Mark 10 and Matthew 19 both record a discussion of divorce between Jesus, the Pharisees, and His disciples. There are some differences in the two accounts, but there are some similarities. Both are longer accounts, several hundred words in Greek. Both accounts show Jesus rejecting divorce at His first response to the Pharisees. Both accounts quote Genesis 2.
But only Matthew adds the words “except for fornication.” This exception is found twice, the Sermon on the Mount (5:32), and also in the discussion with the Pharisees (19:9). In Luke 16:18 there is no exception: Divorce is wrong and produces adultery. This is Mark’s position as well. And the position of Romans 7:1-4. In an entire chapter on marriage including discussions of divorce, Paul does not mention “except for fornication” in 1 Corinthians 7, and in 7:39, he summarizes his discussion of marriage by saying only death can end a marriage.
The exception clause “except for fornication” is only found in two verses in Matthew. Why is it not recorded in Mark, Luke, Romans, or 1 Corinthians? The answer is an assumption. Men who believe that divorce is permissible say that Mark’s readers assumed that divorce was a Biblical option. And Theophilus who received Luke’s gospel assumed the same thing. And the Roman Christians assumed the same thing. And Paul assumed the same thing when he wrote to the Corinthians. These 4 books of the Bible assumed that divorce was possible “for fornication.”
That assumption gives the authority of Matthew’s account over Mark, Luke, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. Is that a valid assumption? Should we assume that our Lord allowed divorce whenever there was fornication, and then add those words into Mark, Luke, Romans, and 1 Corinthians whenever we are reading or teaching them?
No, we should assume that Mark’s account of no divorce and no remarriage controls our interpretation of “except for fornication” in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32.
- Clarity: Mark is clearer than Matthew. There are no disputed terms in Mark’s account of divorce. Clear passages should interpret unclear passages. We can more easily find a reason that Matthew included “except for fornication” than we can find that Mark excluded those words.
- Cross references: Mark’s lack of support for divorce on the grounds of fornication is supported by Luke, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. There are no NT cross references from other books for Matthew’s use of the exception clause. Our reading of Matthew should follow the authority of Mark because we find similar revelation in epistles.
- Example: Mark’s account should control our interpretation of Matthew because of the book of Hosea. In chapter 1 of that book, Hosea was told to marry an immoral woman who subsequently returned to her immorality in chapter 2. There was fornication in this marriage, but Hosea was not told to divorce.
- Easier explanation: Mark’s priority over Matthew explains more easily the differences between all the accounts. For example, if Matthew controls Mark, then we need to find a reason why several books of the Bible did not include the exception clause. More than that, these other books deny any exceptions. Why would Mark and Luke and Romans pass over those 3 words in Matthew 19:9 and then proceed to deny any other ways out of marriage and even call remarriage adultery? Why would they write that way? Why would they neglect the exception clause? Those questions are really one question, and answering it is more difficult to explain than the reverse. Here is the question reversed for Matthew: Why would Matthew include those 3 words (“except for fornication”) if divorce was completely forbidden? So there are two questions: why would Mark skip the exception in light of Matthew? Or why would Matthew include it in light of Mark?
The answer that is offered to the first question by those who hold to divorce and remarriage is that all the readers of those books assumed that Jesus Christ permits divorce, and so those books did not include the exception.
The answer to the second question is that Matthew includes an example of Jewish betrothal in Matthew 1:18-25. Therefore, he references the exception clause twice in 5:32 an 19:9 since he already gave an example of the exception clause in his first chapter when Joseph thought to divorce Mary before they came together.
Which is an easier answer to accept? Readers spread throughout the world knew in advance that Jesus Christ permitted a wife to divorce when a husband was immoral? Or, since Matthew included the account of Jewish betrothal in chapter 1, he referenced it again in chapters 5 and 19? - Holiness: If Mark’s account shows us that there is no Biblical divorce, then the church of Jesus Christ will move away from divorce as a sin which introduces adultery many times. The no divorce position discourages adultery. Human nature and history show us that men are easily conquered by sin and need holy helps to stave off temptation to sin. Some well-known Christian authors even allow divorce for verbal abuse, looking at filthy pictures on the internet, and even for lack of sexual intimacy in marriage. If we assume that Matthew’s exception should be naturally read into the other gospels and the epistles, then we will set the stage for an increase of both divorce and the adultery that results from remarriages.
All Scripture is breathed out by God. Both Matthew and Mark were moved along by the power of the Spirit. On this all godly pastors agree. But when we interpret the heavy matter of divorce, we should let Mark’s revelation be the final authority. Matthew’s additional information of the exception clause should be interpreted to fit under the conclusions that we have reached from Mark’s clear teaching.
One problem with your view that the divorce exception clause in Matthew’s Gospel refers to sexual unfaithfulness during a Jewish betrothal period is that ancient Jewish betrothal was NOT a prenuptial engagement as we understand engagement today. Rather, the betrothal in ancient Jewish culture was a marriage. The betrothal is arguably the most important part of ancient Jewish marriage because it was during the betrothal ceremony that the bride price was paid and marriage vows were exchanged, though the marriage was not sexually consummated until after the betrothal. So, a betrothed woman in ancient Jewish culture was a married woman. This explains why Joseph and Mary are referred to as husband and wife during their betrothal period (Matthew 1:19-20).
Given that a betrothed woman was regarded as a married woman in ancient Jewish culture, any sexual unfaithfulness on the part of the woman was regarded as adultery, not premarital sex. It was not possible for a betrothed Jewish woman to commit fornication in the sense of premarital sex. If she was sexually unfaithful during her betrothal period, she was charged with adultery.
Moreover, if Jesus’ divorce exception clause in Matthew’s Gospel was a reference to sexual unfaithfulness during the Jewish betrothal period, He would have used the specific term for adultery “moichea” rather than the term for harlotry “porneia”. Jesus’ choice of term (that is, His choice of “porneia” rather than “moichea”) makes it unlikely that He was referring to sexual unfaithfulness during the betrothal period.
It seems to me that the term “porneia” in the Matthean divorce exception clause refers to prostitution/harlotry on the part of a married woman. The Old Testament Hebrew word “zanah” refers to harlotry and is translated as “porneia” in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) and as fornication/whoredom in the English Old Testament. I believe that the word “porneia” in Matthew’s divorce exception clause refers to harlotry/prostitution on the part of a married woman. Why do I think so? Because there is a precedent in the Bible. In the Old Testament, God divorced His metaphorical wife Isreal on grounds of porneia (harlotry) (Jeremiah 3:1-8). Despite being married to God, Israel prostituted herself with other gods, and Israel’s spiritual prostitution was enacted physically by the prostitution of the Prophet Hosea’s wife (Hosea chapters 1 and 3). These passages regarding Israel’s prostitution and the prostitution of Hosea’s wife confirm that it is possible for a married woman to commit porneia (fornication, harlotry). As a result of Israel’s habitual porneia and her failure to repent, God decided to divorce her. It’s important to note that porneia (zanah) is not the word for a single act of adultery. In Hebrew, the word for single acts of adultery is n’aaph (translated as “moicheia” in Greek). But zanah (translated as “porneia” in Greek) refers to habitual adulteries with multiple sexual partners; it refers to habitual prostitution as a way of life rather than a one-off occurrence. God divorce Israel on the grounds of porneia (zanah).
So, I believe we can understand the meaning of porneia in Jesus’ divorce exception clause of Matthew’s Gospel by taking a look at the porneia that led to God’s divorce of Israel in the Old Testament. When Jesus talks about porneia in the divorce exception clause of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, He must have been referring to the same porneia that resulted in God’s decision to divorce His metaphorical wife Israel.
Thank you for that thoughtful and thorough reply.
If it is not possible for a woman to commit porneia during betrothal, then how can she commit porneia after the wedding ceremony? Jesus said a man may divorce his wife if she commits porneia, so wives must be able to porneia.
But the main point I was trying to make in the article is that either Mark will interpret Matthew, or Matthew will interpret Mark. I openly admit that my bias is toward Mark, and I listed 5 reasons why.
I would like to see godly, thoughtful Christians who use Matthew to interpret Mark offer some reasons why Matthew’s account should have that authority. It seems indefensible to let Matthew’s exception interpret Mark, Luke, Romans, and 1 Corinthians, all which prohibit divorce without any exception.
In response to my comment, you said: “If it is not possible for a woman to commit porneia during betrothal, then how can she commit porneia after the wedding ceremony?”
Well, it depends on what you mean by porneia. I never said it wasn’t possible for a woman to commit porneia during betrothal. What I said was that it’s not possible for a woman to commit premarital fornication during betrothal because a betrothal is a marriage, and a married woman cannot commit premarital fornication. Porneia and premarital sex are not synonymous in the context of the divorce exception clause of Matthew’s Gospel.
Your sense of porneia in Matthew’s divorce exception clause is premarital fornication, but I don’t think that’s the correct meaning in the context of the passage. According to the betrothal view of the divorce exception clause which you subscribe to, a man can divorce his wife for premarital fornication during the betrothal period but not after the consummation of the marriage because a betrothed woman is not yet married and, so, if she commits “premarital fornication” during the betrothal period, her man can divorce her since she is not yet a married woman. This view is erroneous and based on a false assumption. As I pointed out in my previous comment, a betrothed woman in ancient Jewish culture was a married woman and any sexual infidelity on her part constituted adultery. The grounds for Joseph’s contemplated divorce of Mary (Matthew 1:19) would have been adultery, not premarital sex. Joseph sought to divorce Mary for supposed adultery because he was following the Old Testament Law of Moses which permitted a man to divorce his wife on grounds of adultery even though this sort of divorce was never God’s will.
What does the term “”porneia” mean in the Matthean divorce exception clause? Well, the primary meaning is prostitution. Porneia is the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew word “zanah” which means harlotry (prostitution). During Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Jews would have understood porneia to mean prostitution. In secular classical Greek of the first century, porneia had only one meaning: prostitution. So, my understanding of the divorce exception clause of Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 is that a man may divorce his wife, not on grounds of adultery, but on grounds of prostitution. This understanding corresponds perfectly well with the grounds for God’s divorce of His metaphorical wife Israel in the Old Testament. Because it is rare for a married woman to turn into a prostitute, the divorce exception clause is as good as saying no divorce under any circumstances.
It is true that Matthew’s account includes the divorce exception clause whereas the accounts of Mark and Luke do not incude the exception clause. It is important to remember that Jesus made only one statement on divorce, and it was recorded by three different writers. The only real discrepancy between the records of Jesus’ teachings on divorce is that Matthew simply gives a more detailed account than Mark and Luke do. On the other hand, Mark mentions some details Matthew leaves out. For example, Mark mentions that the disciples asked Jesus about His words when they were in the house (Mark 10:10) without the Pharisees. Does anyone think that since this house isn’t mentioned in Matthew, maybe that part didn’t really happen? Of course not. We simply use Mark’s extra detail to fill out Matthew’s account.
An illustration of how this works is in the differing accounts of Jesus’ Triumphal Entry as recorded in Matthew 21:4–7 and Mark 11:4–7. Matthew records a donkey and a colt, while Mark mentions only the colt. No serious Bible student would attempt to resolve the discrepancy in the accounts of Matthew and Mark by saying that Matthew’s account had more authority than Mark’s or that Mark’s account has more authority. Rather, the common-sense interpretation of the difference is that there were two animals, and that Mark mentioned only the one that played a key part in the story whereas Matthew provided more details. By combining Matthews account with Mark’s account, we get the full picture of the story. Similary, there is no reason to treat the accounts of Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage any differently. If Matthew records a detail Mark omits, we should simply accept it as true for all human beings, and if Mark records a detail Matthew admits, we should accept that too as true for all human beings. This is because both Matthew and Mark wrote for the universal Church and for all humans for the ages. We can know the full counsel of God regarding divorce and marriage for all human beings by combining Matthew’s account with Mark’s and Luke’s accounts. Matthew’s extra detail should be used to fill out Mark’s and Luke’s accounts.
According to the betrothal explanation of the divorce exception clause, a betrothed woman in ancient Jewish culture was not yet married and, so, if she committed “premarital fornication” during the betrothal period, her man could divorce her since she was not yet a married woman. This view is erroneous and based on a false assumption. The truth is, a betrothed woman in ancient Jewish culture was a married woman. Because she was a married woman, she could not commit premarital fornication during the betrothal period; sexual infidelity the part of a betrothed woman would have constituted adultery rather than premarital fornication. This fact completely invalidates the betrothal explanation of the divorce exception clause of Matthew’s Gospel. So, the attempt to explain the divorce exception clause of Matthew’s Gospel using the betrothal view is flawed.
The fact that Matthew included the divorce exception in his account implies that it was part of Jesus’ statement. But why didn’t Mark and Luke include it in their accounts? The only logical answer is that they omitted it. Therefore, to obtain a full picture of what Jesus said, we must combine all three Gospel accounts. What Mark and Luke omitted is captured in Matthew’s account, and what Matthew omitted is captured in the account of Mark and/or Luke.
The primary meaning of porneia, both in Old Testament Greek (the Septuagint) and secular classical Greek is prostitution which is extremely rare in a married woman. So, the divorce exception clause of Matthew’s Gospel seems to me to imply that the only grounds for divorce is the unlikely event that a married woman becomes a prostitute. Thus, it would appear that divorce on the grounds of adultery is not permitted.
“The only logical answer is that they omitted it.”
The Holy Spirit was pleased for Mark, Luke, and Paul in Romans 7 to omit it. For what reason and to what end would the Spirit be pleased to omit it three or four times and include it only in Matthew?
It seems to me that the only logical reason is that the Gentiles as the recipients of Mark, Luke, Romans, and 1 Corinthians received just what they needed: The doctrine of no divorce for any reason. The Jews received just what they needed: a simple phrase explaining how Joseph could seek a divorce from Mary, and also be a righteous man.
Vick, please pardon me. I had not read your replies carefully. This morning, I returned to them, and realized what you were saying.
Fornication (porneia) means that a married woman turns to prostitution like Israel is charged with in Ezekiel 16 or Jeremiah 3 or Hosea 2. With that meaning, divorce would be very uncommon.
May the Lord give us permanent marriages like the one Great Marriage between His Son and that Bride who will one day be spotless.
Hello Seth,
There really is no contradiction between Matthew’s account and the accounts of Mark and Luke regarding Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. All three accounts can be harmonized, and I’m going to explain why I believe they are all in harmony.
It is possible to harmonize Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 with Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 without resorting to the Jewish betrothal theory. Let’s briefly look at the account in Matthew’s gospel to see how it harmonizes with Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. We will begin by examining Matthew 5:32.
Matthew 5:32 says: “BUT I SAY TO YOU THAT WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, EXCEPT ON THE GROUNDS OF PORNEIA, CAUSES HER TO COMMIT ADULTERY; AND WHOEVER MARRIES A DIVORCED WOMAN COMMITS ADULTERY.” Notice that this verse reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress (by committing porneia) before the divorce. Jesus assumes that, in most situations in that culture, a wife who has been put away by a husband will be drawn into a second marriage. He calls this second marriage adultery. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus said the man who divorces his wife actually shares in the guilt of her future adultery when she remarries. In reference to the guilt of causing his wife’s adultery by sending her away, Jesus gave only one exception: “except for the cause of porneia.” Why did Jesus grant this exception? It seems clear: the man was obviously not going to be held guilty of causing his wife to become an adulteress if she was already an adulteress (i.e., if she was already guilty of porneia [prostitution]). Thus, we can confidently conclude that the only “exception” that was given here in Matt. 5:32 is from the guilt of causing a woman to commit adultery by entering a second marriage following the divorce. It says absolutely nothing about an exception for remarriage. Trying to make this “exception” in Matthew 5:32 apply to remarriage would be stretching this text to say something that it simply does not say. Based on Matt. 5:32, we can say that Jesus allows for separation or divorce, but not remarriage. This same teaching is echoed by the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 7:10-11.
The remarkable thing about the first half of Matt. 5:32 is that it plainly says that the remarriage of a wife who has been INNOCENTLY put away is adultery: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of porneia, makes her (the INNOCENT wife who is not guilty of porneia) an adulteress.” This is a clear statement that remarriage is wrong, not merely when a person is guilty in the process of divorce, but also when a person is INNOCENT. In other words, Matthew 5:32 prohibits remarriage for both the innocent and the guilty parties after a divorce (including after a divorce on the grounds of porneia). Jesus’ opposition to remarriage in Matt. 5:32 seems to be based on the indissolubility of the marriage bond by anything but death. This understanding of Matthew 5:32 puts it in perfect harmony with Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11. Thus, there is no contradiction between Matthew 5:32 and the other gospel accounts. The only difference between Matt. 5:32 and the accounts of Mark and Luke is that Matt. 5:32 provides us with the additional information that divorce on the grounds of porneia is permissible (although no remarriage of either party is permitted following such a divorce). This harmonizes well with Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 7:10-11 which also confirms that if divorce occurs, no remarriage is allowed as long as one’s former spouse is still alive. Paul gives only two options to a divorced couple: remain unmarried or be reconciled to your spouse. So, we see that Matthew 5:32 is in perfect harmony with what the rest of Scripture teaches regarding divorce and remarriage.
Next, let’s look at Matthew 19:9. Matthew 19:9 says: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The difficulty with this verse is that the placement of the “exception clause” in the original Greek allows it to be read in two different ways. You can read it as the early Church read it, and that is to harmonize it with the Matthew 5:32 account as an exception to the guilt of causing a wife to commit adultery for divorcing her on the grounds of porneia. With this view, Matthew 19:9 reads just like Matthew 5:32 including its blanket prohibition against remarriage. On the other hand, the construction of the Greek will permit that Matthew 19:9 can be read, as the modern theologians have read it since Erasmus, as an exception to both the sin of divorce and the right of remarriage. How does one decide which of these readings is right?
The fundamental principle of scriptural interpretation is that scripture is the best interpreter of scripture. Ambiguous passages ought to be compared with clear passages that speak on the same subject. When applying this approach, we would take into consideration the emphatic prohibition against remarriage found in Mark 19:11, Luke 16:17-18, Romans 7:1-3, and 1 Cor. 7:10-11,39. I would add Matthew 5:32 to this list.
Notice what Matthew 19:9 does not say: it does not say that a man who divorces his wife on the grounds of porneia is free to remarry without committing adultery. All it says is that if a man divorces his wife for reasons other than porneia and then goes ahead to remarry, he commits adultery. We should be careful not to read into it what it does not expressly say. The question of whether a man who divorces on the grounds of porneia can remarry without committing adultery is clearly addressed in Matthew 5:32. Because Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 were both written by the same author on the same subject of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage, it makes sense to use Matthew 5:32 to clarify Matthew 19:9 with regard to whether a man who divorces on the grounds of pornea can remarry without committing adultery. This is in keeping with the fundamental principle of biblical interpretation that unclear passages must always be interpreted in light of clear passages. As we have already seen above, Matthew 5:32 clearly prohibits remarriage for even the innocent party following a divorce. For the sake of consistency, the prohibition of remarriage in Matt. 5:32 must be maintained in our interpretation of Matthew 19:9.
According to Matthew 19:9, if a man divorces his wife unjustly (i.e., for any reason other than porneia) and marries another woman, he commits adultery. The exception clause of Matt. 19:9 is grammatically connected to the phrase before it and simply acts as a parenthetical clarification to the original question asked by the Pharisees: “is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” Therefore, just like in Matthew 5:32, the exception is from the guilt of causing a woman who has committed the sin of porneia (and who is thus already an adulteress) to commit adultery by divorcing her. Summing up the Greek approach and surrounding context, Heth and Wenham, in their book Jesus and Divorce conclude: “When Matthew 19:9 is analyzed into its constituent parts, the ambiguity disappears and it makes a fitting punch line to the dispute with the Pharisees. They asked: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” Jesus replies: “It is always wrong to divorce what God has joined together: what is more, divorce, except for porneia, is adulterous; and remarriage after divorce is always so [i.e., always adulterous]”. Naturally, the disciples are shocked by this teaching and they object: “If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Unabashed, Jesus replies in a vein reminiscent of His remarks about cutting off hand or eye to avoid committing adultery (5:29-30), ‘You are able to live up to this teaching, for there are some who are even able to become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.'”
Thus, by combining Matthew 19:9 with Matthew 5:32, we come to an understanding of Matthew’s gospel’s teaching on divorce and remarriage that is in perfect harmony with the teaching in other parts of the Scripture (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18, 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 1 Cor. 7:39, and Romans 7:2). There is no conflict between the teaching in Matthew’s gospel and the rest of Scripture. All the Gospel accounts are in agreement, and they give an overriding prohibition against all remarriage after divorce.
That was a thorough explanation, Vick.
And I firmly agree with your conclusion:
“There is no conflict between the teaching in Matthew’s gospel and the rest of Scripture. All the Gospel accounts are in agreement, and they give an overriding prohibition against all remarriage after divorce.”