Matthew's Exception Clause

[rcwitness]

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”

These two verses have been the grounds for legitimizing non Catholic Christian divorce and remarriage when a spouse commits adultery. But is this really what Jesus (or Matthew) was saying?

I would like to examine the greek language expressed by Matthew in these verses to try and understand them better.

First, in Chapter 5 vs 32, the greek translation says “… outside” “of case” “of prostitution…”
(RSV-CE except on the ground of unchastity)

This makes more sense if we see that Jesus didnt mean adultery in a marriage is grounds for divorce, but a carnal relationship itself which can be divorced!

And in Matthew 19:9 the greek is slightly different, but also is better understood in the same way.

“… if no… on prostitution…”
(RSV-CE except for unchastity)

 

[rcwitness]

You see, the arguement always seems to be that the term “porneia” includes adultery. But if we look at the context, Jesus is not really saying that infidelity by a spouse with someone other than their spouse is what can legitimize dissolving a Christian marriage, but that a couple joined through porneia is what can actually be divorced from!

 

[BartholomewB]

I’m not sure I follow your argument. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be addressing two questions at the same time.

(1) The correct translation of the Greek noun porneia.
(2) The correct translation of the Greek verb apoluo.

In the two passages you’re citing here, many English Bibles translate apoluo as “divorce,” but that is by no means the word’s only meaning. In Chap. 27, the trial before Pilate, Matthew uses the same verb three or four times in the context of “releasing” a prisoner at Passover. So what is Jesus saying, in your view? If a married woman has been having an extramarital love affair, and her husband finds out about it, what happens next?

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_630.htm

 

[rcwitness]

There can be a justification of seoaration, but no divorce.

Im saying Jesus was saying that Porneia is not binding. Its unlawful sex, but because even unlawful sex “joins” two people Jesus was saying a valid Christian marriage cannot be dissolved, even because of adultery.

 

[rcwitness]

The greek im trying to understand isnt si much about the terms, as how its expressed.

It seems to say that except a case of porneia can be released, not in a case where one spouse is unfaithful those Christians can divorce.

 

[BartholomewB]

There can be a justification of seoaration, but no divorce.

When you distinguish between “separation” and “divorce,” do you mean the husband may not legitimately remarry?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

There can be a justification of seoaration, but no divorce.

When you distinguish between “separation” and “divorce,” do you mean the husband may not legitimately remarry?

Yes

But Matthews exception clause is not dealing with separation at all.

 

[BartholomewB]

But Matthews exception clause is not dealing with separation at all.

I’m out of my depth now. If it’s not about separation, what does the verb apoluo mean in these two verses?

 

[rcwitness]

It means the porneia union is not binding, and never was. It should be released from!

Examples would be incest, premarital sex, sex with a prostitute, homosexual sex, etc.

 

[rcwitness]

I dont think u are in too deep at all… do you see what im saying?

 

[BartholomewB]

Let me ask you again. When the husband finds out his wife has been having an extramarital affair, what happens next, in accordance with Jesus’ teaching in these passages?

 

[stpurl]

What about sex with an unlawfully married spouse? If man A divorces wife A and then marries wife B, would the passage not indicate that wife B (never married in the eyes of God to begin with as man A is still considered married to wife A) should indeed seek legal divorce as the union is not binding? That’s how I always understood the text to refer to. It is just as much an illicit union in this case as premarital sex/fornication, adultery, homosexual sex, etc.

 

[rcwitness]

Let me ask you again. When the husband finds out his wife has been having an extramarital affair, what happens next, in accordance with Jesus’ teaching in these passages?

Jesus isnt talking about an extramarital affair at all. He was saying “unless a couple who shouldnt be having sex to begin with”

 

[Wesrock]

rcwitness, let me know if this is what you mean: a couple who is unmarried (or not validly married) and is engaging in fornication is not bound together and so can separate? Jesus was basically highlighting those who are not in valid marital unions?

 

[stpurl]

The problem is that Jesus never says, "Divorce is wrong, unless your spouse is cheating on you.’ He says, "divorce is wrong. A couple who are free to marry are married ‘until death do them part’ --yes, even if the spouses cheat on each other. BUT since there are situations right here and now even where there are heaps of Jewish men and women walking around who have been divorced and then married other people, while still --remember what I said about a husband and wife being ‘one flesh’ just now???–being married to their first spouse, THOSE people in ILLICIT UNIONS (that ‘lewd conduct), they NEED to divorce, because THEY are not free to marry.) Otherwise, look, I’m sorry, but the whole ‘divorce because of cheating thing’ was something that MOSES had allowed and which JESUS had just condemned! Why did He go to the trouble of saying that marriage was for KEEPS, that MOSES had kowtowed to people but GOD did not do so. . .oh but wait, now Jesus is going to confirm Moses’ mistake in the teeth of just saying this was not how GOD had ordained things???

 

[rcwitness]

What about sex with an unlawfully married spouse? If man A divorces wife A and then marries wife B, would the passage not indicate that wife B (never married in the eyes of God to begin with as man A is still considered married to wife A) should indeed seek legal divorce as the union is not binding? That’s how I always understood the text to refer to. It is just as much an illicit union in this case as premarital sex/fornication, adultery, homosexual sex, etc.

Yes, thats another example of porneia!

Consider what Paul says about sex with a prostitute:

1 Cor. 6
Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.”

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness, let me know if this is what you mean: a couple who is unmarried (or not validly married) and is engaging in fornication is not bound together and so can separate? Jesus was basically highlighting those who are not in valid marital unions?

Yes…

 

[BartholomewB]

If man A divorces wife A and then marries wife B, would the passage not indicate that wife B (never married in the eyes of God to begin with as man A is still considered married to wife A) should indeed seek legal divorce as the union is not binding? That’s how I always understood the text to refer to.

Here are the two verses, You have twenty-something English translations to choose from, in each case. Where does it say that the husband and wife were not legitimately married to begin with?

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-32.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/19-9.htm

 

[BartholomewB]

rcwitness, let me know if this is what you mean: a couple who is unmarried (or not validly married) and is engaging in fornication is not bound together and so can separate? Jesus was basically highlighting those who are not in valid marital unions?

Yes…

Ah, now I’m beginning to catch up with you. Are you saying the same as @stpurl, that the husband and wife were not legitimately married to begin with?

 

[rcwitness]

Here is the NAB footnote:

The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.