Almost any time a discussion of divorce & remarriage arises among Christians who have some familiarity of the New Testament, the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 are quickly brought into the conversation. It is probably the passage most often used to “prove” that there is at least one exception to the New Testament teaching that the sin of adultery is committed when a person who has been validly or lawfully married in the sight of God subsequently divorces and then gets remarried to another person while the original/lawful spouse is still physically alive.
However, once a person is aware of some important details, it becomes evident that Matthew 19:9 is an ambiguous verse that is most safely understood in light of the clear verses on this same topic. Therefore, it would not be wise for anyone to base a life decision upon an interpretation of that one verse which could affect their eternal destiny (see 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21; Heb 13:4; Rev 21:8; 22:15)! Please consider the following reasons why Matthew 19:9 should NOT be trusted as “proof” that there is some exception which would allow a person who has been lawfully/validly married in the sight of God to subsequently divorce and get remarried to a different person even though their prior spouse is still physically alive.
1. The Early Church’s Interpretation: It is interesting that modern-day Christians use the Matthean “divorce texts” to argue that the New Testament DOES give a reason why a person can safely divorce and remarry, while the early Christians, in contrast, seem to have almost universally understood these passages (both Matthew 5:32 & 19:9) to teach that the marriage bond remains intact as long as both spouses remain physically alive. In other words, the early Christians understood that the marriage bond (in valid marriages) lasted “until death do you part,” not “until divorce on the grounds of fornication/adultery.” Even when some of these early writers say that Jesus teaches in Matthew 19:9 that a “separation-divorce” (i.e., separation of “table & bed” or “bed & board”) is allowed or even called for in cases of ongoing (unrepentant) fornication/adultery, these early Christian writers STILL maintain & attest that the marriage bond remains intact until the physical death of either of the partners, even though they may be separated. The overwhelming, almost universal consensus in the early church was that they did NOT believe that adultery (or desertion, etc.) destroys the bond of a valid marriage so that either partner could divorce and marry another while the divorced spouse was still alive without it being adultery. Here is just one example:
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.): “Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law [given by Jesus], ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’ and it regards as adultery [Gk. μοιχείαν; moicheian], the marriage of those separated while the other is alive… ‘He that taketh a woman that has been put away,’ it is said, ‘committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,’ that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.” (ANF Vol. 2, p. 379)
It is also interesting that, as Henri Crouzel reports,
“…all the ante-Nicene Fathers, prior to all the texts [of the New Testament] available to us today—and thus as the only witnesses of the [New Testament] text of their time—read Matthew 19:9 in the form of Matthew 5:32.”[1]
The reason this is so noteworthy is because Matthew 5:32 does not logically allow for remarriage following divorce without it being considered adultery.[2] These historical facts lead us to the next reason why a person should not gamble their souls upon the popular, modern understanding of Matthew 19:9. Not only did the early church not interpret Matthew 19:9 to permit remarriage after a divorce from a “God-ordained” (Matt 19:6/Mk 10:9), “One-Flesh” (Gen 2:24), “Covenant” (Mal 2:14) marriage while the prior spouse was still physically alive, but…
2. There are also some important variation & translation issues with Matthew 19:9: Crouzel bluntly says that there are “doubts weighing on the current textus receptus of Matthew 19:9.”[3] So, not only is it possible that Matthew 19:9 may have originally read like Matthew 5:32 (a variation issue), but another doubt that exists is whether the so-called “exception clause” in Matthew 19:9 should even contain the English word “except”! This is a translation issue that is also related to which Greek manuscripts are closest to the original autographs.
This translation/manuscript issue is also something a person should consider before making any life decisions based on Matthew 19:9 that may affect their eternal destiny. A person should consider the fact that when working from either the Nestle-Aland edition (the “critical text”) or the Majority Text, the Greek word μὴ/mē (Strong’s 3361) that is usually translated as “except” should more accurately and literally be translated as “not” (because it is not preceded by ei in these Greek texts). This would transform the so-called “exception clause” into an “exclusion clause.”[4] Only in Erasmus’ Textus Receptus can the “exception clause” (ei mē) be found in Matthew 19:9. This translation issue is significant because it affects the way Matthew 19:9 can be interpreted.
To say more about the variation issues with Matthew 19:9, if a person simply compares different Bible versions of this verse, it can be quickly discerned that Majority Text (and Textus Receptus) versions have a longer ending than do the critical text (Nestle-Aland) versions—which can significantly affect interpretation. But there are other variations of Matthew 19:9 that are not as well-known. For example, in the English Standard Version, there is a footnote on Matthew 19:9 that says, “Some manuscripts add ‘and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery;’ other manuscripts ‘except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’” Similarly, in the American Standard Version, there is a footnote on Matthew 19:9 that says, “Some ancient authorities read ‘saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress’: as in 5:32.” Notice that the variant manuscript readings mentioned here match with Matthew 5:32 (which, again, does not logically allow for remarriage following divorce without it being considered adultery).
Such footnotes and/or center-column notes in Bibles are helpful, but what the reader is NOT informed of in either of the Bible footnotes mentioned directly above is that two of the ancient manuscripts (Papyrus 25 and Codex Vaticanus) which have Matthew 19:9 reading like Matthew 5:32 are thought to be two of the three earliest manuscripts we have (both transcribed in the 300s, as with Codex Sinaiticus). In addition, there are two other early Greek manuscripts—Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (transcribed in the mid-400s) and Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus (transcribed in the 500s)—both of which have Matthew 19:9 reading like Matthew 5:32, although the “Rescriptus” version of Matthew 19:9 is a hybrid rendering which has the first half of the verse reading like Matthew 19:9 (minus Erasmus’ addition of ei) and the second half of the verse reading like Matthew 5:32. And then, as already noted by Henri Crouzel, we could also add in the collective witness of the ante-Nicene writers (such as Origen, who wrote in the mid-200s) who testify to this textual variation when commenting on Matthew 19, but reading or quoting Matthew 19:9 “in the form of Matthew 5:32.”
So, as described & enumerated in the paragraph above, there are at least five “ancient authorities” which clearly indicate that there is a very real chance that the original Matthew 19:9 simply repeated Matthew 5:32—a passage which cannot logically be understood to safely allow for remarriage (see explanatory footnote #2). As Henri Crouzel wrote:
“the most ancient of our Greek manuscripts of the Bible, the Vaticanus graecus 1209 [dated first part of the 4th century/300s], as well as an important minority of those currently available, also cite Matthew 19:9 in the form of 5:32.”[5]
And, although Codex Sinaiticus (mid-300s) has Matthew 19:9 reading like the Greek text that is behind our modern critical translations (having the shorter ending minus Erasmus’ addition of ei), it is extremely noteworthy that this 4th century Greek Bible included the early Christian writing called the Shepherd of Hermas, which clearly forbids remarriage following a divorce on the grounds of adultery (see quote below).[6] This inclusion & acceptance of the Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus—practically putting Hermas on the level of Scripture—strongly indicates how those early Christians who were using Codex Sinaiticus would have most likely understood Matthew 19:9.
NOTES:
[1] See Crouzel’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church: Some Reflections on Historical Methodology, p. 486; https://www.communio-icr.com/files/crouzel41-2.pdf (bolding and content in brackets are mine).
[2] The last half of Matthew 5:32 makes it plain that even in cases where the wife was innocent of sexual immorality in her first marriage, she will still be committing adultery if she gets married to a different man after being put away/divorced, even though the divorcer will bear most of the guilt. The next man she marries will also be guilty of adultery due to marrying a divorced woman whose “one-flesh” (Gen 2:24) husband is still alive. Why? Because she is still married to her prior husband in the sight of God—the one-flesh, “covenant” (Mal 2:14) bond has not been dissolved by a legal divorce!
[3] Ibid., p. 487.
[4] To learn more about this, listen to the audio recording found at this link: https://eurekachurchofchrist.com/interview-with-dr-leslie-mcfall-on-matthew-199/
[5] Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church: Some Reflections on Historical Methodology, p. 486-487
[6] Shepherd of Hermas [c.150 A.D.]: “‘What…is the [Christian] husband to do, if his [Christian] wife continues in [adultery]?’ And he said, ‘The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marries another, he also commits adultery.’ And I said to him, ‘What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?’ And he said to me, ‘Assuredly. If the husband does not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently: for there is but one repentance [this being a formal, public period of penance] to the servants of God [for sins such as adultery, murder, and idolatry]. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way.’” (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 21)