Matthew 19:9

An Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 19:9: The Exception Clause and the Nature of Adultery

This exegetical study of Matthew 19:9 is based on a b-greek discussion from Wednesday, May 12, 1999. The initial inquiry focused on the grammatical structure of Matthew 19:9, particularly the phrase μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, and its implications for understanding Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. The inquirer noted that some scholars, following the work of Wenham and Hagner, interpret this prepositional phrase as an adverbial modifier exclusively to the verb “divorce,” thereby disallowing remarriage even in cases of spousal infidelity.

The main exegetical issues explored in this discussion revolve around two critical linguistic features of Matthew 19:9: first, the precise grammatical and semantic function of the so-called “exception clause,” μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, and its relationship to the surrounding verbal elements; and second, the aspectual significance of the present tense verb μοιχεύεται (“commits adultery” or “is committing adultery”) in the apodosis. These points of contention lead to diverse interpretations regarding the conditions under which divorce and remarriage are permissible, or if remarriage always constitutes an ongoing state of adultery, as well as the harmonization of this passage with parallel accounts in the Synoptic Gospels (e.g., Mark 10:11-12) and other New Testament texts (e.g., Matthew 5:32).

Greek Text (Nestle 1904)

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Nestle 1904 includes τὴν γυναῖκα (the wife) after ἀπολύσῃ, whereas SBLGNT 2010 reads τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (his wife) which is standard in most critical editions.
  
  Correction: The provided text itself in the original post implicitly had ‘his wife’ in the transliteration. When converting to Greek, standard critical texts typically have `αὐτοῦ`. Let’s assume the provided Greek text is aligned with standard critical editions for this phrase. The actual variance is often debated around `μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ` vs `παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας` (Mt 5:32) or textual additions like `εἰ μὴ`.

• SBLGNT 2010 has μοιχᾶται (moichatai), the same as Nestle 1904. Other minor orthographic differences might exist but are not grammatically significant for this exegesis.

**Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)**

* **Textual Criticism (NA28):** The critical apparatus for Matthew 19:9 reveals a notable textual variant. While the majority of manuscripts read μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, several important witnesses and later textual traditions, including the Textus Receptus (TR, which was the basis for the KJV), include εἰ μὴ (ei mē) before ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ. This addition explicitly renders the clause as “except for fornication,” aligning it more closely with Matthew 5:32 (παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας). Manuscripts such as Vaticanus (B), family 1, Bohairic Coptic, family 13, and 33, along with Old Latin and Sahidic versions, do not include εἰ μὴ. The presence or absence of εἰ μὴ significantly influences the perceived force of the “exception” clause. Some scribes also introduced παρεκτός into Matthew 19:9, further indicating an interpretative harmonization with Matthew 5:32. The NA28, reflecting earlier and more robust manuscript evidence, retains μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ without εἰ μὴ, suggesting that the explicit “except” is a later interpretative gloss.

* **Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):**
* ἀπολύω (apolyo): BDAG 1. “to release from some situation or state: to let go, release, set free,” and 2. “to send away, dismiss, divorce (one’s wife).” The latter sense is clearly the primary meaning in this context (Mt 19:9, Mk 10:11, Lk 16:18).
* πορνεία (porneia): BDAG lists 1. “prostitution, unchastity,” 2. “illicit sexual intercourse, fornication,” and extended senses that include “adultery” (e.g., Sir 23:23) or even “incestuous marriage” (e.g., 1 Cor 5:1). Kittel (TDNT) similarly outlines a broad semantic range including general sexual immorality, harlotry, and idolatry as spiritual harlotry. The discussion highlights that its meaning is debated—whether it refers to general indecency (`’erwath dābār` in Deut 24:1), adultery, incest, or even prostitution as an “abusive metaphor.” This semantic breadth is central to the exegetical challenge.
* γαμέω (gameo): BDAG “to marry, take a husband or wife.” Its aorist tense in Mt 19:9 indicates a completed, punctiliar action of getting married.
* μοιχεύω / μοιχεύομαι (moichēuō / moichēuomai): BDAG “to commit adultery.” The present indicative middle/passive form μοιχεύεται is crucial for understanding the aspectual implications.
* ἐπί (epi) with dative: BDAG 6. “marker of basis for a state of being, action, or result, on, w. dat.” This sense, “on the basis of,” “because of,” or “for the cause of,” is highly relevant to the “exception clause.” Examples include `ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ ζῆν` (“live on bread,” Mt 4:4) or `ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι` (“on the basis of hope,” Rom 4:18). Its use here with the negative particle μή is key to the debate about “not for” versus “except for.”

Translation Variants: Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The interpretation of Matthew 19:9 hinges on two primary grammatical and rhetorical considerations: the function of the phrase μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ and the aspect of the verb μοιχεύεται.

1. **The “Exception Clause”: μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ**
* **Adverbial Modifier vs. Clause:** Initial discussion highlighted Wenham’s view that prepositional phrases are typically adverbial and modify the preceding verb. Thus, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ would modify ἀπολύσῃ (“divorces”) but not γαμήσῃ ἄλλην (“marries another”). This would suggest that divorce for πορνεία is allowed, but remarriage is not.
* **”Not for” vs. “Except for”:** A significant point of contention is whether μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ should be translated as “not for fornication” (a simple negation) or “except for fornication” (an explicit exception).
* **Argument for “Not for”:** Participants noted that μή alone is not typically translated as “except” in the New Testament; such a translation usually requires εἰ μή or ἐὰν μή. This suggests that the clause might function as a “preterition”—excluding the case of πορνεία from the current discussion without explicitly sanctioning remarriage in that case. One participant suggested a paraphrase like, “he who divorces his wife (excluding the case of fornication, which see elsewhere for discussion) and marries another commits adultery.” This reading aligns Matthew 19:9 more readily with Mark 10:11-12, which contains no explicit exception, avoiding the need to assume Mark omitted details or was in error.
* **Argument for “Except for”:** Other scholars, like Zerwick, argue that while μή itself doesn’t mean “except,” its dependence on the introductory ὃς ἂν (equivalent to “if anyone”) allows for an “unless” or “except” meaning (i.e., “[if] not on the basis of”). This interpretation is often reinforced by Matthew 5:32, where παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας unequivocally means “except for the cause of unchastity.” If both Matthew passages are to convey the same message, then μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ is understood as a true exception, allowing divorce (and by implication, remarriage) in cases of πορνεία.
* **Scope of Modification:** The phrase’s position in the sentence is also debated. Is it modifying only the act of divorcing (ἀπολύσῃ) or the entire conditional statement (“whoever divorces… and marries another… commits adultery”)? Some argued that modifying the entire statement (“if anyone divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery, if he does not divorce her because of immorality“) would logically invite the inference that if he divorces for immorality and remarries, he does not commit adultery. This aligns with a legalistic reading often applied to such rules.

2. **The Aspect of μοιχεύεται (“commits adultery”)**
* **Punctiliar vs. Linear/Habitual Action:** The discussion extensively debates the significance of the present tense μοιχεύεται following two aorist verbs (ἀπολύσῃ “divorces” and γαμήσῃ “marries”).
* **Argument for Linear/Habitual:** Some scholars argue that the switch to the present tense indicates an ongoing, continuous state of adultery (“lives in adultery”). They suggest that the first marriage remains binding, and any subsequent sexual relationship is a continuous violation. This aligns with a strict view of marriage as indissoluble. The aorist verbs denote the punctiliar acts of divorcing and remarrying, while the present tense describes the resulting ongoing state.
* **Argument for Gnomic/Progressive:** Other participants argue that the present tense could be gnomic, expressing a timeless truth or general maxim (“commits adultery” as a universal principle). Alternatively, it could be simply progressive (“is committing adultery” at the moment of remarriage) without necessarily implying a perpetual state. They contend that asserting “lives in adultery” goes beyond what the present tense necessarily demands and can lead to harsh pastoral implications (e.g., implying that leaving a second marriage is required, which contradicts Deut 24:1-4 about not remarrying a former spouse if she married another).
* **Pastoral Concerns:** Several participants, especially those with pastoral experience, highlighted the ethical and pastoral implications of translating μοιχεύεται as “lives in adultery,” noting that it places an ongoing burden of guilt on remarried individuals. This concern, while not strictly grammatical, informs the interpretative choices and caution against over-interpreting the aspectual force of the present tense.

3. **Meaning of πορνεία**
* Beyond the grammatical function of the clause, the semantic range of πορνεία itself is crucial. Is it “adultery” (μοιχείᾳ, a different word Matthew uses in 5:27), “prostitution,” “incestuous marriage,” or a broader term for “sexual indecency” (as in Deut 24:1, `’erwath dābār`, translated as `ἀσχημον πρᾶγμα` in LXX)?
* Some argued that if πορνεία meant adultery, the Mosaic law would prescribe stoning (Deut 22:22-24), not divorce, implying that πορνεία must refer to something less severe than adultery. However, others contended that Jewish practice had softened, and divorce was common even for offenses that might have once warranted death. The interpretation of πορνεία as “incestuous marriage” has also been proposed, particularly to harmonize Matthew with Mark’s absolute prohibition, suggesting that Jesus permits “divorce” only for unions that were never truly legitimate in the first place (e.g., Leviticus 18 prohibitions).

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis of Matthew 19:9 reveals the complexities inherent in translating and interpreting a text with significant theological and ethical implications. While the explicit “except” in many English translations might be a textual or interpretative gloss, the grammatical construction with μὴ ἐπί followed by a dative, in a conditional context introduced by ὃς ἂν, can indeed convey an exception. The aspect of the present tense verb μοιχεύεται is also open to nuanced interpretations beyond a strictly habitual sense, allowing for gnomic or progressive understandings.

Based on the exegetical discussion, here are three translation suggestions that reflect different emphases and interpretations:

1. “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife—not for sexual immorality—and marries another commits adultery.”
This translation emphasizes the negative statement of exclusion (“not for”) rather than an explicit exception, leaving open whether remarriage is permitted in cases of sexual immorality. It leans towards a preterition view, where the case of immorality is set aside from the discussion, thus harmonizing more readily with the absolute prohibition in Mark 10:11-12. “Commits adultery” here can be understood as a progressive action at the point of remarriage or a gnomic truth.

2. “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, unless it is for unchastity, and marries another, lives in adultery.”
This rendering adopts the “except for” interpretation of the clause, acknowledging a specific ground for divorce. It further interprets the present tense μοιχεύεται as a continuous state (“lives in adultery”), reflecting the view that the original marriage covenant remains binding, making subsequent unions an ongoing offense. This aligns with the understanding that πορνεία might encompass various forms of sexual infidelity that break the covenant, allowing for divorce, but the remarriage is still problematic.

3. “But I say to you, anyone who divorces his wife—apart from a sexually illicit union—and marries another is committing adultery.”
This translation interprets πορνεία as referring to an “illicit union” (e.g., incestuous marriage), suggesting that Jesus is not creating an exception to an otherwise absolute prohibition, but rather clarifying that “divorcing” an invalid marriage is not truly a divorce in the covenantal sense. The phrase “apart from” captures this sense of an existing condition. “Is committing adultery” here allows for the immediate consequence of the act of remarriage, without necessarily imposing a continuous state of “living in adultery,” thus offering a more pastorally sensitive approach while still maintaining the seriousness of the act.