Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Scholarly opinion on the meaning of the exception clause is divided, reflecting the lack of unanimity among scholars about the precise meaning of the key word of the clause, namely porneia. The word is generally translated as "fornication" (KJV), "unchastity" (RSV), and "marital unfaithfulness" (NIV).

The Greek word porneia, from which we derive the word "pornography," comes from the root word pernemi"to sell." The original idea was to offer ones body for a price. The word was used especially of slaves and meant "a harlot for hire."11 Historically, porneia has been used with wider and narrower meanings. The wider meaning includes unlawful extra-marital intercourse such as prostitution, fornication, and adultery. The narrower meaning can refer to sexual aberrations such as homosexuality (cf. Rom 1:29), incest (cf. 1 Cor 5:1) , and unlawful marriages within the forbidden degrees of relationship (Acts 15:20,29). The question then is, what is the exact meaning of porneia in the exception clause (Matt 5:32; 19:9)? Is Jesus using the term in its wider or narrower meaning? Scholarly opinion differs on this matter as indicated by the five major interpretations of the exception clause.

Adultery or Sexual Misconduct. The traditional and most popular interpretation of the exception clause takes porneia in its wider meaning of sexual misconduct. Thus, Jesus allows divorce when one party has been guilty of marital unfaithfulness. This view is reflected in most translations where porneia is translated as "fornication" (KJV), "unchastity" (RSV), or "marital unfaithfulness" (NIV). Advocates of this view maintain that the exception clause allows for the divorce and remarriage of the innocent party, since divorce implies the dissolution of the marriage relationship. In this case, Jesus would be siding with the conservative school of Shammai which allowed divorce when the wife was convicted of serious sexual misconduct.

Problems with the Sexual Misconduct View. In spite of its popularity, this interpretation has several problems. In the first place, it contradicts the immediate context where Jesus rejects the Mosaic provision of divorce as being against Gods creational plan for the permanence of the marriage union: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6). The present imperative of the verb (kovizeto) "let not put asunder" enjoins the cessation of a practice in progress, namely, the severing of marriage unions permanently established by God.

In the light of Christs refusal to accept the Mosaic provision for divorce, it is hard to imagine that He would make allowance for the dissolution of marriage in the case of sexual misconduct. If the latter were true, Jesus would be contradicting what He had just affirmed regarding the permanence of the marriage union. His teaching would represent not a rejection of the Mosaic concession but merely an interpretation essentially similar to that of the Shammaites. But the Pharisees certainly understood Jesus teaching to be in conflict with Moses ("Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"Matt 19:7). The clear conflict between Jesus teaching on the permanence of the marriage union and the Mosaic concession, logically rules out the wider meaning of porneia as sexual misconduct.

Would Christ teach that our righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees and then side with one party of the Pharisees by saying that a man should not divorce his wife except for the cause of unfaithfulness? If that were true, where would the superiority of Christs teaching be? And why would the disciples be astonished at His teaching? They could well have expected Christ to side more with the conservative view of Shammai than with the liberal view of Hillel? In the light of considerations such as these, porneia must have a narrower meaning that does not contradict the astonishingly radical and revolutionary teaching of Matthew 19:3-9.

A second problem with interpretating porneia as sexual misconduct is posed by the teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18 where divorce and remarriage are condemned as adultery without any exceptions. While today we can bring together the teaching of Jesus on divorce as found in all the three Synoptic Gospels, the Gentile readers of Marks or Lukes Gospels, who did not have access to Matthews Gospel which circulated primarily among the Jewish-Christians, had no way of knowing that Jesus made allowance for divorce and remarriage in the case of marital unfaithfulness.

A third problem with interpretating the exception clause as sexual misconduct is that it contradicts Pauls "no divorce" teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. In this passage, Paul claims to give Christs own command by enjoining the wife not to separate from her husband and the husband not to divorce his wife. The total prohibition of divorce by Paul reflects the teaching of Jesus found in Mark and Luke.

A fourth problem with the interpretation of porneia as sexual misconduct (adultery) is that this term is not the normal word for adultery, though it may include it. The normal Greek term for adultery is moicheia, a term used by Jesus in all the divorce texts to describe the outcome of divorce and remarriage, namely, "commits adultery." If Jesus intended to permit divorce specifically in the case of adultery, He would probably have used the explicit term moicheia. The fact that He used another term suggests that porneia may refer to something other than adultery.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that there is no provision in the Pentateuch for divorce in the case of adultery. The penalty for proven adultery was death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22, 23-27) and not divorce. The same was true in the case of a woman who had engaged in premarital sex before marriage (Deut 22:13-21). She was stoned to death and not divorced. There are no indications in the Pentateuch that divorce was ever allowed for sexual misconduct.

A fifth problem with interpreting the exception clause as sexual misconduct is that it fails to take into account the astonishment of the disciples at the saying of Jesus. As Edward Schillebeeck points out, "If Matthew 19:9 is taken to mean that Jesus was siding with the followers of the school of Shammai, who permitted divorce on grounds of adultery, then the astonishment expressed in the apostles answers would be incomprehensiblethen it is not expedient to marry (19:10). Their astonishment is only explicable if Christ in fact rejected all possibility of the dissolution of marriage. His rejection is reinforced by the statement: Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given" (19:11).12 In the light of the foregoing considerations, we are bound to conclude that it is most unlikely that by the exception of porneia, Jesus meant to allow for divorce and remarriage on the grounds of adultery or sexual misconduct. Respect for the astonishing and radical teaching of Matthew 19:3-9 requires that porneia be interpreted in a narrower sense.

Unfaithfulness During the Betrothal Period. A second interpretation of the exception clause is that Jesus allowed for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual immorality during the betrothal period.13 Unlike modern engagement, the Jewish betrothal was a legal contract that was as binding as marriage (Deut 20:7; 22:24). If the betrothed proved unfaithful prior to the consummation of the marriage, legal action could be taken and divorce could be obtained. Following this custom, when Joseph discovered that Mary was expecting a child while betrothed to him, he planned to divorce her quietly rather than exposing her to public disgrace (Matt 1:18, 19).

According to this view, the exception of porneia allows divorce only in the case of unfaithfulness during the betrothal period. By her infidelity, the betrothed girl had broken her agreement to marry, and consequently, the man could be released from his obligation to marry the girl since marriage had not yet been consummated. The exception clause would then apply only to the ancient Jewish betrothal practice and not to modern marriages.

The betrothal interpretation of the exception clause does take into account the Jewish orientation of Matthews Gospel and finds support in the example of Joseph and Mary (Matt 1:19). The most obvious objection to this interpretation, however, is that the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees centered on marriage and not on betrothal. It seems unlikely that Jesus would reply to the Pharisees question regarding the Mosaic provision for divorce by referring to unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, a situation which is foreign to the Mosaic provision and to the subject under discussion. Moreover, this interpretation does not account adequately for the absence of the exception clause in Mark and Luke, for the betrothal practice was common among the Greeks and the Romans to whom the exception would also apply. Another point to be noted is that the word porneia is never used in the New Testament to describe the sin of illicit relations during the betrothal period.

Refusal of Jesus to Comment. A third interpretation attempts to explain Matthews exception clause by concentrating on the sentence as a whole. Some scholars argue that porneia is to be equated with "something indecent" of Deuteronomy 24:1 and then suggest that Jesus refused to comment on the meaning of the Deuteronomic phrase. According to this view, the exception clause should be translated as "setting aside the matter of porneia."14

This view is attractive because it concentrates on the overall meaning of the passage, rather than on a single word. It upholds the fundamental truth affirmed by Jesus that from the beginning God established marriage as an indissoluble, life-long relationship. It also harmonizes the difference between Matthew and Mark/Luke in Jesus teaching on divorce. Writing to Jewish readers, Matthew refers to their legitimate concern about porneia without suggesting that Jesus has made it a ground for divorce. In spite of its attractiveness, this view lacks grammatical support because the Greek words do not allow such a translation.

Inclusive Meaning of Exception Clause. A fourth interpretation gives the exception clause an inclusive rather than exclusive meaning. A number of modern exegetes have argued that the Greek words translated as "except for unchastity" (RSV), do not have any limiting meaning in this context. In this case, the passage of Matthew 19:9 would read: "Whoever divorces his wife, even if she has committed adultery and marries another, commits adultery."15

According to this interpretation, Matthew wanted to impress upon his Jewish readers that not even adultery constituted a valid ground for divorce. This interpretation may be grammatically possible, but it seems rather unusual because it is based on a rather uncommon inclusive usage of the word parektos, usually translated "except for." This inclusive interpretation is based upon what Bruce Vawter calls "linguistic acrobatics," which turns "except" into "even including."16 It must be granted, however, that this interpretation does harmonize with the immediate context where Jesus rejects the Mosaic provision for divorce by pointing back to Gods original plan for marriage as a permanent covenant.

Marriages Unlawful According to Mosaic Law. A fifth view is based on a narrower interpretation of porneia as referring to marriages which conflicted with the conditions laid down by Leviticus (Lev 18:6-1 .17 In His call to practical holiness, God prohibited His people from marrying near relatives. Such marriages are condemned presumably because they are the result of sexual passion rather than of genuine love.

According to this interpretation, Jesus allows for divorce only where a marriage should not have taken place in the first place, namely, within the degrees of prohibited relationships. Consequently, in Matthew, Jesus does not envisage any exception to the absolute ban on divorce but only allows for the dissolution of a marriage which was validly contracted according to Greco-Roman laws but which was in conflict with the Mosaic law of prohibited relationships.

It may be objected that the Mosaic prohibition against incestuous marriages precludes any provision on the part of Christ for a legitimate divorce. This objection, however, as Carl Laney points out, "does not hold up under close scrutiny, for the Israelites were commanded not to marry foreign women (Deut 7:3-4), but when the command was violated in Ezra 9-10, the unlawful marriages were dissolved. The prohibition would not preclude the possibility of violation and the need to deal with an illegal incestuous situation."18

This view appears to me as the most satisfactory and enjoys considerable scholarly support. Among the scholars who advocate this view, mention can be made of J. Bonsirven, H. Cazelles, M. Berrouard, J. Kahmann, W. K. Lowther Clark, and more recently Charles Ryrie and the noted New Testament scholar, F. F. Bruce.19 Commenting on the use of porneia in Acts 15:20,29, Bruce notes: "But fornication could bear a more technical sense of marital union within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity laid down by the Hebrew law of holiness (Lev 18:6-1 . There are one or two other places in the New Testament where fornication may have this technical sensee.g. the concession except on the ground of fornication added in the Matthean version of Jesus prohibition of divorce for his followers (Matt 5:32; 19:9)."20 Four major arguments support this view of the exception clause.

(1) New Testament Use of Porneia. One of the possible lexical meanings of porneia is "incest" or "incestuous marriage."21 We find this meaning in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul demands the expulsion of a Christian who has married his stepmother, a clear violation of Leviticus 18:8. The same meaning of porneia appears in Acts 15:20, 29 where the Jerusalem Council recommends that Gentile converts should abstain from idol sacrifices, blood, meat of strangled animals, and porneia. It is significant to note, as Carl Laney points out, "the order suggested first by James (Acts 15:20) and then given by the Council (Acts 15:29):

James

Idol Sacrifices Lev. 17:8-9

Porneia Lev. 18:6-18

Things Strangled Lev. 17:13-14

Blood Lev. 17:10-12

The Council

Idol Sacrifices Lev. 17:8-9

Blood Lev. 17:10-12

Things Strangled Lev. 17:13-14

Porneia Lev. 18:6-18

It is quite apparent that James was thinking of the Leviticus 17-18 restrictions but suggested them in the wrong order (Acts 15:20). Then, when the Council formulated its decision, the restrictions were recorded in their correct order according to Leviticus 17-18 (Acts 15:29)."22

In the light of the correlation existing between the four recommendations of the Jerusalem Council and the regulations of Leviticus 17-18 which appears to be the source of the Councils recommendations, it seems plausible to conclude that porneia refers not to sexual immorality in general, but to the forbidden marriage relationships of Leviticus 18:6-18 in particular.

There was no need for the Jerusalem Council to require Gentile converts to abstain from sexual immorality in general for they were required to abstain from it anyway. Since the recommendations of the Council were designed to reduce tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians, the requirement to abstain from porneia must be, like the others, based on levitical laws still respected by Jewish Christians. "It is clear from Acts 15," note Bernard Leeming and R. A. Dyson, "that there was, early in Christian history, considerable discussion about the matter [of porneia] among Hebrew converts, and the Council of Jerusalem may well have legislated before Matthews Gospel was written, with full knowledge that Christ had spoken in this sense."23

The Jews who became Christians continued to obey the Mosaic laws of prohibited relationships, but Gentile converts did not feel bound to such laws as indicated by the case of a Corinthian Christian who had married his step-mother (1 Cor 5:1). This inevitably led to a conflict which the Jerusalem Council solved by exempting the Gentiles from the law of circumcision while expecting them to obey the laws relating to idol sacrifice, blood, things strangled, and illicit marriage to a near relative.

"Since," as Lowther Clark points out, "the first three articles of the compromise are concerned with practices which were abhorrent to the Jews but seemed innocent enough to the Gentiles, the fourth must be of a similar nature. The passage of 1 Corinthians gives us the clue. Porneia here means marriage within the prohibited Levitical degrees. In this matter, Gentile Christianity wholly adopted Jewish standards, and the decree became obsolete because there was no longer any difference of opinion. But for a decade or two, especially in places like Antioch, where Jew and Gentile met and where the agitation culminating in the decree arose, marriage within the prohibited degrees was a live issue, and porneia was the word by which it was known."24 Applying this meaning of porneia to the exception clause, the Lord in Matthew allows one exception to the universal rule of no-divorce, namely, in the case of an illicit marriage to a near relative.

(2) Jewish Context of Matthews Gospel. Matthew wrote his gospel principally for Jewish converts to Christianity. Jewish-Christians continued to follow the Mosaic marriage laws which prohibited marriage with a near relative (Lev 18:6-1 . Gentile converts to Christianity kept the Greco-Roman laws of marriage. This would explain why Matthew, in writing to a Jewish-Christian audience familiar with the prohibitions against marriage to a near relative, includes the exception clause ("except for porneia" . Mark and Luke omit the clause presumably because Gentile Christians were less likely than Jewish Christians to marry a near relative. Gentile people were not as tribally related as Jewish people.

Support for this interpretation of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is provided by first century Palestinian literature. Joseph Fitzmyer has shown that porneia is the Greek translation of the Hebrew zenut (cf. LXX Jer 3:2,9) which is used in the Qumran material to refer to marriage within the forbidden degrees of relationship.25 The same use is found in later Jewish literature.26

(3) Historical Setting. The narrower interpretation of the porneia exception as referring to incestuous marriages prohibited in Leviticus 18:6-18 is supported also by the historical setting of Christs dispute with the Pharisees. Since the dispute occurred in Perea (Matt 19:1; Mark 10:1), the territory governed by Herod Antipas, it is quite likely that the Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into making a statement against the incestuous marriage of Herod Antipas. John the Baptist was imprisoned and executed for condemning Herod Antipas for divorcing his wife in order to marry the wife of his brother Philip (Matt 14:4). Antipas had violated the Mosaic law which stated, "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brothers wife; she is your brothers nakedness" (Lev 18:16; cf. 20:21).

The Pharisees presumably hoped that Jesus would follow John in openly condemning the incestuous marriage of Herod Antipas. Jesus, however, chose not to condemn directly Herod Antipas, but rather to state the principle that divorce is only permitted in the case of an unlawful marriage. Thus, the historical and geographical setting of the exception clause supports the interpretation of porneia as a reference to marriage within prohibited relationships (Lev 18:6-1 .

(4) Immediate Context. The immediate context supports the narrower interpretation of the porneia exception as a reference to the prohibited relationships of Leviticus 18:6-18. In Matthew 19:4-8, Christ rejects the Mosaic provision for divorce as a mere concession to human rebellion running contrary to Gods original plan for marriage. In this context, it would be inconsistent for Jesus to proceed to make a concession of his own for divorce in the case of sexual misconduct.

The whole purpose of Christs argument which moved from Deuteronomy to Genesis, that is to say, from the Mosaic letter of the law which allowed divorce to the creational design of the law which excluded divorce, would be nullified if in the end He simply returned to Deuteronomy again. On the other hand, it would be consistent with what Christ had just declared for Him to say that Gods plan for marriage aloowed for divorce only in the case of an illegally contracted marriage to a near relative. In all other instances, marriage is a lifelong and binding covenant commitment.

The possibility of marrying a near relative was very real in the tribal Jewish society which consisted of large blood-related families. I was made forcefully aware of this fact while teaching in Ethiopia. Students belonging to the same tribe often referred to one another as brothers or sisters because to some degrees they were all related to one another. The situation was not much different in tribal Jewish society where it was relatively easy to marry a near relative. This can explain why Jesus in Matthewa gospel written for Jewish Christianswould make allowance for divorce in the case of an illegally contracted marriage to a near relative.

Another aspect of the immediate context, which indirectly supports the unlawful marriage view of porneia, is the reaction of the disciples: "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry" (Matt 19:10). Such a reaction is only explicable if Jesus rejected the possibility of divorce, except in the rare cases of marriage among near relatives where marriage should not have taken place in the first place.

Had Jesus permitted divorce for sexual misconduct, He would have hardly provoked such a reaction on the part of His disciples, since such a view was widely known and promoted by the rabbinical school of Shammai. The astonishment of the disciples indirectly proves that they understood Christs standard for marriage to be immeasurably higher and more exacting than that of the stricter rabbinical school of interpretation.

Conclusion. Our study of the Jewish setting, historical and geographical background, and the immediate context of Matthew 19:1-12 suggests that by the exception clause ("except for porneia" Jesus permitted divorce only in the case of an unlawful marriage to a near relative. By means of the porneia exception, Christ did not intend to impose the Levitical norms for legitimate marriage, but simply to declare that when such norms were violated, there was a valid reason for the dissolution of marriage.

This view is consistent with the absolute value that Mark, Luke, and Paul place on the saying of Jesus. We are bound to conclude that by the exception phrase about porneia, Jesus did not intend to open the way for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual misconduct. Rather, He wished to reaffirm the creational principle of the permanence of the marriage union by allowing for divorce only in the case of an unlawful marriage. In the light of this conclusion, Matthew 19:9 would read: "whoever divorces his wife, unless his union with her is illegitimate, and marries another, commits adultery."

---