Can anyone interpret the word “fornication” in Matthew 19:9? If it includes adultery, Matthew 19:9 appears to suggest that Jesus envisioned an exception to God’s prohibition of divorce in cases of adultery. Is this true? The Catechism states that fornication is defined as sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., § 2353. This definition doesn’t seem to square with the context of Matthew 19:9–Jesus is clearly talking about married persons.
Does the gospel according to Matthew teach that God permits divorce in cases of adultery?
Dan
Dan, the word sometimes translated as “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is the Greek word “
porneia”; a more accurate translation is “unchastity” or “illicit marriage”. The Lord here is absolutely not giving an exception to His forbidding divorce. He is speaking of those who have engaged in an already illicit (both morally and legally) “marriage.” Therefore, for such couples to “divorce” is allowed since they are not actually married in the first place.
This footnote from The Navarre Bible: St. Matthew is of help:
[The RSVCE carries a note which reads: ‘unchasity’: The Law of Moses (Deut. 24:1), which was laid down in ancient times, had tolerated divorce due to the hardness of heart of the early Hebrews. But it had not specific clearly the grounds on which divorce might be obtained. The rabbis worked out different sorts of interpretations, depending on which school they belonged to – solutions ranging from very lax to quite rigid. In all cases, only husband could repudiate wife, not vice-versa. A woman’s inferior position was eased somewhat by the device of a written document whereby the husband freed the repudiated woman to marry again if she wished. Against these rabbinical interpretations, Jesus re-established the original indissolubility of marriage as God instituted it (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; cf. Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 1:31; 1 Cor. 7:10)… . .The Greek word used here [“*porneia
”] appears to refer to marriages which were not legally marriages, because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev. 18:6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase ‘except on the ground of unchastity’ does not occur in the parallel passage in Luke 16:18. See also Matthew 19:9 (Mark 10:11-12), and especially 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.] The phrase, ‘except on the ground of unchastity’, should not be taken as indicating an exception to the principle of the absolutely indissolubility of marriage which Jesus has just re-established. It is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law and in rabbinical tradition. The reference, then is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment. When persons in this position were converted to the true faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage. Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather affirms it.
On the basis of Jesus’ teaching and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church has ruled that in the specially grave case of adultery it is permissible for a married couple to separate, but without the marriage bond being dissolved; therefore, neither party may contract a new marriage,” The Navarre Bible: St. Matthew, Four Courts Press, 1988.
