IS ADULTERY A LEGITIMATE GROUND FOR DIVORCE?
============================================

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.
Professor of Theology and Church History
Andrews University


NOTE: Many Christians have traditionally maintained on the basis
of the exception clause of Mathew 19:9 ("except for unchastity-porneia"),
that adultery is the only legitimate ground for divorce. This essay shows
that in spite of its popularity, this view cannot be supported by the use
of porneia in its immediate and larger context of Matthew 19:9. A Biblical
justification for divorce may be found in other passages such as I
Corinthians 7:15 which I examine in another chapter of my book THE MARRIAGE
COVENANT. Feel free to contact me if you have difficulty to retrieve some
segments of this study. I would be glad to e-mail you the complete
unabridged text. I welcome your comments.


	Matthew makes three significant contributions about Jesus'
teachings on divorce which are not found in Mark or Luke. Since Matthew is
writing to Jewish-Christian readers he mentions three significant aspects
of Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage which are omitted by Mark and
Luke.The first significant Matthean contribution regarding Jesus' teaching
on divorce and remarriage is found in the context of the Sermon on the
Mount. Here Jesus encourages living in conformity to the spirit of the law
rather than to its letter. Contrary to the Pharisees who allowed divorce
by appealing to the letter of the Mosaic concession (Matt 5:31; cf. Deut
24:1-4), Jesus disallows divorce but for one exception (Matt 5:32) by
revealing the true intent of God's law.
	The second significant Matthean contribution is the response of the
disciples to Jesus' teaching: "If such is the case of a man with his wife,
it is not expedient to marry" (Matt 19:10). Apparently, the disciples had
been following either the rabbinical view of Shammai which allowed divorce
only on the ground of adultery or of Hillel which permitted divorce for any
reason. When they understood that Jesus in essence made no allowance for
divorce, they responded in astonishment, "If one cannot get out of
marriage, then it is better not to marry in the first place." Jesus then
declared that not all can accept a celibate life (Matt 19:11-12). This
brief dialogue between Jesus and the disciples recorded by Matthew reveals,
indirectly and yet forcefully, that Jesus taught the permanence of the
marriage relationship.

	The Exception Clause. The third significant Matthean contribution
is the exception clause of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 which teaches that to
divorce and to remarry, "except for unchastity [porneia]" is adultery:
"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" (Matt 5:32). "And I say to you: whoever
divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits
adultery" (Matt 19:9).
	The exception clause found in these two texts has been the object
of countless studies. A major reason is that many find in this clause the
only legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage. 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 one's 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). 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 God's 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 Christ's 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.
	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 Christ's
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.
	A third problem with interpretating the exception clause as sexual
misconduct is that it contradicts Paul's "no divorce" teaching in 1
Corinthians 7:10-11. In this passage, Paul claims to give Christ's 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.
	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,
"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 Matthew's 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.

	Refusal of Jesus to Comment. A third interpretation attempts to
explain Matthew's 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 God's 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 18:6-18).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 18:6-18). There are one or
two other places in the New Testament where fornication may have this
technical sense-e.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 Council's 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.
	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.


(2) Jewish Context of Matthew's 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 18:6-18). 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 Christ's 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
brother's wife; she is your brother's 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 18:6-18).

(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 God's 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 Christ's 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 God's 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 Matthew-a gospel written for Jewish Christians-would 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
Christ's 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."
	The teaching of Jesus in the Gospels can be summarized in two
points. First, divorce is forbidden because it violates God's intention
that marriage be a permanent union of two persons. Second, remarriage
after divorce is adultery because divorce does not dissolve the marriage
union.

	Implications of the conclusion. Does this means that Jesus made no
allowance for divorce and remarriage? Not really. Christ's concern was to
articulate God's ideal that marriage be an indissoluble union.
Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal sinless world, but in a real
sinful world. Jesus did not pastor a church where some couples find it
impossible to maintain a peaceful marital relationship. On the other hand,
Paul did face that very challenge in churches like Corinth. Paul knew
Christ's ideal of the permanence of the marital union, but he also knew the
real situation of marriages that could not continue because one partner
made normal life impossible for the other. Thus the apostle takes the
freedom to make exceptions to Christ's ideal by allowing for the
dissolution of certain difficult marriages. The Pauline teachings on
divorce and remarriage is examined in another chapter of my book which I
would be glad to e-mail you, if you are interested.

----------------------------------

Christian regards

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,
Professor of Theology and Church History
Andrews University
4990 Appian Way
Berrien Springs, MI 49103
samuele@andrews.edu