. So the "all" in 19:9 now is no more "all" but more like "most".

So the balance can be tipped by really smart arguments. But .... I guess the most smart thing I can say there is that I do feel that my interpretation does align with the whole flow of Matthew 19:3-9 very nicely, and does a simple job of finishing the discussion and tying together some loose ends, so the "beauty" of my solution could well be the best argument for it.

I think the flow of Matthew 19:3–9 works for “exceptionalists,” if I may go along with your humor. Here’s how it looks in this view: The Pharisees, testing Jesus, ask if divorce is allowed “for just any reason” (v. 3, NKJV). Jesus replies that, no, God is the one who bound man and woman together in marriage, as Genesis clearly teaches, and that therefore man can’t separate a marriage; God’s the one in charge (vv. 4–6). The Pharisees respond by referencing Deuteronomy 24:1–4, arguing this is a command to divorce one’s wife (Matt. 19:7).

Jesus replies, saying that while Moses “permitted” divorce, it was due to hard hearts rather than actual approval, and that such wasn’t the case “from the beginning” (v. 8). He then states what the doctrine of marriage would be instead (v. 9). Instead of divorcing “for just any reason” (v. 3), whoever divorces his wife except for fornication and marries another would be committing adultery (v. 9).

Now, is “my” reading of the passage superior to “yours”? There’s some merit in the weight‐balancing game, but I think a clear, definitive answer can be reached by answering two simple questions. (We’ll get to it below.)

PeterDona said:
As regards the actual interpretation of Matthew 18:15-18, I must say that as a recent convert to catholicism I have started to hear about Church authority, and I believe that I did hear someone link Matthew 18:15-18 to something in the mosaic law, but it is kind of dim memory. The catholic church has a special hang of trying to find everything in the NT foreshadowed in the OT, so you might someday burst into it if you end up listening to catholic theology. For my part I can not remember, so I will have to pass on your find.

It's too bad you don’t remember the reference, but I understand since things definitely can happen. As far as I can see, however, this specific teaching is not part of the law of Moses. However, again, I think we can settle the dispute through two questions, the answers of which will make clear whether Jesus intends to promote non‐Mosaic teaching in Matthew 19. (See below.)

PeterDona said:
Hm, ehm sorry, I did get a little bit lost in all those numbers, trying to remember exactly the weight balance for each of those positions, and what would be the effect of throwing them in together. I think it was not ment as a list of arguments for one or the other position, I was just trying to make an overview where I could see we differ.

I understand that you intended the list of numbers to show where we differ, rather than making a list of arguments. I simply used the numbers you provided as a shorthand way to reference our differences. However, we don’t have to get caught up in all of them if doing so gets us “a little bit lost.” Instead, let’s just boil everything down to two questions:

1. Does Matthew 19:8 teach that Moses “permitted” (though not necessarily “approved of”) divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1–4?
2. Does Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19:8–9 uphold Moses’ “permission” or oppose it?

I don’t think any more questions than these are necessary to see whether “my” position or “yours” is greater. (Even if this settles which one is greater, I still should probably study the third approach, the one set forth in the YouTube video you referenced, to see if it has merit or problems.) What are you answers to the two questions? Do they shed light on the issue? Thanks in advance for your reply!

PeterDona · Oct 10, 2020

Hello again, Kilk1

Kilk1 said:
I think the flow of Matthew 19:3–9 works for “exceptionalists,” if I may go along with your humor. Here’s how it looks in this view: The Pharisees, testing Jesus, ask if divorce is allowed “for just any reason” (v. 3, NKJV). Jesus replies that, no, God is the one who bound man and woman together in marriage, as Genesis clearly teaches, and that therefore man can’t separate a marriage; God’s the one in charge (vv. 4–6). The Pharisees respond by referencing Deuteronomy 24:1–4, arguing this is a command to divorce one’s wife (Matt. 19:7).

Jesus replies, saying that while Moses “permitted” divorce, it was due to hard hearts rather than actual approval, and that such wasn’t the case “from the beginning” (v. 8). He then states what the doctrine of marriage would be instead (v. 9). Instead of divorcing “for just any reason” (v. 3), whoever divorces his wife except for fornication and marries another would be committing adultery (v. 9).

Yes, I think this is probably the common reading of the passage by an exceptionalist. 19:9 is seen as the answer to the question posed in 19:3, and D24 is brought up only in 19:7 as a qualified objection to permanence, whereafter Jesus admits that there is one exception. I think this is a common way of reading that passage.

I do consider the passage 2 have 2 questions and 2 answers, and somehow I just think it makes most sense, that Jesus answers each question fully in its own context. Therefore, 19:4-6 is the full answer to 19:3, and 19:8-9 is the full answer to 19:7. I try to read the answer and the question together and think to myself, how is this an answer to this question?

Secondly, and I may have said this already, but I do believe that D24 is included in both questions. In 19:3 it is the phrase "for any cause" that reveals that this is a request for Jesus position in the ongoing debate between rabbinic schools about what is meant in D24. There is the Shammai who believed it was only for adultery, and there was the hillel who believed it was "for any cause", and hence the phrase in 19:9. I found a reference in the mishna: Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 90

Kilk1 said:
let’s just boil everything down to two questions:

1. Does Matthew 19:8 teach that Moses “permitted” (though not necessarily “approved of”) divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1–4?
2. Does Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 19:8–9 uphold Moses’ “permission” or oppose it?

OK, my answers would be a yes and a no
As per your argument that the word can mean "permit" in 19:8, and I accept that.
However, there are some moderators in Jesus reply
(1) Moses permitted, i.e. it was not God-granted, but granted by Moses.
Moses did have the teaching authority granted by God, but still Jesus puts in this moderator.
(2) "but from the beginning it was not so".
Actually this is in the greek not a perfect tense but a past contiuous, meaning it was never so, and still is not.
So therefore my opinion is that Jesus opposes a permission (or a command, in the text he opposes the command view)

And then finally you may see this fine point: in my view, 19:9 is part of the answer to 19:7, and is a summing up that no divorce which has been performed according to D24 does actually achieve that goal of freeing the participants from the marriage.

If 19:9 were the answer to 19:3, then it could have a more declarative tone.

Kilk1 · Oct 31, 2020

Thanks again for the reply! Things have been busy, but I’ve finally gotten around to getting back with you. Thanks for your patience.

PeterDona said:
Hello again, Kilk1
Yes, I think this is probably the common reading of the passage by an exceptionalist. 19:9 is seen as the answer to the question posed in 19:3, and D24 is brought up only in 19:7 as a qualified objection to permanence, whereafter Jesus admits that there is one exception. I think this is a common way of reading that passage.

I do consider the passage 2 have 2 questions and 2 answers, and somehow I just think it makes most sense, that Jesus answers each question fully in its own context. Therefore, 19:4-6 is the full answer to 19:3, and 19:8-9 is the full answer to 19:7. I try to read the answer and the question together and think to myself, how is this an answer to this question?

Secondly, and I may have said this already, but I do believe that D24 is included in both questions. In 19:3 it is the phrase "for any cause" that reveals that this is a request for Jesus position in the ongoing debate between rabbinic schools about what is meant in D24. There is the Shammai who believed it was only for adultery, and there was the hillel who believed it was "for any cause", and hence the phrase in 19:9. I found a reference in the mishna: Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 90

I think this is a good summary of the two different positions. While you don’t subscribe to the exceptionalist position, it seems clear that you know what it looks like. Let me make sure I understand your position.

PeterDona said:
OK, my answers would be a yes and a no
As per your argument that the word can mean "permit" in 19:8, and I accept that.
However, there are some moderators in Jesus reply
(1) Moses permitted, i.e. it was not God-granted, but granted by Moses.
Moses did have the teaching authority granted by God, but still Jesus puts in this moderator.
(2) "but from the beginning it was not so".
Actually this is in the greek not a perfect tense but a past contiuous, meaning it was never so, and still is not.
So therefore my opinion is that Jesus opposes a permission (or a command, in the text he opposes the command view)

And then finally you may see this fine point: in my view, 19:9 is part of the answer to 19:7, and is a summing up that no divorce which has been performed according to D24 does actually achieve that goal of freeing the participants from the marriage.

So it appears we actually do agree that Jesus is opposing the law of Moses here. In fact, you seem to go further than I’ve gone. Not only did Moses once permit it, but God did not, making Moses’ teaching contradict God’s. And where did Moses permit what God did not? In Deuteronomy 24! In fact, you said the Greek means God never, ever permitted what Moses permitted in Deuteronomy 24! If I’m misunderstanding you, let me know.

But wouldn’t all this mean that Jesus’ response in 19:8–9 isn’t an interpretation of Moses’ teaching but rather a denial of it? My position has been a similar but less forceful version, in which Moses’ permission was recognized by God in the OT but not any longer under Jesus’ NT teaching. However, what your position seems to imply is not that the Pharisees needed help with interpretation; rather, they needed to repudiate Moses’ teaching on the matter altogether.

In other words, do we actually agree that Jesus is for the most part repudiating Deuteronomy 24 in Matthew 19:8-9 rather than interpreting it?

PeterDona said:
If 19:9 were the answer to 19:3, then it could have a more declarative tone.

Jesus’ use of “And I say to you” (19:9, NKJV) does suggest a declarative tone, doesn't it? I’ll end this post with my main question for now: Do we actually agree that Jesus is for the most part repudiating Deuteronomy 24 in Matthew 19:8-9 rather than interpreting it? Thanks!

PeterDona · Oct 31, 2020

Hello again, Kilk1, i just check in once in a while so no big deal, will take a look at it when you are there.
To begin with the ending of your questions, or maybe your main question to put it like that

Kilk1 said:
I’ll end this post with my main question for now: Do we actually agree that Jesus is for the most part repudiating Deuteronomy 24 in Matthew 19:8-9 rather than interpreting it? Thanks!

First it is my belief that Moses was granted the privilege of being lawgiver. see Deuteronomy 5:5.
Included in that privilege was the ability to issue new laws, if required.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is an example of a law that is not in the covenant at Sinai, but however shows up in Deuteronomy. We may safely assume that this is one example of an additional law given by Moses, especially considering that Jesus replies with "Moses tolerated / permitted / ... you to put away your wives".
And interestingly, Jesus as the new Moses, would also be able to be a new lawgiver, amongst other things. So it is not totally far-fetched that Jesus could in Matthew declare new laws. But I just do not read those "but I say to you" / "and I say to you" passages that way. That is my preference, for considerations about God's integrity.

OK, so, to get back on track, D24 is an example of a law given by Moses.
Can a new law disagree with the original design? Can a new law go against what is already stated in Scripture? I think this is the hard question.

When Jesus says "but from the beginnning it was not so (has not been and is still not), is Jesus rejecting the passage itself or the interpretation of it? I believe the interpretation. And this is what I wanted to end up saying, that I do not think it is possible for Jesus to go against Scripture, but it is possible for him to correct errors in interpretation.

Kilk1 said:
So it appears we actually do agree that Jesus is opposing the law of Moses here. In fact, you seem to go further than I’ve gone. Not only did Moses once permit it, but God did not, making Moses’ teaching contradict God’s. And where did Moses permit what God did not? In Deuteronomy 24! In fact, you said the Greek means God never, ever permitted what Moses permitted in Deuteronomy 24! If I’m misunderstanding you, let me know.

I would certainly shrink back from saying such a thing. When Jesus says that Scripture cannot be broken, then that is a seal on the whole Scripture, at least what we can see that Jesus refers to as Scripture.

Kilk1 said:
But wouldn’t all this mean that Jesus’ response in 19:8–9 isn’t an interpretation of Moses’ teaching but rather a denial of it? My position has been a similar but less forceful version, in which Moses’ permission was recognized by God in the OT but not any longer under Jesus’ NT teaching. However, what your position seems to imply is not that the Pharisees needed help with interpretation; rather, they needed to repudiate Moses’ teaching on the matter altogether.

I would here go back to what I said on Moses' role as lawgiver. I do not think he would be able to give new laws contrary to the ones already given, so rather than seeing Jesus comments as a rejection, we should ask what D24 really deals with.
In my guess, D24 was an attempt at stopping or limiting a practice that had already developed amongst the jewish people, namely that they used the laws of incest in Leviticus 18 + 20 to get divorces from their wives, claiming that the union was illegal in the first place. And it seems they later had a practice of taking her back (!) after she had then gotten married to another man, and that marriage had somehow ended, whether by death or divorce. Why would people do such a thing? Hm, maybe for the money, for the dowry that the woman had received, now the man could go and claim her back.
To me it seems that Moses wanted to stop such an abuse of women, and such an abuse of the law.

Regards, Peter

Kilk1 · Dec 3, 2020

Hello again, Peter! I guess I’ll reply out of order as well, haha!

PeterDona said:
I would certainly shrink back from saying such a thing. When Jesus says that Scripture cannot be broken, then that is a seal on the whole Scripture, at least what we can see that Jesus refers to as Scripture.

Okay, thanks for helping me better understand what you meant!

PeterDona said:
Hello again, Kilk1, i just check in once in a while so no big deal, will take a look at it when you are there.
To begin with the ending of your questions, or maybe your main question to put it like that

First it is my belief that Moses was granted the privilege of being lawgiver. see Deuteronomy 5:5.
Included in that privilege was the ability to issue new laws, if required.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is an example of a law that is not in the covenant at Sinai, but however shows up in Deuteronomy. We may safely assume that this is one example of an additional law given by Moses, especially considering that Jesus replies with "Moses tolerated / permitted / ... you to put away your wives".
And interestingly, Jesus as the new Moses, would also be able to be a new lawgiver, amongst other things. So it is not totally far-fetched that Jesus could in Matthew declare new laws. But I just do not read those "but I say to you" / "and I say to you" passages that way. That is my preference, for considerations about God's integrity.

OK, so, to get back on track, D24 is an example of a law given by Moses.
Can a new law disagree with the original design? Can a new law go against what is already stated in Scripture? I think this is the hard question.

When Jesus says "but from the beginnning it was not so (has not been and is still not), is Jesus rejecting the passage itself or the interpretation of it? I believe the interpretation. And this is what I wanted to end up saying, that I do not think it is possible for Jesus to go against Scripture, but it is possible for him to correct errors in interpretation.

But wasn’t their interpretation of D24 that it commands the divorce certificate (Matt. 19:7), and doesn’t Jesus agree that D24 permits divorce (v. 8)? They may disagree on command vs. permission, assuming there’s a practical difference between the two here, but both sides agree that the correct interpretation of the passage allows for divorce. Put another way:

1. Did Jesus agree that D24 allowed for (“permitted”) divorce?

2. Is Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 19:9 compatible with D24’s teaching?

As far as I can tell, D24 allows for divorce in a sense that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 doesn’t.

PeterDona said:
I would here go back to what I said on Moses' role as lawgiver. I do not think he would be able to give new laws contrary to the ones already given, so rather than seeing Jesus comments as a rejection, we should ask what D24 really deals with.
In my guess, D24 was an attempt at stopping or limiting a practice that had already developed amongst the jewish people, namely that they used the laws of incest in Leviticus 18 + 20 to get divorces from their wives, claiming that the union was illegal in the first place. And it seems they later had a practice of taking her back (!) after she had then gotten married to another man, and that marriage had somehow ended, whether by death or divorce. Why would people do such a thing? Hm, maybe for the money, for the dowry that the woman had received, now the man could go and claim her back.
To me it seems that Moses wanted to stop such an abuse of women, and such an abuse of the law.

Regards, Peter

I’m sympathetic to the position that D24’s design was to limit an already‐developed practice. That said, we know from Jesus Himself (Matt. 19:8) that D24 “permitted you to divorce” (NKJV). Do we also agree, then, that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 is being contrasted with D24, that it forbids what He says D24 “permits,” or tolerates? If not—if Matthew 19:9 and all of Jesus’ teaching is in perfect harmony with D24—then Jesus Himself “[permits] you to divorce” in the same sense that D24 “permitted you to divorce,” right?

A second thing is Matthew 5:32. Don’t we agree that parektos means “except”? Wouldn’t this prove that there is an exception to divorce for porneia that doesn’t apply in other circumstances? If so, where is this taught in the Law of Moses?

A third thing is that I’m not sure there’s proof that “not over porneia” is a legal term to begin with. Is there any evidence that D24 was was called the “not over porneia” passage? Unless there’s proof of a unique, legal meaning, shouldn’t we take it by its literal meaning?—namely, that Jesus’ prohibition in Matthew 19:9 applies just to divorces that are “not over porneia,” thus not applying to divorces that are over porneia.

It could be that I’ve misunderstood you or your position. If so, feel free to clarify any misunderstandings I might have. Thanks.

Fervent · Dec 4, 2020

Carl Emerson said:
This is the point at which theology does not always serve us well...

The hub of truth is the Resurrection of Jesus and hence the Father heart of God.

It is so easy to be to taken up by technical issues of language and principle and Law that the reality of the Love of of Jesus and His Father's Heart gets lost.

We saw this when He wrote on the sand.

He so wonderfully led me to a second wife after 10 years of singleness since I was divorced against my will by an unbeliever.

My new marriage of 35 years and 5 children bares testimony of His great love and faithful fruitfulness.

What theology demands is not always His Living Word - this is obvious given that what passes for good theology has driven believers to hideous crimes of hatred against brothers and sisters down through history.

This continues to this day - some demand that I am in adultery and refuse fellowship.

Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do...

This is truth. And it seems extremely relevant to the passage at hand, as well, as it seems there is a greater point than the minutiae of the "rules" for divorce. The pharisee's, through theological discussion, were seeking to circumvent God's law in asking Jesus about the question of divorce and rather than going to a lower standard, Jesus went to the strictest measure and explained how even in the Torah God made recognition for man's weakness. In regards to whether this is an exception or a clarification, the challenge remains. What is the purpose of the clarification? Are they testing the limits for what an "acceptable" divorce is? There is no acceptable grounds, certainly not grounds to go into the marriage with the mindset of it being conditional. Does that mean God is inflexible? To the contrary, the existence of the law in Deuteronomy shows that even though God does not approve of divorce He recognizes the reality of it. In either case, the important thing is the attitude of the questioner towards marriage because asking on what grounds they may put away their wives demonstrates they are unfaithful at their core.

PeterDona · Dec 5, 2020

Kilk1 said:
But wasn’t their interpretation of D24 that it commands the divorce certificate (Matt. 19:7), and doesn’t Jesus agree that D24 permits divorce (v. 8)? They may disagree on command vs. permission, assuming there’s a practical difference between the two here, but both sides agree that the correct interpretation of the passage allows for divorce. Put another way:

1. Did Jesus agree that D24 allowed for (“permitted”) divorce?

2. Is Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 19:9 compatible with D24’s teaching?

As far as I can tell, D24 allows for divorce in a sense that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:9 doesn’t.

I think question 1 is not really answered. Whatever the true interpretation of D24 is, is hanging a bit in the air. Which is unfortunate. Traditionally jewish people have taken it to prescribe consecutive monogamy. But such an interpretation does not harmonize with Jesus words, I think.

I have tried to learn what D24 concerns by looking at the other passages in which it is related to.
1. Jeremiah 3:1-14
2. Matthew 5:31-32
3. Matthew 19:3-12
I think that is a comprehensive list of other passages giving hints at the meaning of D24.

With respect to question 2, I may not be the right person to answer that question. I think that Jesus gives his universal teaching in 19:5-6, and that 19:9 is an answer to a question specifically on D24,
namely whether D24 can really be used to achieve a divorce, and where Jesus answer is "whosoever divorces his wife using D24 and marries another commits adultery", thereby actually being negative about that option.

Kilk1 said:
I’m not sure there’s proof that “not over porneia” is a legal term to begin with. Is there any evidence that D24 was was called the “not over porneia” passage? Unless there’s proof of a unique, legal meaning, shouldn’t we take it by its literal meaning?—namely, that Jesus’ prohibition in Matthew 19:9 applies just to divorces that are “not over porneia,” thus not applying to divorces that are over porneia.

Hm, no, I do not think an absolute proof can be made here. It has been the contention for the whole thread that D24 is that "not over porneia" passage.

But going along with your idea then, which actually whether you realize it or not is pretty much like my own idea already, we do agree that the prohibition in Matthew 19:9 applies only to "not over porneia". So in my observation, the passage simply does not answer the question, what then if there has been porneia?

2 positions are possible
(1) it implies a tacit permission of divorces over porneia
(2) we must look elsewhere to find what the teaching is for divorces over porneia

I go with the second option. Because we have almost a parallel account of the incident in Mark 10:2-12, we can go to that passage. Here it seems simply that there is not any kind of category or exception mentioned. And so I would conclude that divorces over porneia are also prohibited.

Btw finally, I agree that the pharisees did not seem to have legit intentions here. Actually there may be a hidden drama here. Since Herod had killed John Baptist for opposing his divorce and remarriage, they may be trying to get Jesus into hot waters by this question, to make him speak out against Herod or something. A big maybe but still ....

Marc Perry · Dec 6, 2020

PeterDona said:
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 porneia”, which translates as “not over porneia”. 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 had a pretty lengthy thread about porniea here: Does porneia (usually translated as sexual immorality or fornication) go too far or not far enough

The crux is, the word's definition is not well understood as the New Testament authors used it. Anyone who claims to 'know' the real definition is full of it.

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

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency