Koine Greek Expert Regarding Matthew's Exception Clauses

[Ammi]

I’m looking for someone who has some expertise in the study of Koine Greek to ask a specific question regarding Matthew’s Gospels, where in chapters 5 and 19 he mentions an “exception” for divorce in cases of “porneia”.

I have used an interlinear translation to view the two sentences in question and am curious about the structure and terminology used just prior to the word “porneia”.

Matthew 5:32:
parektos: meaning “outside”
logou: meaning “OF-saying” or “of-case”

Matthew 19:9:
ei: meaning “IF”
mh: meaning “NO”
epi: meaning “ON”

Those are the two passages I’m curious about. And here is why: while the whole verse clearly seems to relate a real exception, the way porneia is used seems to be “the exception” rather than the “cause for exception”. What I mean, is that there are ways Matthew could have expressed porneia being a cause, or a reason for divorce, yet the way he worded both sentences does not use phrases like “because of” or " for reason of" but rather “outside of case” and “if no on” porneia.

Is anyone who has some knowledge of Koine Greek able to discuss this? Do you see what I am trying to ask?

 

[BartholomewB]

@Bithynian?
@Gorgias?

Matt 5:32 ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται.

Matt 19:9 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται.

 

[Bithynian]

Thank you for the tag!

What I mean, is that there are ways Matthew could have expressed porneia being a cause, or a reason for divorce

The λόγου in Matt 5:32 and the ἐπί with dative construction in Matt 19:9 both generally translate as “on the grounds of”, capturing the semantic of “because of” or “for the reason of”.

 

[Gorgias]

there are ways Matthew could have expressed porneia being a cause, or a reason for divorce, yet the way he worded both sentences does not use phrases like “because of” or " for reason of" but rather “outside of case” and “if no on” porneia.

Hmm… let’s first take a look at the way you’re interpreting these sentences, and then go from there…

In Mt 5:32, you seem to be hung up on the fact that ‘logos’ is in the genitive ("‘of-saying’ or ‘of-case’"). ‘Logos’ takes the genitive there merely because ‘parektos’ is being used as a preposition, and it takes an object in the genitive. ‘Porneia’ likewise takes the genitive, since it modifies ‘logos’ (“an account of porneia”). I think your question is “why ‘except on account of porneia’ and not simply ‘except porneia’?”. Am I correct?

In Mt 9:19, I’m not seeing what you seem to be saying you’re seeing. You seem to be asserting that the text reads “εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ”, but I’m looking at parallel Greek versions, and I see that this is never the case – it’s always simply “μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ”.

So, rather than translating this as if it were literally “if not on porneia”, I would look at ‘epi’ + dative giving us the notion of “on the grounds of”. So, “except on the grounds of porneia” seems to fit well.

So, I’m not seeing “if not on”, and I’m not seeing the problem with “except on account of”.

Your question seems to hinge on your assertion that the phrasing isn’t direct enough. I think that – especially from a Catholic perspective, although I think it works in a non-Catholic context (in which ‘porneia’ is interpreted merely as ‘marital infidelity’) – the phrasing works well. I’m going to dive into some personal exegesis here, so take it with a grain of salt:

The context of the discussion is the understanding of the Mosaic law in the context of divorce. In Jesus’ time, there were two main camps, characterized by two influential rabbis: Shammai held that adultery on the part of the woman was the sole legitimate cause for divorce; Hillel, on the other hand, taught that anything that was offensive to the husband could be used as justifying divorce. In Mt 19, the Hillel interpretation is literally what’s being asked of Jesus by the Pharisees: “is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatsoever?” (Mt 19:3).

(Side note: you see what the Pharisees are doing, right? It’s the old “divide and conquer” routine: if Jesus sides with Hillel, then His followers who like Shammai will think less of Jesus, and if He sides with Shammai, then Hillel’s followers will reject Jesus. As is common in the Gospels, Jesus’ response deftly eludes the trap: He replies “neither!”)

(continued…)

 

[Gorgias]

(continuing…)

Anyway, if the phrasing were what you suggest it should be, then it would seem to fall under the Hillel interpretation: all we need is a suggestion of porneia (whatever we mean by that), and divorce is warranted. Yet, that’s precisely what Christ intends not to endorse.

Rather, it’s the case of porneia that seems to be the standard; not just an accusation, but something with more substance to it than that.

Now, let’s take this one home: so, if it’s a “case of porneia”, then has Jesus simply chosen Shammai over Hillel? After all, that was Shammai’s assertion: a case of adultery on the part of the wife suffices for divorce!

I would assert that this is not the case: after all, it makes no sense whatsoever to say, “there are no exceptions – oh… except for this one exception!” (It makes me think of the Monty Python “no one expects the Spanish Inquisition” sketch silliness!) More to the point, can you see how Jesus turns the Shammai position on its head? It’s not adultery that gives rise to divorce – it’s that divorce causes adultery!

So, I’m square in the “Catholic interpretation” camp (naturally ): ‘porneia’ speaks to ‘unlawful marriage’, not to ‘adultery’, and so, what Jesus is saying is “look – if there’s a real marriage, and not merely one that’s unlawful, then that marriage is permanent. Full stop.” In other words: not Hillel, not Shammai, not Mosaic Law – merely “what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

Anyway, aside from the analysis of the Greek text, that’s what I think is going on here. So, no… I’m not worried because the text seems to suggest “a case of porneia”, rather than simply “porneia.”

(and one last p.s.: I’m not endorsing the suggestion that I’m a “Koine Greek expert”… )

 

[Todd_Easton]

A little off topic but have you thought about why Matthew alone among the synoptic gospel writers included the exception clause? I think Matthew included the exception clause because he alone among them mentioned that righteous Joseph intended to divorce the Virgin Mary because he suspected she had been unfaithful before they had consummated their marriage and, as a Christian writer, Matthew could hardly call Joseph a righteous man if Joseph’s intention to divorce his wife went against the teaching of Jesus Christ on divorce which would be the case without the addition of the exception clause. I think Matthew intended for the exception clause to apply only in the case of a non-consummated marriage, like that of Joseph and Mary at the time.

Even today, unlike a ratified and consummated marriage which no human power on earth can dissolve, a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons can be dissolved by the pope. (See Code of Canon Law, Canons 1141-1142)

 

[Hodos]

A little off topic but have you thought about why Matthew alone among the synoptic gospel writers included the exception clause? I think Matthew included the exception clause because he alone among them mentioned that righteous Joseph intended to divorce the Virgin Mary because he suspected she had been unfaithful before they had consummated their marriage and, as a Christian writer, Matthew could hardly call Joseph a righteous man if Joseph’s intention to divorce his wife went against the teaching of Jesus Christ on divorce which would be the case without the addition of the exception clause. I think Matthew intended for the exception clause to apply only in the case of a non-consummated marriage, like that of Joseph and Mary at the time.

Or conversely, Matthew actually wrote what Christ said, which is in accord with the laws on Divorce in Deuteronomy, as is Paul’s statements about divorce in 1 Corinthians being in accord with the laws on divorce in Exodus.

 

[Ammi]

Thank you for the tag!

Ammi:

What I mean, is that there are ways Matthew could have expressed porneia being a cause, or a reason for divorce

The λόγου in Matt 5:32 and the ἐπί with dative construction in Matt 19:9 both generally translate as “on the grounds of”, capturing the semantic of “because of” or “for the reason of”.

Thank you. Are there any examples of those phrases elsewhere in the New Testament?

I do respect your knowledge of the language, and admit I have no education of the way the language was used and its meanings. That’s why my question.

But i do find the “literal” translations interesting, especially in light of Matthew phrasing the statement differently in his two uses. Both seem to avoid an obvious “because of” or “for reason of”.

But if that is the way that “because of” and “for reason of” was expressed, then there may not be any particular intention of Matthew.

 

[Ammi]

I agree with Catholic Teaching on divorce and remarriage. So I’m not attempting to interpret the sentence as meaning or even including adultery (or at least remarriage). I agree it just doesnt square with the rest of the conversation or the other New Testament references and Teachings.

What I was suggesting (in question and definitely not asserting as a conclusion by any means) was a possible intention of Matthew saying “porneia” itself (two unlawfully married or simulating marriage people) is what/who can be divorced, as opposed to porneia being the reason for a valid/lawful marriage to be divorced.

So what I was only suggesting, doesn’t mean it would take the Hillel interpretation. It would still requires the term porneia to refer to (or include) adultery, which I dont see as a sound interpretation (especially in light of its distinction in chapter 15).

 

[Ammi]

Yes, I think Joseph relied on Deuteronomy 22 (which was from God), while the Pharisees were referring to Deuteronomy 24 (which was a concession by moses, which Jesus rejected as based on hard hearts and not God’s intention).

 

[Ammi]

Consider the other ways how Matthew expresses “because of” or “on account of” or “for this reason” or “cause”.

Chapter 13 vs 58 “dia”
Chapter 14 vs 9 “dia”
Chapter 19 vs 3 “aitian”
Chapter 19 vs 5 “heneken”

These seem to express a clear “because of” or “on account”.

I’m just wondering if there is other applications of the way he phrased it in 5:32 and 19:9

 

[Gorgias]

as opposed to porneia being the reason for a valid/lawful marriage to be divorced.

Agreed, and that’s exactly what the Church teaches: it’s only an invalid marriage that can be nullified; no other ‘divorce’ is possible (Pauline and Petrine privileges notwithstanding).

It would still requires the term porneia to refer to (or include) adultery, which I dont see as a sound interpretation

So, let’s pick nits for a second:

Yes, “adultery” is an effect of porneia, strictly speaking (since, after all, you have sexual relations in the context of an invalid bond). However, it’s not that the illicit sexual intercourse itself is what gives rise to the exception – it’s the invalidity of the marriage itself that makes it possible to nullify the marriage. (I’m not sure I’m stating that clearly enough – are you seeing the distinction that I’m trying to make?)

I’m just wondering if there is other applications of the way he phrased it in 5:32 and 19:9

In Matthew, or in the NT? See Acts 26:29 and compare to Mt 5:32. I don’t have a good tool on hand at the moment to look for “μὴ ἐπὶ”, but a quick search doesn’t turn up any instances of ἐπὶ + Dative that I can see at first blush.

 

[Bithynian]

Thank you. Are there any examples of those phrases elsewhere in the New Testament?

For λόγος used in the sense of “reason”, see Acts 10:29. It’s worth noting that λόγος is used throughout Classical and Hellenistic Greek literature as a common legal term for the grounds or legal basis upon which one can make a claim against another in a court of law.

For the ἐπί and dative construction, see Matt 4:4 and Luke 4:4.

These seem to express a clear “because of” or “on account”.

So does λόγος and ἐπί and the dative construction. I’ve never read of a technical commentary that attempts to distinguish, in substance, any of the causative constructions because they are, in substance, largely used as synonyms.

Different constructions are used in different contexts largely as a matter of convention, stylistic coherency and grammar (causation can be indicated by a noun, a preposition or a participle).

Consider the various ways in English in which we express the same semantic of causation: “because of”, “on account of”, “on the grounds that”, “due to”, “for the reason that”, “owing to the fact that”, “in view of” and many more.

“ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ ”

εἰ μή is the phrasing found in the Textus Receptus,. The TR is used invariably by web resources because it’s free while the NA28/UBS5 are under copyright and require licensing.

Both μή only and εἰ μή mean the same thing in the context of this sentence.

 

[Ammi]

Ok, thanks. I looked at your references. So it seems that the way both of them are structured, is that the exception of divorce refers to “grounds” or “reason” of porneia?

Do you find this exception clause ambiguous at all? I’m rather confused why Scripture addresses this answer by Jesus in this sort of ambiguity, since the whole point of the question was due to a dispute over the issue to begin with!

Catholic scholars seem to consider the exception of porneia as referring to “unlawful marriage”, which I do find convincing. Yet the Church fathers (including St. Jerome) explaining porneia as referring to adultery and grounds for divorce, though not remarriage.

I understand that the Church does take a position that doesnt contradict either of these interpretations. But they both cant be true, right?

One of the most convincing passages which seems to support the idea that adultery is not intended by the clause, is the use of moicheiai and porneia side by side in chapter 15 vs 19. If adultery would be considered an inclusion of porneia, then why use them both in the same sentence.

So the reason for my questioning the phrases prior to porneia in Matt. 5 and 19 was to see if they could shed some light on which interpretation seems more accurate. St Jerome’s or modern Catholic Scholars.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Just thinking aloud here… If, as you say, the exception clause was part of Jesus’ original teaching on divorce and not, as I first thought, a parenthetical remark inserted when Matthew wrote his gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to harmonize Jesus’ teaching with the gospel’s mention of Joseph’s intention to divorce the Virgin Mary, then why did Mark and Luke not mention such a seemingly important exception?

Did Mark and Luke leave out the exception clause because the audiences to whom they addressed their gospels, mostly Gentile Christians, I understand, were somehow significantly less prone to adultery or other acts of unchastity in general or less prone to a specific act of unchastity than the audience to whom Matthew addressed his gospel, mostly Jewish Christians, I understand? I could be wrong but I would think just the opposite would be true; I would think that Mark and Luke’s audiences of Gentile Christians would be more prone to acts of unchastity than Matthew’s audience of Jewish Christians.

Or, maybe it had to do with differing marriage customs at the time. I often hear that a Jewish couple at the time, like Joseph and Mary, didn’t usually consummate their marriage until their second year of marriage, whereas a Gentile couple consummated their marriage immediately after the wedding ceremony. Did Mark and Luke leave out the exception clause because their audiences of Gentile Christians were significantly less likely to commit adultery in the short time between their wedding ceremony and the consummation of their marriage than Matthew’s audience of Jewish Christians, who waited a year after their wedding to consummate their marriage? These varying marriage customs of Matthew’s target audience and the target audiences of Mark and Luke seem to me the best explanation for the exception clause in Matthew and the lack of an exception clause in Mark and Luke, as well as an explanation of the scope of the exception clause, namely, adultery during the time the marriage is unconsummated, as Joseph suspected of the Virgin Mary.

Because of his disciples’ adverse reaction to Jesus’ teaching on divorce, I don’t think, as you seem to suggest, Jesus was merely restating the teaching of Moses, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” (Matthew 19:10) And, because of the way Jesus set his teaching in opposition to the teaching of Moses, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you…” (Matthew 5:31-32a)

 

[Gorgias]

εἰ μή is the phrasing found in the Textus Receptus,.

Thanks! I was looking for this, but didn’t see it at first blush. Nevertheless, it’s a minority rendering, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Bithynian]

Nevertheless, it’s a minority rendering, wouldn’t you agree?

Yeah it’s a very minor variation. The NA28 commentary by Bruce Metzger doesn’t even mention it. It doesn’t impact the sense. It’s just another example of copyists “smoothing over” the Greek to make it sound more fluid. Funnily enough, English translations still translate it as if it were εἰ μή even though the critical text has only μή.

Do you find this exception clause ambiguous at all?

To me, it isn’t ambiguous on the “plain reading” (grammar and syntax) level. Whatever controversy arises is centred largely on the clarifying semantic boundaries of porneia and its use in this passage. This is above and beyond basic language issues.

But they both cant be true, right?

I think they can. Most Catholic commentaries offer a plurality of sound and orthodox views on the passage.

Again, I want to reiterate that this goes above and beyond basic language issues and more enters the realm of theology and philology (the study of literature). It’s a theological issue because what Jesus has to say here must be squared with the rest of Sacred Scripture and harmonised with the broader Catholic theology of marriage. It’s a philological issue because porneia has a wide semantic range, and choosing one over the other impacts exegesis of the passage.

This, mind you, isn’t isolated to porneia. Many words and phrases are such to the same controversy whether among Catholics or between Catholics and non-Catholics: dikaiosune (“righteousness”), ta gegraptai (“that which is written”, i.e. the Scriptures) and the well-trodden petra (“rock”) and Petros (“Peter”) debate. There are also sillier debates, like whether the lack of a definite article ὁ ho (“the”) in front of υἱός huios (“son”) when referring to Christ means that there were multiple Sons of God (I think this argument is fielded by Unitarian and Muslim apologists).

I don’t consider myself an expert in Biblical Greek. I did my undergraduate in Classics (Classical Greek and Latin) and Classical Hebrew with some minor studies in theology, but I’m very far from being a scholar or an academic (just an interested layperson). But even I draw a limit as to far how down the rabbithole I’ll descend in the pursuit of technical sciprtural analyses. Porneia is definitely one of them as I’m not game enough to read comparative philological analyses of Second Temple marriage certificates written in Hebrew and comparing those written in Greek to understand porneia’s usage. In this case, I defer to the Magisterium on this matter.

 

[BartholomewB]

I’m not game enough to read comparative philological analyses of Second Temple marriage certificates written in Hebrew and comparing those written in Greek to understand porneia ’s usage.

That is really leaving no stone unturned!

 

[Ammi]

Thanks again to @Bithynian for lending great Koine Greek knowledge here.

But in any case Jesus abrogated Moses’ concession of divorce in Deuteronomy 24.
So I’m not sure all the research of Temple remarriage could definitely settle things. But probably shed more light on the legal meaning of porneia.

It seems Jesus upheld divorce due to an unconsummated marriage (betrothal period, in Hebrew culture and based on Deut. 22). As @Todd_Easton brought up, regarding Joseph’s valid divorce option.

 

[Ammi]

I think they can. Most Catholic commentaries offer a plurality of sound and orthodox views on the passage.

I will have to give this some thought. I can certainly see how both views are orthodox and dont violate the principle of one another. So in that sense, both views are acceptable. But I dont understand if both views can be true.

I think you made me think about something, though, regarding porneia. The contextual meaning of porneia in Matthew may have to do with legality. Porneia having a possible broad ranging meaning of immoral sex in general ,which could include adultery or even masturbation and contraception, yet when applied to legal matters would have to be in the context of a contract.

But again, St Jerome’s interpretation did not lend itself to this analysis. He saw porneia as adultery justifying a divorce, although as in permanent separation with the bond remaining. That is different than understanding it as an invalid marriage.