Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T14:05:06.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Matthew 5.32 and 19.9 – Exception or Exceptional Situation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Ben Witherington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a danger when dealing with a crux interpretum of assuming that because old solutions do not appear satisfactory, then a new view is more likely to be true than the standard interpretations. One must be wary, however, of replacing an unsatisfactory old view with an equally unsatisfactory new one. If, however, one can find a view that satisfies the usual objections to the traditional view without resorting to exegetical gymnastics, then it is certainly worth close scrutiny. There appears to be just such an interpretation of Mt 5. 32 and 19. 9 arising among scholars of varying points of view, though it is too early to speak of a new consensus. Thus, it seems worthwhile to examine once again these problematic texts in light of recent scholarship.

Information

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 571 - 576
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Notes

[1] It appears an attempt was made in certain mss (D, B, and others) to conform the clause in Mt 19. 9 to its counterpart in 5. 32. Cf. Metzger, B., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London, 1971) 47–8Google Scholar. Crouzel, H., ‘Le Texte patristique de Matthieu v. 32 et xix.9’, NTS 19 (1972) 98–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar, notes that no Ante-Nicene Church Father attests the present form of Mt 19. 9, but rather a form analogous to Mt 5. 32. Cf. Thompson, T. L., ‘A Catholic View of Divorce’, JES 6 (1969) 53–67Google Scholar. Arendzen, J. P., ‘Ante-Nicene Interpretations of the Sayings on Divorce’, JTS 20 (1918–1919) 230–41Google Scholar, concludes that there is no evidence before Nicea that the exceptive clause authorized the breaking of the marital bond.

[2] Cf. TEV and the views of A. Ott as cited in Holzmeister, U., ‘Die Streitfrage über die Eheschei-dungstexte bei Matthäus 5,32 und 19,9’, Bib 26 (1945) 133–46Google Scholar. The inclusive view of 5. 32 and/or 19. 9 is refuted by Sickenberger, J., ‘Zwei neue Äusserungen zur Ehebruchklausel bei Mt’, ZNW 42 (1949) 202–9, esp. 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[3] Bauer, W., Arndt, W., and Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (4th ed.; Chicago, 1952) 630Google Scholar; Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.; rev. Jones, H. S. and McKenzie, R. with supplement by E. A. Barber [1968]; Oxford, 1940) 1334Google Scholar; Abbott-Smith, G., A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (3rd ed.; Edinburgh, 1937) 344Google Scholar; Moulton, James Hope and Milligan, George, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, 1930) 492Google Scholar; Leeming, B. and Dyson, R. A., ‘Except it be for Fornication?’ Scr 8 (1956) 75–82.Google Scholar

[4] So Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek (trans. Smith, J.; Rome, 1963) sec. 442, 148–9Google Scholar; Dupont, J., Mariage etDivorce dans l'Évangile. Matthieu 19,3–12 et parallèles (Bruges, 1959) 102 ffGoogle Scholar. Even if the clause in 19.9 is not elliptical, surely ‘not for πορνεία’ means the same as ‘except in the case of πορνεία’. Cf. Bonsirven, J., ‘“Nisi fornicationis causa”. Comment résoudre cette “crux interpretum”?’ RSR 35 (1948) 453, n. 2.Google Scholar

[5] Cf. Fleming, T. V., ‘Christ on Divorce’, TS 24 (1963) 106–20Google Scholar, and Vawter, B., ‘The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5,32 and 19,9’, CBQ 16 (1954) 155–67.Google Scholar

[6] BAG, 699; MM, 529.

[7] It covers a wider scope of activities than μοιχεία. Cf. MM, 529; Derrett, J. D. M., Law in the New Testament (London, 1970) 368–71.Google Scholar

[8] An increasing number of scholars think this is the meaning in Matthew 5 and 19. So Clarke, W. K. Lowther, ‘The Excepting Clause in St. Matthew’, Theology 15 (1927) 161–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ellis, E. E., The Gospel of Luke (Greenwood, 1974 rev.) 203Google Scholar; Baltensweiler, H., ‘Die Ehebruchsklauseln bei Matthäus’, TZ 15 (1959) 340–56Google Scholar, and Die Ehe im Neuen Testament – Exegetische Untersuchungen über Ehe, Ehelosigkeit und Ehescheidung (Stuttgart, 1967) espec. 87–107Google Scholar; Bonsirven, , ‘“Nisi Fornicationis Causa”’, 442–64Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence’, TS 37 (2, 1976) 197–226Google Scholar; Richards, H. J., ‘Christ on Divorce’ Scr 11 (13, 1959) 22–32; Zerwick, 43, n. 8.Google Scholar

[9] RSV, NEB, NASB, Moffatt, have ‘unchastity’; KJV, ‘fornication’; Phillips, ‘unfaithfulness’; NIV ‘marital unfaithfulness’, TEV, ‘unfaithful’; Schonfield, ‘adultery’. Cf. BAG, p. 700Google Scholar; LSJ, 1141Google Scholar. Isaksson, A., Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple: A Study with Special Reference to Mt. 19. 13–12 [sic] and 1 Cor 11.3–6 (Lund, 1965) 134Google Scholar, shows that πορνεία does not usually mean adultery. Further, adultery, like premarital unchastity discovered after the marriage, was punished by stoning, not divorce.

[10] Cf. Fitzmyer, , ‘The Matthean Divorce Texts’, 209–10.Google Scholar

[11] Cf. Leeming, and Dyson, , ‘Except it be for Fornication?’, 77 ff.Google Scholar; Strack, Hermann L. and Billerbeck, Paul. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. 1 (Munchen, 1974 repr.) 312–21Google Scholar. Prof. C. K. Barrett has suggested to me that ‘erwat dabar could mean something similar to ‘abomination’ in both Deut 23. 14 and 24. 1.

[12] Fleming, , ‘Christ on Divorce’, 115 ff.Google Scholar

[13] Cf. Isaksson, , Marriage and Ministry 127–42Google Scholar. Whereas premarital unchastity might be punished by stoning if it was discovered after the marriage had taken place, this was not the case for unchastity discovered prior to marriage. Cf. Mt 1. 19 and note that shame, not stoning, is what is to be avoided.

[14] Cf. Nembach, U., ‘Ehescheidung nach alttestamentlichem und jüdischem Recht’, TZ 26 (3, 1970) 161–71Google Scholar; Moingt, J., ‘Le Divorce (Pour Motif d'Impudicité) (Matthieu 5,32; 19,9)’, RSR 56 (1968) 337–84.Google Scholar

[15] The prohibition of incestuous marriages makes sense of the decree in Acts since most Gentiles had no scruples against such marriages. Cf. Harrington, W. J., ‘Notes and Comments – the New Testament and Divorce’, ITQ 39 (2, 1972) 179, n. 5.Google Scholar

[16] Cf. Charles, R. H., ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, Vol. 1 (Oxford, 1913) 224.Google Scholar

[17] Fitzmyer, , ‘The Matthean Divorce Texts’, 215 ffGoogle Scholar. It is significant that the technical term that the rabbis used for incestuous marriage (‘erwâ) also conveys the sense of fornication in some instances. Cf. Gavin, F., ‘A Further Note on πορνεία’, Theology 16 (1928) 102–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The objection that πορνεία is not simply a technical term for incest would be equally fatal to ‘erwâ.

[18] Cf. Mk 6. 14–29 and parallels; Josephus, , Jewish Antiquities (Loeb Classical Library VI; trans. Marcus, R.; London, 1937) 18.136, 92–3Google Scholar, and Jewish Antiquities (LCL VI) 18.240, 144–7.Google Scholar

[19] Mahoney, A., ‘A New Look at the Divorce Clauses in Mt. 5,32 and 19,9’, CBQ 30 (1968) 33Google Scholar. On the possibility that the original setting of this controversy was in Perea, cf. Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2nd ed.; New York, 1966) 416CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London, 1972) 318Google Scholar; M'Neile, A. H., The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London, 1965) 271.Google Scholar

[20] Cf. Hauck, F. and Schulz, S., ‘πόρνη’, in TDNT 6, 591Google Scholar; Nembach, , ‘Ehescheidung’, 165 ff.Google Scholar

[21] Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956) 81–2.Google Scholar

[22] Sanhedrin, B. T. 58a, The Babylonian Talmud (trans. Freedman, H.; ed. Epstein, I.; London, 1935) 393 ff.Google Scholar

[23] His audience may have been either Jewish and Gentile Christians or simply Gentile Christians. In either case, his inclusion of the exceptive clauses would be relevant.

[24] Fitzmyer, , ‘The Matthean Divorce Texts’, 221.Google Scholar

[25] Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York, 1968) 162.Google Scholar