The translation that the reformers took over from the Catholic humanist Erasmus, that “porneia” means “adultery,” was and still is defended primarily by the theory that “porneia” is a generic word, covering many forms of sexual immorality. But this theory is at best doubtful. Even though it is often claimed in superficial commentaries, it cannot be clearly shown that “porneia” is used as a generic term. Possibly it may be said as cautiously as in Nidas lexicon: “”Porneia” may be more generic than “moixeia”.” Neither can it be shown that “zenut”/ ”porneia” is used with the direct meaning “adultery” in the Old or the New Testament. Only indirectly, in special cases, does “porneia” – implicitly – mean adultery. And in Hebrew the word may be used with a special preposition to express adultery.

In both Hebrew and Greek, as in English, there are different words for adultery and other forms of sexual immorality. If Jesus here meant adultery, why didn’t he use the normal word for marital unfaithfulness, “na’af”? Or “bagad”, the generic word for being unfaithful?

It is possible that in the New Testament “porneia” is used to mean sexual relations between unmarried people – which is not the same as adultery – but “porneia” and the corresponding Hebrew “zanah,” with derivative forms, is most often used about prostitution. When “zanah” in the Old Testament is used of Israel worshiping other gods and turning away from JAHWEH, it us used as a metaphor, expressly saying that Israel is acting like a prostitute. (But an unusual prostitute, who pays her customers instead of taking payment from them – see Ezekiel 16.30-35). In the New Testament and in the Apocrypha “porneia” is also used once or twice about incest or prohibited marriages. If this meaning is to be understood in the gospels, the context may then be taken to refer to Herod and Herodias. Some Catholic translators have used this translation, and it can be defended, but it is an unusual meaning of the word.

As already mentioned, the reformers defended Erasmus’ interpretation by referring to the Old Testament death penalty for marital unfaithfulness. Luther writes in a commentary to the Sermon on the Mount that an unfaithful husband should be killed, but when the government doesn’t fulfil its duty to execute the adulterer, he still may be seen as dead in the eyes of God, and therefore the innocent party may be considered a widow (or widower), who then may remarry. But this theory collides head-on with what Jesus himself said to the woman who had been caught in adultery (John 8.3-11), and also with the present tense in Greek. You can’t go on committing adultery if you are dead.

A modern version of the Erasmian solution says instead that the marriage is broken, i.e. invalidated, by adultery, and that the innocent party therefore is free to remarry. It is possible that the Germanic word for adultery, literally “breach of marriage,” has led people to think in this direction. But also this version of Erasmus’ interpretation is ruled out by Matthew 5.32, and by the present tense “keeps on committing” adultery.

What then is the most probable meaning of “porneia”? Many Bible translators say – probably rightly so – that the gospel of Matthew was written for a primarily Jewish audience – Jews and Jewish Christians. In general all of Jesus’ statements in the New Testament should more often be read with close correlation to the Old Testament (see among others Dodd: “According to Scripture”). If we read the gospel of Matthew in its Old Testament and Jewish context, it is highly probable that 19.9 concerns a special theme in Deuteronomy.

We must also read Matthew 19.9 in its immediate context: 19.3-12. The Pharisees’ question to Jesus in verse 3: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” refers to Deuteronomy 24.1, where it says: “If a man marries a woman and goes in to her and she is displeasing to him because he (then) finds in her an indecent thing and he then writes her a certificate of divorce” etc…. At the time there was a running debate about how “an indecent thing” should or could be interpreted. The rabbis Hillel and Shammai disagreed: Could it mean anything the husband didn’t like, or was a serious offence required?

The pharisees’ question was which view, Hillel’s or Shammai’s, Jesus would assent to. To everyone’s, also the disciples’ great surprise, Jesus upheld neither one of them, but maintained a far stricter interpretation. To understand what this interpretation was, and where Jesus found evidence of it in Scripture, i.e. the Old Testament, we must read Deuteronomy 24.1-4 in context with the “parash” (partition) to which it belongs: 21.10-25.19, where a primary theme is marriage with complications.

Deuteronomy 24.1-4 is about what a man may do when he has married a virgin, and paid or pledged to pay 200 dirham, which was the price if the bride was a virgin. If on the wedding night it turned out that she wasn’t a virgin after all, and he therefore divorced her, he should know that he could never get her back if she later married another, neither as a widow or again divorced. The same issue is treated from another perspective in 22.13-21, which includes bringing the issue to trial. In Old Testament times the trial could result in the death penalty for the woman. (We find a parallel to 24.1 in Matthew 1.19, where Joseph, being a righteous man, was going to divorce Mary quietly when he discovered that she was with child.)

That this really was a current issue among the Jews in Jesus’ time, we see in Mishnah (the Jewish authoritative interpretation of the law) where the subject is treated in several places. Here it is determined that a wedding with a virgin shall be held on a Wednesday. Why? Because the local tribunal was in session on Thursday, and there the groom could bring his complaint if it turned out that the bride wasn’t a virgin (the Ketuboth tract 1.1). In other tribe cultures (e.g. the Baluchi tribes in Pakistan) we also see that it is very important that a woman should be wed as a virgin. The women pride themselves on being married as virgins, and boast that they can provide proof thereof.

The Mishnah also says that if the girl wasn’t a virgin at the time of betrothal – when the marriage contract was written, in which it was stated that she was a virgin – then both the betrothal and the marriage could be annulled with no certificate of divorce and without any payment of the bridal price. (Ketuboth 7.7-8 and 1.6). The reasoning was that if the betrothal and the marriage was based on deceit or fraud by the girl’s family, then they were not legally binding and could be annulled.

On this background it is overwhelmingly probable that Jesus with “porneia” meant exactly that which in Deuteronomy is an unambiguous judicial expression for the bride not being a virgin – and that the shocked disciples immediately understood that this was what he meant. For if Jesus had meant what Erasmus said he meant, he simply would have agreed with Shammai, that adultery was reason for divorce. And there would have been no reason for the disciples to react as they did.

Some theologians, like Heth and Wenham (“Jesus and Divorce”, page 176) reject that “porneia” means sexual relations with others before marriage or betrothal, because they cannot find the word used this way. But they have overlooked that it is exactly this word which is used in Deuteronomy 22.21, where it says that the girl has committed “zenot”/”porneia” in, or “against,” her father’s house.

The conclusion must be that if we read Matthew 19.9 in context, both in the gospel, with the disciples’ reaction, and with Deuteronomy 21.10-25.19 – especially 22.21, where “porneia” is a legal expression with a clear meaning – then we have an understanding of Matthew 19.9 which from both semantic, historic and Old Testament points of view is very probable, and which is not in conflict with Jesus’ words as reported by Mark, Luke, Paul or in Matthew 5.32. And this understanding of Matthew 19.9 does not give the innocent party in a divorce (in a legitimate marriage) permission to remarry.

Matthew 19.9 then is about the annulment of a marriage which is based on fraud and therefore not valid. Annulment of marriages which – for various reasons – are not valid, have always been known in canon law, and has not been considered divorce. Such an annulment has therefore not been an obstacle to remarriage.

In Matthew 19.9 Jesus thus gives his authoritative interpretation of “an indecent thing” in Deuteronomy 24.1. He says that a divorce or an annulment of a marriage is only permissible when the marriage was based on false grounds and therefore not valid. On the other hand, a marriage legitimately entered into cannot be dissolved, and to divorce and remarry after a legitimate first marriage is to keep on committing adultery against the first spouse (even if both spouses do the same.) This is what the Christian church has taught from the beginning.

Erasmus’ interpretation of Matthew 19.9 must therefore be considered a new teaching, which is to say a heresy, without basis in Scripture or apostolic tradition – a heresy which arose to satisfy a human need in its time. A need it still satisfies today, more than ever.

Much more may be said, both deeper and wider, about this serious issue. And for every Western Protestant theologian who defends the biblical ban on remarriage, there probably are ten who hold the opposite view. There must necessarily be further debate about this, a debate I stand ready to contribute to. But I would ask that objections be based on the original text. Exegesis based on translations is at best a waste of time. And all of us must look to our own motives: Is our motivation to interpret Scripture correctly, or to defend later views or traditions? Anyone who – consciously or not – uses Scripture to defend a tradition, at least in such a serious matter, is in danger of being the object of Jesus’ dire warning in Mark 9:42.

 

Copyright  © The M28 Foundation. Permission granted for copying and web posting, as long as no changes are made to the text.