A 15th Century manuscript, MS 69 was not very old (it is dated between 1465-1472) at the time of Erasmus and the margin corrections pre-dated the first edition of his Greek New Testament in 1516. It is also riddled with errors. According to F. H. A. Scrivener's, An Exact Transcription of Codex Augienses (1859) there are 74 omissions of various sorts along with numerous interrupted words.

Although Erasmus himself acknowledged that both Jesus and Paul the Apostle expressly prohibited remarriage while a spouse lived, he considered it "cruel" of the Church to continue to hold to this position. Thus it is likely that Erasmus exploited the confusion caused by the transcriber's erroneous importation of the Mat 5:32 text and the subsequent marginal correction to justify the creation of the "exception clause" in this verse.

Due to the absence of other texts with the mistaken importation of Mat 5:32 into 19:9 Erasmus, through the influence of MS 69 and its confusing margin correction, added the Greek word EI ("if") before MH ("not") in Matthew 19:9 to create "except." He altered the meaning of the verse in the Latin Vulgate as well by changing the Greek word porneia (fornication) to stuprum (Latin for disgrace) when the proper word would have been fornicatorum. The seeds for divorce and remarriage were sown right here.

legw de umin oti ov an apolush thn gunaika autou mh epi porneia kai gamhsh allhn moixatai kai o apolelumenhn gamhsav moixatai - Mat 19:9 (Byzantine Majority Text 1991)

legw de umin oti ov an apolush thn gunaika autou ei mh epi porneia kai gamhsh allhn moixatai kai o apolelumenhn gamhsav moixatai - Mat 19:9 (Erasmus Greek Text 1516)

 

 

According to research by Dr. Leslie McFall detailed in "The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage":

The original Greek text read: “not over fornication”, which amounts to: “not even over fornication”. Here Jesus excluded the teaching of two influential rabbis, Hillel and Shammai, who both agreed that divorce could be obtained for sexual misdemeanours, such as fornication and adultery. Erasmus turned Jesus’ teaching on its head, because his new text reads: “except for fornication”. This alteration has Jesus agreeing with Hillel and Shammai that divorce is legitimate in His Church, and among His followers, in cases of fornication.

The complexities of the Greek language are more than can be discussed here. Andrew Kulikovsky in his paper "Divorce and Remarriage: Another Look at the Matthean 'Exception' Clauses" cites the research of Craig Blomberg when he states the following:

It is possible to understand mh epi porneia as a parenthetical clause. In other words, it is not actually part of the protasis, but an aside or annotation in the text, similar to that found in John 14:22. Furthermore, this parenthetical clause is not an exception, but Matthew’s editorial addition which actually functions as an explicit prohibition against divorce for sexual sin. In other words, Matthew has added an annotation in the form of a parenthetical clause in order to make explicit what was already implicit in Jesus’ teaching.

We see an example of a translated parenthetical statement here:

Judas (not Judas Iscariot, but the other disciple with that name) said to him, "Lord, why are you going to reveal yourself only to us and not to the world at large?" - John 14:22 (NLT)

Kulikovsky continues:

Given this proposition, there are two ways to understand these clauses: (1) Instead of assuming an ellipsis of eav which is not found anywhere in the immediate context, it would be more appropriate to assume an ellipsis of the third person singular aorist subjunctive verb apoluse mentioned in the preceding clause. Indeed, when mh is used with the aorist subjunctive, it often denotes a prohibition. Therefore, 19:9 may be translated as follows:

I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, (he may not divorce for sexual sin), and marries another woman commits adultery.

Even if the ellipsis of apoluse was not a possibility, the negated phrase epi porneia would still convey a similar meaning. The phrase epi porneia communicates the possibility of divorce “on the basis of sexual sin,” which is then negated by mh. In other words, the possibility of divorce on the basis of sexual sin is being denied. This could be rendered as follows:

I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, (divorce on the basis of sexual sin is not allowed), and marries another woman commits adultery.

In addition, the position of mh epi porneia also presents a problem if it is taken as an exception. Since the clause comes after “...anyone who divorces his wife...” but before “...and marries another...,” it appears to be structurally associated only with the divorce half of the double conditional sentence.

Kulikovsky citing Blomberg states that the position of mh epi porneia is important. Blomberg notes that if it followed both "whoever divorces his wife" and "and marries another" then it would imply that sexual sin was the cause of both the divorce and the remarriage. As Kulikovsky says, "However, a person who divorces their spouse and does not remarry may be sinning, but they are not committing adultery."

In plain English, Blomberg gives us an example of how this works.

"Anyone who kills a dog, unless the animal is diseased, and buries it in his garden, shall be fined by the city council."

Kulikovsky and Blomberg both argue that if an exception actually exists in the MH EPI PORNEIA clause it is only referring to DIVORCE not remarriage.

But given this statement alone, and assuming it forms a biconditional, we can only derive the following propositions:

1. Anyone who kills a dog that is not diseased and buries it in their garden, shall be fined by the city council.

2. Anyone who kills a dog that is diseased and buries it in their garden, shall not be fined by the city council.

Clearly, the incursion of a fine is dependent on whether the animal is diseased or not. Thus, the exception only applies to the killing of the dog, or in the case of Matthew 19:9, the divorcing of one’s wife. Therefore, even if mh epi porneia is a real exception it would only apply to divorce, not to remarriage. In other words, it may be permissible for a man to divorce his wife on the grounds of sexual sin, but this would not mean or imply that he could legitimately remarry.

Proponents of the Jewish Betrothal view (we will discuss that shortly) advocate that the author of Matthew was simply reassuring his Jewish audience that divorce during Jewish Betrothal was still allowed. The author of this gospel merely added what amounts to a parenthetical internally documented notation to clarify Jesus' teaching to his (Matthew's) Jewish audience.

In effect Jesus would have been saying:

I tell you that any man who divorces his wife (unless he is divorcing her for sexual relations during betrothal), and marries another woman commits adultery.

We can quibble over many things, but one fact is clear: EI MH and MH are not equivalent. Erasmus' alteration of the Greek text, in addition to the lack of support for the importation of Mat 5:32 into 19:9, casts serious doubt on the existence of an exception for divorce and remarriage of any kind whatsoever--even that contained in the "JEWISH BETROTHAL VIEW" (an example is Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1 -- more on that later).

 

---

Where does Matthew Come From and Why Is This Significant?

 

The unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew derived much of his material from Mark. Mark and Luke were written before Matthew and the so-called “exception clause” in Matthew 19:9 was not present in either of the aforementioned Gospels. Mark was written to a Roman (Gentile) audience, Luke to a Greek (Gentile) audience, and Matthew to a Jewish audience. This is an important distinction.

Under Jewish custom of the day a man and woman who were engaged to marry were called "betrothed". Although the engaged (betrothed) couple had not yet come together to consumate the marriage they were referred to as "husband and wife." This betrothal lasted up to a year and was intended to ensure the bride-to-be was a virgin. If the man discovered prior to consummation that his bride was not a virgin (and had thus committed fornication, or PORNEIA in Greek) he could end the engagement with the local Sanhedrin by "divorcing" her. Once divorced he could then find another to marry and repeat the process. There are complex legal and financial reasons why this was so. As much has been written by others on this we won't get into it here.

In short, under Jewish culture a betrothed couple were considered husband and wife. The only way to end this arrangement was through divorce and this could only be done if the wife had been unfaithful to her husband PRIOR to consummation of the marriage. This was the sole process to end an engagement. We see an example of this with Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. - Mat 1:18-19 (ESV)

We also see Jesus mocked by the Jewish crowd in the Gospel of John for the very reason that Joseph initially intended to divorce Mary: FORNICATION (Greek Word: Porneia).

We were not born of fornication (porneia); we have one Father, even God. - John 8:41 (ASV)

This exchange destroys any argument regarding the "wide" interpretation of porneia in Matthew 19:9 which some believe equates to adultery (moichea). Those mocking Jesus were attacking His supposedly illegitmate birth. They were not accusing Him of being born of ADULTERY (moichea) but of PRE-MARITAL SEX / FORNICATION (porneia).

Matthew 1, 19:9, and John 8:41 all harmonize PERFECTLY on this point (as do Paul's contradistinct comparisons elsewhere in Corinthians and Galatians among others). In any event, if Jesus was allowing a "divorce and remarriage exception" in Matthew 19:9 it is clear He was not referring to adultery (moichea) as the excuse or He would have said so. The only "exception" that could possibly be consistent with the scriptures--internally within Matthew and externally with the entirety of the New Testament--would be a divorce during betrothal of a Jewish couple as described in Matthew 1.

(NOTE: Mark 10 chornicles the same event featured in Matthew 19 yet no exception is given whatsoever. Why is Mark never referenced by anyone seeking to justify divorce and remarriage? Mark's Gentile Roman audience would not have had access to Matthew's account, yet Mark was inspired by God when he wrote his Gospel. Are we suggesting that God inspired Mark to write an incomplete account that would result in the misleading of thousands if not millions of Gentile Roman Christians?)

 

---

Was Matthew Trying to Say That Jesus Canceled the Betrothal Divorce Allowance or Did He Just Insert a Clarification?

 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ was about forgiveness. Over and over again Jesus commanded us to forgive others. Indeed, in Matthew 18, just before His second discourse on marriage (the first was in Matthew 5 during the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus spoke of this very subject.

Then Peter came to him and asked, “Lord, how often should I forgive someone who sins against me? Seven times?”

“No, not seven times,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven! - Mat 18:21-22 (NLT)

Jesus continued with a parable about a man who had been forgiven a greater debt owed to his master than one he refused to forgive from one of his servants. It concluded thusly:

" 'Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt. That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.” - Mat 18:33-35 (NLT)

In Luke another version of this lesson is relayed to us.

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. - Luke 17:3-4 (KJV)

Jesus mentioned the serious consequences awaiting those who violated this principle previously in Matthew 6.

But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. - Mat 6:15

In light of Jesus' message of forgiveness, is it possible he was overturning the Jewish Betrothal Law? Would it not be unforgiving to dismiss a betrothed wife prior to consummation of the marriage because of a sin she had committed? Indeed, as Paul explains in Romans, the Gentile Church (the body of believers) is betrothed to Christ. We commit spiritual infidelity all the time against Him both in deed and in heart. Yet if we would only turn to Him in love and repentance He would marry us upon His return. Would this not be consistent with the cancelation of the "Betrothal Exception"?

Dr. Mike Gorrie mentioned in his sermon “Walking in the Light” the following verses from the book of Jeremiah and they speak to a very important truth.

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. - Jeremiah 3:1 (KJV)

Unfaithful Israel, worshipping other gods, is being called back by God. He does it again in verse 14.

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you... - Jer 3:14 (KJV)

Despite Israel's unfaithfulness and God divorcing her He says they are still MARRIED.

Let us consider Dr. McFall's translation of Matthew 19:9 for one moment. (Understand that he arrived at his translation because of his intimate understanding of the complex language rules in Greek and has received much support from many scholars.)

Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife—-not even for fornication—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. - Mat 19:9 (MCFALL)     - Note: Both ACV and Darby 1889 are similar.

Again, isn’t it interesting in the beginning of the Book of Matthew that Joseph was going to divorce Mary, his BETROTHED wife--remember they were engaged by Jewish custom at the time--for what he thought was a sexual relationship outside the marriage (engagement). It was only after he was stopped by the angel that appeared and told of Mary's virginity that he proceeded to marry her. God also called back Israel and said He was married unto her even after her indiscretions. Jesus canceled divorce even for fornication (porneia) during betrothal if we trust the original Greek wording.

Do you see a theme here? I do.

At the end of the day, divorce no matter when it occurs, be it in the Jewish Betrothal Period or after 77 years of marriage is unforgiveness. Remarriage after a divorce is doubly so as it slams the door on reconciliation and comes with a very high price. Remember, those who do not forgive others shall not be forgiven.

Dr. McFall makes a very cogent point when he writes:

The reason why Jesus could never allow divorce is that there is no sin which cannot be forgiven and forgiveness means reconciliation and restoration. Peter wanted to put a limit on the number of times someone could be forgiven, but Jesus said to forgive seventy times seven, which was just another way of saying ‘there is no limit’ (Mt 18:21-22). If we insert the sin of adultery into the text, it reads: “Peter said, ‘Lord, how often shall my wife commit adultery against me, and I forgive her, till seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but to seventy times seven.’” In Luke 17:3-4 the same thought of unlimited forgiveness is expressed by Jesus. We can focus on the sin of adultery and translate as: “Jesus said, . . . Take heed to yourselves, . . . if your wife may commit adultery against you, rebuke her, and if she may reform, forgive her, and if seven times in the day she may sin against you, and seven times in the day may return to you saying, ‘I reform,’ you shall forgive her.’”

Think about it.