- The Jews had the custom of betrothal, what we understand in western culture as the period of engagement. During the period of time the Jewish couple was engaged, the man was called the husband and the woman was called his wife, though no marriage covenant had yet been established. It also required to obtain a legal divorce to end a prospective marriage.
- This is why the exception clause is only found in Matthew’s gospel as it does not apply to Gentiles having no such custom. In Mat 1:18-25 we see Joseph being called Mary’s husband, and Mary being called Joseph’s wife, though only engaged. Also, we find Joseph contemplating divorcing Mary before even being married to her for the cause of fornication to end the prospective marriage.
- So the exception in Matt 19:9 means what it says. Divorce is only permitted for the cause of fornication during the betrothal, as that is not puttying asunder what God has joined together. After a marriage has been entered into, the only action that dissolves that covenant is death according to scripture (Rom 7:2, 3; 1 Cor 7:39). ~ Dayton Huebner
The argument above, excerpted from a lengthier correspondence, challenges the interpretation of Matthew 19:9 that teaches that the innocent party of a contemporary marriage whose spouse commits fornication may divorce and remarry a biblically eligible candidate. The reasons given for this disavowal respecting the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 are: (1) Jewish custom required a divorce if an engagement was broken and the impending marriage was not officiated. (2) Fornication is thought to be a sexual sin that occurs between people who are not officially married. (3) Since the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 does not appear in the other Gospel records, it pertains exclusively to the original recipients of the Gospel of Matthew — the first century Jews only.
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9).
While point one above is true, the assumptions of points two and three, as well as the conclusion are inaccurate. Whereas the English dictionary confines the meaning of “fornication” to illicit sexual activity between unmarried persons, the Greek usage of porneia, from which we derive the word “fornication” in our New Testaments, has a broader meaning. Porneia stands for all kinds of illicit sexual activity, of which adultery, for instance, is merely a sub point beneath it. Adultery is fornication. Fornication includes adultery. Hence, the effort to relegate the “fornication” in Matthew 19:9 as an activity exclusively between unmarried persons (i.e., premarital sex) to bolster one’s perspective that the verse pertains only to the first century Jewish betrothal is biblically incorrect. Married persons can commit any of a number of types of fornication, including adultery, any one of which could invoke the exception clause of Matthew 19:9.
It is true that the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 does not appear in the other Gospel records (Matthew, written to the Jews; Mark, written to the Romans; Luke, written to the Gentiles; John, a universal presentation of the Gospel to all mankind). It is also true that the remarriage permission after divorce does not appear in the Gospel of Matthew’s earlier reference to marriage and divorce (Matthew 5:32). Is it the case that the information respecting remarriage permission in Matthew 19:9 somehow applied to first century Jewish men for its inclusion in Matthew 19, but at the same time did not apply since it did not appear also in Matthew 5? No, the summary of marriage-divorce-remarriage information from both Matthew 5 and 19 combine to constitute the instruction on this subject from the Gospel of Matthew.
However, notice also that Matthew’s account says nothing about the possibility of a wife divorcing her husband for fornication or adultery. Yet, the account of Jesus addressing marriage and divorce in Mark’s account specifically observes that both men AND WOMEN might divorce and remarry (though the passage prohibits divorces followed by adulterous marriages, Mark 10:11-12). Since the mention of women divorcing men does not appear in Matthew’s account, is it the case that Jesus permitted first century Jewish men to commit fornication against their betrothals and that their first century Jewish fiancees had no biblical recourse as afforded the men if the women committed the sexual sins? Irrespective of whether women under then prevailing Jewish custom may have divorced their husbands for fornication or adultery, the summary of marriage-divorce-remarriage information from all the Gospel records (as well as elsewhere in the New Testament) combine to constitute the instruction of Deity on this subject.
Further, the “whosoever” of Matthew 19:9 (cf. Matthew 5:32; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18) has a broader application than merely first century Jewish engaged men. The Gospel records and the balance of the New Testament are literally populated with “whosoever” (110 times; plus “whoso” 11 times) referring to anyone and everyone. Still further, since there was and is but one Gospel (though four Gospel records), whatever truth is taught in any Gospel record (and the balance of the New Testament) combines to constitute God’s revelation to humanity living in this final religious age — the Gospel Age or Christianity. Consequently, the combination of references to marriage-divorce-remarriage in the Gospel records and the balance of the New Testament constitute God’s message to mankind regarding marriage-divorce-remarriage for today, as well as in the first century when initially penned.
Matthew 19:9, respecting the exception clause for divorce and permission for the innocent party to remarry applies to “whosoever” (man or woman) who is the innocent party of “fornication” (irrespective of the type involved, including adultery). If there is no “fornication” or “adultery,” or if there is no innocent party, then passages such as found in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7, as well as other references in the Gospel records apply and prohibit divorce and prohibit biblically unauthorized (adulterous) marriages. Those strictures are sufficiently difficult for a society that routinely violates them without becoming more restrictive than those biblical truths already are.
