EXCEPT IT BE FOR FORNICATION??? ^©

We now deal with the sections of Scripture in the Gospel of Matthew containing the phrase "except it be for fornication".  We will also consider the Gospels of Mark and Luke.  The exceptive clause is only found in the Gospel of Matthew.  It is not found when Jesus refers to divorce or adultery in the Gospels of Mark or Luke, nor is it found when Paul, by divine inspiration, refers to the word of the Lord in I Cor 7:10,11 when speaking about the permanence of marriage.  The vss under scrutiny:

- Matthew 5:31 and Divorce -

The "writing of divorcement" Jesus Christ speaks of first appears in Deuteronomy.

These opening vss in Deut 24 contend with a husband who divorces his wife.  It does not establish the "right" of a husband to divorce his wife, but rather the question of lawful remarriage after she has been given "a bill of divorcement" and become "another man's wife".  Moses conjoined upon the Hebrew people their responsibility pertaining to a divorce and not the privilege itself.

"Uncleanness" is the Hebrew 'erevah, from the root 'arah, meaning to make naked or uncover.⁴⁷   It conveys the idea of uncovering or exposing something shameful about the wife.  It was mistakenly applied as the cause for divorce.  There later came two schools of thought, Shammai and Hillel, concerning what the uncleanness of Deut 24:1 consisted.

Jesus, in Matt 5:31, introduces the subject of divorce.  He refutes the whole idea by using the conjunction "but" at the beginning of vs 32 to suggest a contrast and says that (aside from the exceptive clause) divorce with remarriage constitutes adultery.  Whatever the excuse or justification for divorce, it does not meet the standard GOD established in Genesis 2, the one flesh and the permanence of marriage.

"Saving for the cause of fornication" has come to be called the exceptive clause in major theological circles and, as stated here, is the only allowance for divorce.  Some authorities suggest that fornication (porneia) in the exceptive clause refers to sexual intercourse before marriage.  Others maintain that the porneia refers to adultery, translated in the NIV as "marital unfaithfulness".  The latter would correspond with the teachings of the school of Shammai, and those authorities assumed that Jesus agreed with their teachings.  Etymology and word usage are against the idea of porneia being adultery, or marital unfaithfulness.  From the 178 occurrences of the Hebrew and Greek words concerning fornication, the Biblical definition does not support the translation of fornication as marital unfaithfulness.

There are those who maintain that the fornication mentioned in vs 32 is illicit sexual intercourse before marriage.  They reference Deut 22, which deals with the "tokens of virginity".  The tokens were the bloodstains from the virgin's ruptured hymen found on the bed sheets or chemise after consummation of the marriage.  If the husband claimed that his wife was not a virgin at the time they were married, the bloodstains proved that he had not been deceived by her parents and made to think that she was a virgin when she was not (Deut 22:13-19).⁴⁸   According to law, if the accusation made by the husband was found to be true and the wife was not a virgin when she married, she would be stoned to death (Deut 22:20-21).  Thus, the idea of "putting away" in relation to Deut 22 is incongruent for "death" and "putting away" are two entirely different terms. It is possible that a husband could have acted more discretely in relation to his wife.  If the husband did not wish to bring an accusation against his wife (as in Deut 22:13) and still decided to divorce her, he could give her a "bill of divorcement" and "send her out of his house".  Joseph was faced with these possibilities in Matt 1.

Joseph had two options; he could 1) "make her a publick example" according to Deut 22:13-21 or, 2) "put her away privily" as provided for in Deut 24:1.  Although he intended to do the latter, through the intervention of an angel, his action was arrested.

Returning to the exceptive clause, the idea of "fornication" and "putting away" in relation to Deut 22 is inconsistent; separation by divorce versus separation by death.  However, if discretion is the better part of valor and some claim Deut 24:1 as the justification for divorce; "uncleanness" being identified as "fornication" in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, we still are faced with a problem.  According to Deut 24:2, when the divorced wife left her husband, "she may go and be another man's wife". In other words, she was permitted to marry another man.

According to Deut 24:1-4, the divorced wife was given no prohibition except to return to her former husband.  If we take the "uncleanness" and attempt to insert it into Matt 5 and 19 to provide for the exceptive clause, the result is error.  Matt 5 and 19 state that "whosoever" marries her that is "divorced" or "put away" commits adultery.  This statement is inconsistent with the provision given in Deut 24:2 in allowing the divorced woman to marry again.  In opposition to Deut 24:2, Matt 5 and 19 state that the man who marries the divorced woman (resulting from "fornication" or any "uncleanness") would be committing adultery.  It could only be adultery if the woman was another man's wife.  Scripture is unmistakably clear on this.  But Matt 5 and 19 are talking about a woman who was divorced by her husband.  How can Deut 24:1-4 and Matt 5 and 19 be reconciled?  It appears that the exceptive clause does not fit the provision in Deut 24 because the last clause of Matt 5:32 and 19:9 produce a contradiction.  We will let that speak for itself.

Matt 5:31 says that a bill of divorcement should follow the putting away.  This must be in reference to Deut 24.  Note that Deut 24 does not institute divorce but treats it as an established practice ("When [if = Hebrew kî, introducing a conditional clause; e.g., Deut 21:15; 22:13] a man...").  Moses acknowledged divorce and required the husband to write his wife a bill of divorcement, a declaration that would allow her to "legitimately" marry another man.  The "bill of divorcement" or "document of a cut covenant" was enjoined upon the man to give to his wife when he decided to send her away.  The bill of divorcement served as a testimony or witness against the former husband that it was unlawful to remarry his divorced wife after she had married another.  The tradition of divorce was so deeply rooted in their hard hearts that it could not be abolished (Matt 19:8).

The use of "defiled" in Deut 24:4 casts another shadow on divorce.  The Hebrew word is tame' and means to make impure or unclean.  It was the marriage to a second husband that resulted in the divorced wife being sexually impure for remarriage to her former husband.  This concept of sexual defilement is spoken of in Lev 18:20 and Num 5:13,14.  In Lev 18:20, the sexual uncleanness is associated in vs 24 with "the nations" (those people from whom the children of Israel were separated or set apart).  The people of Israel had a new standard of living (i.e., GOD's) and their actions would be weighed according to it.  According to GOD's standard, when a woman married a man, that was the only one with whom she was permitted to have a sexual relationship.  The people of Israel may have "hardened their hearts" and accepted the standard of "the nations" when it came to divorce but their hardness did not change GOD's standard.  GOD maintained HIS standard by what is stated in Deut 24:1-4.  If a man chose to harden his heart and give his wife "a bill of divorcement" and "send her away" and she became another man's wife (vs 2), if she was divorced or cut off from him (vs 3), she could not remarry her former husband.  Why?  She had been another man's "wife" and was "defiled" in relation to her former husband.  Her having sexual intercourse with another man (albeit his wife at the time) rendered her unclean.  The compromise of allowing the divorced woman to return to her former husband would have made them nothing but copies of "the nations" (whose standards of living were contrary to GOD's).

- Matthew 19 & Mark 10 -

Another occurrence of the exceptive clause is in Matthew 19, which we will examine in light of Mark 10.

The Pharisees confronted Jesus and said, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?".  They were tempting Jesus with their question.  Some authorities maintain that by tempting Jesus with their question, they were trying to get Him to side with one of the two schools of thought, Shammai or Hillel.  The former maintained that unchastity or marital unfaithfulness was the only cause for divorce.  The latter believed that any disfavor the husband found with the wife could justify divorce, if he so chose (for example, she burnt his breakfast)⁵⁰.  Jesus sided with neither.  In vss 4-6, He refers to the creation account and the order established by GOD in Genesis 2.  In vs 5, we see the one flesh, which connotes the inseparableness of the marriage itself and a reiteration in vs 6: "therefore what God hath joined together, let not man separate" (NIV).  In the beginning GOD established the joining of a man and woman in a commitment relationship as husband and wife.  It is that concept of the marriage that man endeavors to separate by his idea of divorce.  The plan the Pharisees had designed to ensnare Jesus was going as they expected, or so they supposed.  They thought they had caught Jesus, for they implied in vs 7 that He rejected what Moses commanded; thus they respond, "why then...?".  When they used the word "command" [Gk. entellomai: to command], He in turn rephrased (in vs 8) what they had said in vs 7 as "suffered" or "allowed" [Gk. epitrepo: to permit].  The reason for such an allowance was, as He stated, "...the hardness of your hearts".  The word "hardness of heart" is the Greek sklerokardia and means obstinacy, or stubbornness.⁵¹   It was Israel's hardness of heart that led to their adopting the concept of divorce.  As Jesus restates, "but from the beginning it was not so".  This phrase is worded in the present perfect tense, connoting a continuance of past action or its results down to the present.  In other words, other than the Mosaic allowance for divorce, the case had not been so from the beginning until the time at which He was speaking.  As seen from scripture, it was the stubbornness of the people of Israel, in the time of Moses, which led to their adopting the concept of divorce.

This is a SIMILAR but not IDENTICAL record of Matt 19 and the confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees.  In vs 2 they simply ask Him the question, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?".  There is no "for every cause" in this discourse.  This question may seem simple, yet it was designed to entrap Jesus, for they asked "tempting him".  In vs 3, He responds with a question directed to get the Pharisees to answer the question they had directed toward Him.  Once addressed, He could set forth the truth of what was established from the beginning of creation (vs 6).

This record in Mark has many of the same elements as the record in Matthew's gospel.  By vs 10, the discourse with the Pharisees has ended, and Jesus' disciples ask Him again of the same matter, "in the house".  Jesus Christ begins to unfold for His disciples a conclusion to the discourse He had with the Pharisees in Matt 19 but, this time, without them present.  In vss 11 and 12, we see no "except it be for fornication" or "saving for the cause of fornication".  Compare also Luke 16:18, which has no exceptive clause.  In leaving out the exceptive clause when answering the disciples, they would see NO causes for divorce.  Some have tried to say that the exceptive clause was left in Matt 19 to side with one of the two schools of thought, particularly that of Shammai.  If that is so, we take scripture out of the divinely inspired GOD-directed category and place it within the category of human supposition and reasoning.  We find this to be unacceptable.  Either it is divinely inspired or it is not and if it is divinely inspired, it cannot contradict itself.

- Exceptive Clause: Does It Belong? -

As for the exceptive clauses in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, there is no manuscript evidence to suggest that the exceptive clauses were added any time after the middle of the second century.  So the best we can do is go to the internal evidence (the context and scope of these occurrences, as well as comparing other references) before going as far as to recommend that the exceptive clauses be deleted beyond a reasonable doubt.  Apparent contradictions within the Scriptures can only exist either because of a deficiency in our understanding or in translation.  Errors in translation do occur at times yet may be difficult to spot textually or in relationship to manuscripts from which we get our English Bibles.  Concerning such manuscripts, we essentially have none earlier than the mid-second to fourth centuries.  So it can be difficult to find or expose changes in the text, specifically, additions that may have crept into the text before that time.  Going on manuscript evidence alone, we are not in a position to delete the exceptive clauses.  Although we have no originals today, it is still our responsibility as workmen of the word of truth to expose textual errors.  We must thoroughly examine and scrutinize the present context, and also the more remote context of the Scriptures as a whole.  We must also confess that we are not alone in our position.  Others, be they scholars or theologians, have found the exceptive clauses to provide nothing but suspicion as to their origin and authenticity.  Some authorities think that the exceptive clauses, which appear ONLY in the Gospel of Matthew, was a later editorial or legislative addition appended to the absolute ideal given by Jesus.⁵²   That was done to make the Scriptures more accommodating to many bad situations.  However true that may be, we are here to deal with the exceptive clauses as we have found them, to be an addition to the original text.

- Matthew 19 & Mark 10 Comparison -

To clarify the position of the exceptive clause being an addition to the text, we reexamine the parallels and contrasts between the accounts given in Matt 19 and Mark 10.  Listed below are passages from Matt 19:1-13, in the left-hand column, and Mark 10:1-13 in the right-hand column.  The vss in Matthew will be listed chronologically; the vss in Mark will be listed as they correspond to the vss in Matthew according to subject (not in chronological order).

We see that Mark 10:6-9 corresponds with Matt 19:4-6 and Mark 10:3-5 corresponds with Matt 19:7-8.  It will be noted that Mark 10:6-9, according to the above illustration, is found out of sequence, so it is difficult to harmonize the two accounts.  Examine some differences between these two accounts.  In Matt 19:2, "great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there".  Whereas, in Mark 10:1b, "the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again."  The two vss are not harmonious.  In addition, in Matt 19:3, "saying" is the Greek word lego, meaning to lay out with (words),⁵³ which suggests the Pharisees spoke in the form of a question.  Also in this vs is the qualitative clause "...for every cause".  Comparing that with Mark 10:2, "asked" is the Greek word eperotao, which is to ask for; inquire; to question,⁵⁴ meaning that the Pharisees were seeking a specific answer.  Again, the sequence of events varies between the two Gospel accounts.  In Matthew, after the Pharisee's tempting question, Jesus Christ references the original purpose of GOD in creation; whereas, in Mark, He responds to the Pharisees' temptation with the question, "What did Moses command you?".  In Matt 19:3, the Pharisees addressed Jesus regarding adultery, divorce, and remarriage.  This contrasts with Mark's account which shows the disciples addressing Him.  Also, the exceptive clause "except it be for fornication" is missing in Mark.  The conjunction "then," indicating time, in Matt 19:13 does not occur in Mark 10:13.  In addition, Jesus uses the phrase in Matthew, "put his hands upon," which is the Greek word epitithemi, meaning to lay on; impose; inflict by laying on hands, and "were there brought," which is the Greek word prosphero, meaning to carry toward; bring to.⁵⁵  Comparing Mark 10:13, we have "he might touch," which is the Greek word haptomai, meaning to attach oneself to⁵⁶  (reflexive of to fasten).  In Matt 19:3, regarding the Pharisees, the article "the" is the Greek hoi and is omitted in the critical Greek texts of Lachmann, Tregelles and Alford.  In Mark 10:2, the article "the" is again omitted in most of the critical Greek texts.  The majority of translations, including the Revised Version and NIV, read "Pharisees" or "some Pharisees".  This would support the idea that they are two separate discourses, which explains the omission of the definite article "the".  It can be readily seen that it was not "the Pharisees" (inclusive of the group as a whole) but "some Pharisees" (exclusive; only representing a part of the group), representing two parts of the whole.

These accounts are closely related and yet separate incidents that occur together to form one large picture.  They are supplementary and not contradictory; all part of a greater whole and are within a context of time.  In Matt 19:3 and following, Jesus Christ responds to the Pharisees' question ("...for every cause") NOT with the Mosaic allowance but with the original purpose in creation.  Then, in answer to their question "Why....", He refers to the Mosaic allowance and adds that "putting away" with remarriage equals adultery.  In Mark 10:2 and following, He responds to the Pharisees' question not as in Matthew but with a question of His own that refers to the Mosaic allowance.  He then refutes the Mosaic allowance in vs 6 with the conjunction "but," and then gives the original purpose in creation.

There are three confrontations or discourses in these two accounts: some Pharisees (Matt 19:3-9); some Pharisees (Mark 10:2-9); and the disciples (Mark 10:10-12; Matt 19:10-12).  All three groups question the lawful allowance of divorce.  Jesus' answer to the question NEVER denies the Mosaic allowance.  However, He does refute the idea by bringing them back to Genesis 2 and the original purpose of marriage (the "one flesh" → for as GOD intended, the two are inseparable).

In Mark 10:10, the disciples sought clarification regarding adultery.  When He responded to the disciples' question, it is reasonable to conclude that He did not mislead them by leaving out the exceptive clause as stated in Matt 19:9 (for He always told them the truth; see John 8:31-32, 16:7, 17:14, 17; Luke 9:27, 12:44, 21:3; and Eph 4:21).  In Matt 19:10-12, the disciples response would be more accurately applied to what Jesus stated in Mark 10:10-12.  Their reply is stated as such because they understood that there was no way out of a marriage.  If there were an exceptive clause, would the disciples have come to this conclusion?

Look at the disciples' response to what Jesus had said earlier in Matthew 19:10-12.

His disciples, having heard of the previous discourse between Jesus Christ and the Pharisees and the conclusion to which He brings them (Mark 10:10-12), respond, in vs 10, by forming the conclusion that, since there is NO way to get out of a marital situation, why get married?  The word for "case" ("if the case of the man be so with his wife") in vs 10 is the Greek aitia, which is the same word as "cause" in vs 3 and refers to it.⁵⁷   Jesus Christ responded to the Pharisees' question in vs 3 (a cause for divorce) by giving them the original creation scheme and concluding that there is NO cause for divorce.  Therefore, the disciples state that if the cause for divorce does not exist (contrast vs 3), it is not profitable to marry.  In other words, it is not profitable to risk getting married because the conditions of marriage do not allow ANY reason for divorce.  The explanation, by the disciples, makes logical sense if the exceptive clause is omitted.  Subsequently, they concluded that if there can be NO divorce with remarriage, it is therefore not profitable to marry.

In vs 11, He responds, "not everyone can accept this word but only those to whom it has been given".  The only people this would apply to would be those who are married.  Jesus goes on to give the reason for those who cannot accept it (vs 12) as they are eunuchs for a specific reason and therefore remain single.  The only class Jesus Christ addresses is "eunuchs".  Why did He not include those who married one who committed fornication according to Matt 19:9?  Sufficient was His opportunity and yet He did not speak?  Doubtful at best!  In concluding vs 12, He says that those who can receive what He has already said SHOULD receive it (i.e., they should apply what He has spoken).

- Conclusion -

One can speculate on the reason for the addition or removal of the exceptive clause.  Our purpose in this Chapter has been to uncover the truth of GOD's written word regarding divorce.  We have found no other logical justification for the exceptive clause being part of the original text.  An examination of existing rationales for its preservation has yielded no substantial contribution.

In view of the difficulties encountered when trying to understand Matt 5:32 and 19:9, the only recourse is to omit the exceptive clause and preserve the integrity and accuracy of the scriptures.  The following vss present no confusion.