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.