Ovie James Emorireh, Jesus' Teaching On Marriage and Divorce in Matthew 19:3-9: An Exegesis

JESUS’ TEACHING ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN MATTHEW 19:3-9:
AN EXEGESIS
BY
OVIE, JAMES EMORIREH
BTH 20/023
BEING AN ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY,
ST. ALBERT THE GREAT MAJOR SEMINARY, IDOWU-OFFONRAN, IN
PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
THE BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN THEOLOGY.
IDOWU-OFFONRAN
MAY, 2023.
1
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this research work titled: JESUS’ TEACHING ON
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN MATTHEW 19:3-9: AN EXEGESIS;
submitted to the Department of Theology, St. Albert the Great Major Seminary,
Idowu-Offonran, in affiliation with the Pontifical Urban University, Rome in partial
fulfillment for the award of the Bachelor of Arts Degree in Theology, is a record of
the original research carried out by me: James Emorireh, OVIE
___________________________ ___________________________
Date James Emorireh, OVIE
_________________________ _______________________
Date Supervisor
Rev. Fr. Dr. Enoch Usifo,
Lecturer,
St Albert the Great Major
Seminary,
Idowu-Offonran.
2
DEDICATION
In loving memory of my Late Father:
Mr. Samuel Ovie Okpako
&
Late Stepmother:
Mrs. Victoria Ovie Okpako,
&
All those who labour to protect the sanctity of Marriage
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my household, that

you have brought me this far? (2 Sam 7:18).
There is a saying among the Urhobo people regarding gratitude that: An ungrateful
man is a brother to a thief. It is on this note that I thankfully express my sentiments of
gratitude to God, the author of ‘Marriage’, for bequeathing mankind with such gift of
love, and the sustaining grace he granted me in course of this research. I thank also
the Blessed Mother Mary who is an advocate of a happy marriage (See John 2:1-5).
I thank my Superiors in the persons of His Lordship, Most Revd. Anthony O.

Ewherido, the Catholic Bishop of Warri Diocese, Very Revd. Frs. Barnabas Esegine,
the Vicar General, Clement Abobo, the Chancellor, Emmanuel Brume, the Vocations
Director, and Ezekiel Olise, my parish priest, for their support.
I appreciate Revd. Fr. Enoch Usifo Ph.D., my supervisor, for taking his time to read,
and correct this project, thank you Fr. I thank also Very Revd. Fr. Anselm Ekhelar,
Ph.D., the Rector, and other members of the Formation Team. I am grateful to all the
priests who have assisted me in course of my formation. Thank you Frs.
I am grateful also to my siblings, especially Edwin Onoriode Ovie, Hon. Godwin

Onome Ovie, Queen Onome, and Oke Ovie whose encouragement and support have
been of huge benefit. More so, I thank all those who have played the roles of Father
and Mother in my life, especially Very Revd. Fr. Capt. Oliver Offor, Ph.D., Fr.
Orjinta, Fr. Emalume, OMV, Dame Clementina Bakpa, and Mrs. Osamor Patrick.
To my classmates, especially WADS class of 2023, thank you for being part of my
journey. I will not forget to appreciate Fr. Bernard Oboh, Mrs. Franciscan Nweke,
Theresa Orogun, Laye Samson, Oge Benedict, and my roommate Itoya Victor. To
Douye Cyprian, Eseoghene James, and Albertan WADS, I say thank you Brothers.
To men and women of goodwill who have laboured and those who are labouring to
protect the sanctity of marriage, thank you. Thank You One, and Thank You All.
James Emorireh, OVIE
4
ABSTRACT
The issue of divorce is a controversial and burning one today just as it was in the days
of Jesus. Today, there are instances where one of the couple abandons their home and
walks away. Even some ‘men of God’ who are supposed to be the custodians of the
word of God are divorcees. This begs the question, what did Jesus teach in Matthew
19:3-9 regarding marriage and divorce? In the biblical economy, unlike the Markan
(10:11-12) and Lukan (16:18) narratives which forbid divorce and remarriage
absolutely, the Matthean parallel in the Sermon on the Mount (5:32) and household
discourse (19:9) respectively, include an exceptive clause πορνεία (porneia) which
appears to soften the rigidity of the teaching. The exegetical difficulty of the text is
that there seems to be no contextual restriction of the meaning of porneia. The
Matthean usage of moicheia for adultery in the text makes the interpretation of
porneia very difficult and elusive. Another difficulty is the scope of the exceptive
clause. The question is the value of divorce; and whether the clause covers both
divorce and remarriage or divorce alone. In the final analysis, this essay argues that
Matt 19:6 “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” encapsulate Jesus’
teaching on ‘marriage and divorce. Jesus, unlike the Pharisees, draws his principle
from Genesis 1:27; 2:24 and Malachi 2:16, which show that marital union is
covenantal, exclusive, and unbreakable. The line of argument is that the exception is a
work of a redactor; it is a pastoral provision made for the Jewish Christian community
taking into consideration their hardness of heart. The scope of the exception does not
extend to remarriage because the Matthean concept of divorce does not sever the
marital bond. This argument is premised on the ground that remarriage is adultery.
Hence at best divorce for Matthew is separation.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Title Page====================================================i
Certification==================================================ii
Dedication===================================================iii
Acknowledgment==============================================iv
Abstract=====================================================v
Table of Contents==============================================vi
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
0.1 The Background to Research====================================ix
0.2 The Statement of Problem======================================xi
0.3 The Aim/Purpose of Research===================================xii
0.4 The Scope of Research========================================xii
0.5 The Methodology of Research ==================================xii
0.6 The Division of Research======================================xiii
Chapter One
The Background to Matthean Gospel
1.1 Introduction================================================1
1.2 Historical Origins: ===========================================1
1.2.1 Authorship/Audience/ Occasion==============================1
1.2.2 Source/ Date/Place of Composition============================4
6
1.3 The Structure and Literary Style==================================7
1.4 The Matthean Theology: =======================================9
1.4.1 Unique Message.=========================================9
1.4.2 Theological Emphases ====================================10
1.5 Rèsumè===================================================13
Chapter Two
Literature Review on Matthew 19:3-9
2.1 Introduction================================================14
2.2 Shirley Jackson =============================================14
2.3 John Kilgallen= =============================================14
2.4 Robert Gundry==============================================15
2.5 Donald Carson==============================================17
2.6 Phil Hill ==================================================18
2.7 Honore Sewakpo ============================================19
2.8 Fermin Lopez ==============================================20
2.9 Michael Barber =============================================22

2.10 Rèsumè==================================================23
Chapter Three
Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-9
3.1 Introduction================================================24
3.2 Delimitation of Text==========================================24
3.3 The Unity/Genre/Form of the Text================================25
3.4 The Social-Political and Social-Religious Situation of the Text ===========29
3.4.1 The Social-Political Situation of the Text======================29
7
3.4.2 The Social-Religious Situation of the Text=====================30
3.5 Immediate Context of the Text ================================= 31
3.6 Analysis of the Matthean Text 19:3-9 =============================32
3.7 Rèsumè ==================================================48
Chapter Four
Interpretation and Word Study in Matthew 19:3-9
4.1 Introduction ===============================================50
4.2 The Understanding of ἀπολῦσαι in the Old Testament==================50
4.3 He who made them from the beginning made them male and
female (Matt 19:4; Gen 1:27) ὁ κτίσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ =========54
4.4 The Hardness of Heart-τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν
(Matt 19:8/Deut. 10:16; 33:6) ================================57
4.5 What does πορνείᾳ mean in the Matthean Text?======================60
4.6 Rèsumè ==================================================62
Chapter Five
The Theology of Matthew 19:3-9
5.1 Introduction===============================================64
5.2 Matthean Theology of Marriage=================================64
5.3 Matthean Theology of Divorce =================================67
5.4 The Relevance of Matthean Study ===============================69
5.5 General Conclusion==========================================71
Bibliography================================================72
8
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
0.1 The Background to Research
This essay is an exegesis of Jesus’ teaching on ‘Marriage and Divorce in
Matthew 19:3-9’. In this text, Jesus is dealing with a ‘vexed and disputed question’1:
the cause’ for which a man may divorce his wife. It is believed that no nation has ever
had a higher view of marriage than the Jews.2 Among the Jews, marriage is
Kiddushin, a sort of consecration of the husband and wife to each other to become one
flesh.3 It is God’s initiative, and a covenant. According to the biblical creation
narrative in Genesis, the marriage institution follows after God’s creative act; he
blessed it and prescribed its goals: companionship and procreation (Gen 2:24). Hence
in ‘Systematic Theology’, it is opined that “marriage belongs to the order of creation
and order of redemption.”4 It is therefore forever a precious gift; the most sublime
bequeathal to humanity because love and companion which man did not find in
animals he found in the woman.5
Thus, there is no celibacy in the Jewish religion, to remain unmarried after the
age of twenty, except to study the Torah-law, is to break the injunction ‘be fruitful
and multiply’ (Gen 1:28).6 It is on this note that McBrien holds that marriage is sacred
duty and institution that functions primarily for procreation, and by extension, the
preservation of the husband’s clan among the Jews.7 The man, who had no children,
‘slew his posterity’. Buttressing the importance of marriage, the Jewish Historian
1
H. Benedict Green, The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version, London:
Oxford University Press, 1975, p. 167.
2
William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. II, India: Theological Publication, 2016, p. 228.
3
William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. II, p. 236.
4
Walter Kasper, The Theology of Marriage, New York: CrossRoad Publishing Company, 1983, p. 1.
5
Lawrence Boadt, Reading Old Testament: An Introduction, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1984, p. 118.
6
7
Richard McBrien, Catholicism, 4th ed., New York: Harper San Francisco, 1994, p. 852.
9
Josephus counsels that, ‘marriage is not to be entered into carelessly or lightly. And it
is the family that marries in the name of the man.8 Marriage enjoys a place of repute
in the Torah such that ‘marital bond has been applied to the symbol of the covenant
between Yahweh and Israel (Hos 1-2, Is. 54:4-5, Jer 2:2)9, and even in the Pauline
theology (Eph 5:12-33)10. It follows that any attempt to dig into the Jewish marriage
must indicate that its laws of marriage and purity aim very high.
Yet, it is very disturbing that there is hardly any institution that is so attacked
as marriage. While marriage according to the creation narrative is good; ideal and
reality did not go hand in hand, hence divorce. The background text to divorce read:
Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she

does not please him because he finds something indecent
about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce,
puts it in her hands, and sends her out of his house.11
Ernest Burton argues that this text Deut 24:1 does not institute divorce, but,
finding it in existence, seeks to regulate it.12 This is because, among the Jews, women
were properties either of their father or their husband. They were very vulnerable, and
were treated with contempt. A woman may be divorced with or without her consent
yet she could not divorce.13 Overwhelmed with the subjugation and maltreatment of
women in marriages and yearnings for liberation silently, the text of Deut 24:1 was
meant to safeguard the woman in a culturally patriarchal society.14
8
Josephus Flavian, Antiquities of the Jews, 4:8:23.
9
Richard McBrien, Catholicism, p. 852.
10
Walter Kasper, The Theology of Marriage, p. 1.
11
Deuteronomy 24:1.
12
Ernest Burton, “The Biblical Teaching Concerning Divorce: Old Testament Teaching and Jewish
Usage” in The Biblical World, Vol. 29, No. 2, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, p, 1907, p.
122, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3140621 Accessed May 24, 2022.
13
14
Benedict Viuiano, O.P, “The Gospel According to Matthew” in The New Jerome Biblical
Commentary, India: Theological Publications, 1995, p. 643.
10
The problem however lies with Deut 24:1. Note that it is the only text in the
Torah that describes the method of divorce, though the certificate of divorce is alluded
to in Isaiah 50:1.15 Yet it is very enigmatic, unclear, and ambiguous; it only states that
a man may divorce his wife if he finds something indecent about her. It did not define
what constitute something indecent. The concept of indecent in the Torah is quite
broad and covers a whole lot of attitudes and characters that are contrary to the
Decalogue. The Jewish Rabbis Hillel and Shammai were divided on the correct
interpretation of something indecent required for divorce in Deut 24:1. This issue
persisted even in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees who were the disciples of Rabbi Hillel and
Shammai still disagreed on the interpretation of something indecent. This explains
why they came to Jesus to test him. Did Jesus reaffirm the permission for divorce
stipulated in Deut 24:1-4, or did he revoke this concession? What did Jesus teach in
regards to marriage and divorce in Matthew 9:3-9?
0.2 The Statement of Problem
Marriage is held in high regard by God, the first of his institution bequeathed
to man. Yet marriage was quickly besieged by divorce (Deut 24:1) even though God
hates divorce (Mal 2:16). In Mark and Luke Jesus out rightly forbid divorce but
Matthew made a provision for divorce with an exception clause (19:9). Given that
Matthew relied on Mark, and Q sources for his materials and neither Mark nor Luke
have the exception clause, what is divorce in the text? What is the Matthean source of
the exception clause? Is the exception clause part of the original text or a pastoral
provision of the early Matthean Christian community? How do we explain the
15
John Rogerson, ‘Deuteronomy’ in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, James Dunn, & John
Rogerson, (eds.), United Kingdom: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003, p. 167.
11
inconsistency between Jesus’ words in vv. 4-6 and the exception clause in v. 9? What
is the place of the Apostles’ reaction in v. 10 if the exception clause is valid and is the
exact word of Jesus? In a nutshell, central to the problem of this essay is: what
exactly is Jesus’ teaching on ‘marriage and divorce in Matt. 19:3-9?
0.3 The Aim/Purpose of Research
This study sets out to attempt an exegetical analysis of Jesus’ ‟teaching on
‘marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:3-9.” It shall attempt a correct interpretation of
Jesus’ teaching to rid society of false teachings that constitute an attack on the
marriage institution today. It shall foster an awareness of the dignity of the institution
of marriage and its place as a divine institution that manifests the love and furtherance
of the creative work of God.16 The findings of this study would be relevant to the
theology of marriage and provide a template for the correct interpretation of the text.
0.4 The Scope of Research
It is expedient to note from the outset that this study on marriage and divorce
is from a biblical perspective. It takes into focus the text of Matthew 19:3-9. While
this pericope is the object of our study, this essay given its methods of research will
make allusions and references to the Old Testament scripture, the Synoptic Gospels,
and when necessary, texts on Jewish marriage.
0.5 The Methodology of Research
This study will employ the diachronic17 and synchronic approaches. The
application of canonical exegesis18 to understand the different nuances of this
16
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1602, (Cf. Gen 1:26-27 & Rev 19:7-9)
17
The diachronic and synchronic approaches belong to the historical-critical method and new method
of literary analysis respectively. The historical-critical method is an indispensable method for the
scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts such as the Holy Scripture. It “seeks to discover the
12
pericope will also be employed. These approaches will enhance our understanding of
the message that the internal structure of the pericope intends to convey to the people.
The ultimate goal of the pericope is to communicate Jesus’ response and his
magisterial teaching on the question of marriage and divorce so that the people will
get to know the correct teaching.
0.6 The Division of Research
For the sake of clarity, this essay is divided into a general introduction, five
chapters, and a general conclusion. The general introduction will expose us to the
background of the study; explicate the statement of the problem, the aim/purpose of the
study, and lastly, the scope and method of research. The chapters will take into focus:
i. The background of the Matthean Gospel: authorship, source(s), style, and theology.
ii. Literature Review on the Matthean text of study
iii. Interpretation and Word Study in Matthew 19:3-9
iv. Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-9, the genre, the context, and the analysis of the text.
v. The Matthean theology of marriage, divorce, and its relevance today.
The general conclusion
precise sense the words were intended to convey at their time and place of origin”. Joseph
Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. I, New York: Bloomsbury, 2007, p. xix.
18
The canonical exegesis does not refer to canon law but the exegetical method that helps us to read
the individual texts of the bible in the context of the whole. It is an essential dimension of exegesis-
it carries the historical-critical method from the past into an organic way toward becoming theology
in the proper sense. See Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. I, p. xix
13
1.0 Chapter One
The Background of the Matthean Gospel
1.1 Introduction
Sacred Scripture is the inspired ‘word of God’ written in time and space, in a
particular society and cultural milieu. Thus, it has its history as much as it contains
historical facts even though it is not a historical book. The Matthean Gospel is no
different; thus this chapter attempts to explore the background of the Matthean
Gospel. Centre to it is the quest to ascertain the authorship, audience, source,
occasion, structure, style, and theological emphasis of the Gospel.
1.4 Historical Origins:
1.4.1 Authorship/Audience/Occasion
1.4.1.1 Authorship
Who authored the Gospel according to Matthew? Virtually, all ancient
manuscripts that preserve the title of the work give some form of the heading: ‘Kata
Maththaion According to Matthew.’19 External and internal evidence was postulated
in this regard. The external evidence cites the authority of the Early Church Fathers
who lived between the first and third centuries. Papias wrote, “Matthew arranged in
order the sayings in the Hebrew language, and each one translated as he was able.”20
Curtis and Siri aptly express the external evidence:
St. Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, St. Jerome, St. John

Chrysostom, and St. Augustine, at the beginning of the
fifth century, held that the Gospel according to Matthew
was a gospel written by Matthew. The same verdict is
rendered by the earliest extant Greek manuscripts that
preserve a title page for the Gospel, all of which bear some
19
Curtis Mitch and Scott Hahn, (eds.), The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New Testament, New Ed.,
San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001, p. 43.
20
Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, India: Theological Publication, 2014, p. 20.
14
variation of the heading Kata Maththaion, “According to
Matthew.21
With regards to internal evidence, the Matthean grammar, syntax, literary
style, and distinctive themes lead most scholars to conclude that he was a Jew who
understood Hebrew and Judaism. On the contrary, some look at these details and
opines that Matthew was a Gentile who used Jewish terminology but often
misunderstood it. David Turner writes that, “The external and internal allows for the
traditional view of authorship but does not prove it.”22
Hence, recent studies are largely disinclined to accept early Church Fathers’
tradition. Raymond Brown notes that it was in the latter half of the second century
that the title ‘According to Matthew’ was appended to this gospel.23 Why two
centuries after? An essential objection to Matthew the Apostle is that the writer of
Matthew relied upon the Gospel of Mark as one of his primary sources of information
about Jesus. If the writer of Matthew made extensive use of Mark, a Gospel that
everyone acknowledges was written by a non-apostle, it would seem to follow that the
author of Matthew could not have been an apostle either
This argument against Matthew the Apostle’s authorship is not as strong as
some proponents present it. For example, if the author of the Gospel of Matthew did
rely upon the Gospel of Mark, he could have done so with the awareness that Mark’s
Gospel was reputedly based on the preaching of Peter. In this case, it is neither
unreasonable nor improbable to suppose that one apostle made use of the testimony of
another, especially when the apostle in question was Peter, whose authority and
21
Curtis Mitch and Edward Sir, The Gospel of Matthew, U.S.A: Baker Academic, 2010, p. 17.
22
David Turner, Matthew: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Michigan: Baker
Academic, 2008, p. 33.
23
Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Bangalore, p. 208.
15
favoured position among the Twelve are among the themes of Matthew’s Gospel
(Matt 10:2; 16:17-19; 17:24-27). Why would the evangelist feel compelled to produce
his account from scratch if such a document, known to represent the apostolic witness
to Jesus, was already in circulation?24 For this reason, the apostolic authorship of
Matthew remains a defensible position. In all, there is no consensus on the author of
the Gospel. On this note, this study holds that the Apostle Matthew is the authority or
tradition behind the gospel according to Matthew.
1.2.1.2 Audience
There is a consensus among scholars that the Matthean audience was a Jewish
Christian community.25 Curtis writes, “The Jewish outlook of the gospel seemed to
point in this direction, as did an ancient tradition that Matthew had originally written
his Gospel in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic.” 26 A Palestinian
readership would explain why Matthew addresses multiple Jewish concerns, why he
refers to Jewish customs and institutions without explanation, and why he works with
nearly two hundred references to the Jewish Scriptures into his narrative to
demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation.27
On the location and size of the audience, there are divergent opinions.
However, biblical scholarship today places Matthew’s original audience in the eastern
Mediterranean. Warren Carter claims that “Matthew’s gospel originates in and was
addressed to a minority Jewish group that lived in the large city of Antioch.”28 The
24
Curtis Mitch and Scott Hahn, (eds.), The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New Testament, p. 44.
25
Floyd Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, New York: Harper &
Brothers, Publication, 1960, p. 60.
26
Curtis Mitch and Edward Sir, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 19.
27
28
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, India:
Theological Publications, 2007, p. xviii.
16
members of the community were neither elite nor members of the synagogue; rather,
they were the expelled who were on the margin. This is a sociological reading of the
context. Turner29 and Harrington30 submit that it was a major community with a
sizeable number who were still engaged with the synagogue.
1.2.1.3 Occasion
Every piece of literature is meant to address a need. But Matthew did not tell
us why he wrote. Reflecting to this enigma, Turner comments that “the “why” can
only be approximated in hypotheses inferred from the text.”31 This invariably leaves
us with different opinions as to what occasioned it. Warren Carter in his social
religious reading of the text submits that it was a work of reaction, a work of
resistance; essentially a counter-narrative, written from and for marginalized Jewish
Christian community that has been expelled from the Synagogue.32 Thus, it was
occasioned by the need to strengthen and re-affirm the faith of the community that
Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel and also, to resist the dominant
Roman power. and synagogal control.”33
1.2.2 Source/ Date/Composition
1.2.2.1 Source(s)
The Matthean sources are essentially Mark, Q-source, and special Matthew
(M). On this Harrington writes:
The Matthean Gospel is generally considered to be a

revised or second edition of Mark’s Gospel. Most of the
materials in the sixteen chapters of Mark are included in the
29
David Turner, Matthew: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, p. 34.
30
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. I, Minnesota: A Michae
Glazier Book, 2005, p. 1.
31
32
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, p. xvii.
33
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, p. xvii.
17
Matthean account. Yet, Matthew did not merely copy his
source. Rather, he edited Mark freely and joined it with
materials from a collection of Jesus’ saying called Q-source
and material peculiar to Matthew (M).34
Harrington added that “Matthew’s revision of Mark is guided by literary and
theological factors.”35 On the literary level, Matthew compressed the Markan
materials to include only what he considered essential and frequently turned narration
into dialogue. Theologically, he supplemented the Markan narratives with large
blocks of teaching, thus giving more content to the message of Jesus, and thereby
adapting Mark for his Jewish audience while he omits unnecessary explanations.36
Regarding the special Matthew (M), it is designated by the letter M in biblical
scholarship. It refers to those materials in Matthew that are neither found in Mark nor
Q, they are peculiar to Matthew. A reliable example is the infancy narrative and
allusions to the Old Testament (2; 14:28-31; 16:17-19).37
1.2.2.2 Date
The exact date or year of this gospel is not known. All that is, is a probable
date. Brown writes that, “80-90 are likely the most plausible dating since the author
was aware of the problem of Gnosticism, the destruction of the temple and the
relationship between Didache38 1.4 and Matthew 5:39-41, Didache 8.2, and Matthew
6:9-15”.39 In a related argument, Tuner opines, “The gospel must have been written
by the turn of the first century CE. Scholarly consensus, based on the Markan-priority
34
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. I, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 5.
35
36
37
Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 207.
38
Didache (teaching), is the documentary of the teachings of the Apostles.
39
18
view of Gospel relationships, places Matthew’s origin in the 80-90.”40 This is the
dating adopted in this study considering the early Church Father’s knowledge of the
gospel,41 the internal evidence (Matt.22:7; 23:36, 38; 24:2) which reflects- the
knowledge of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem in 70/72, and the Trinitarian
formula in Matt. 28:19 suggests a Post-Easter era.
1.2.2.3 Composition
How did Matthew compose his Gospel? Matthew had three sources42 as earlier
stated, Mark, Q, and Special Matthew (M). In his composition, Matthew republishes
elaborately 80 percent of Mark. Brown gave a statistical analysis: Matthew has 1,068
verses, with 80% from Mark, about 15% from Q, and 5% from M. The Markan
Gospel provides the basic frame for Matthean Gospel. But Matthew expanded it; his
revision includes alterations in detail: Condensations, and new formulations such that
what was subtracted in narrative content was more than replaced by the extensive
additions with improvement on Markan Greek.43 Nickle remarks that “against
Markan use of present tense, Matthew altered it to historical present tense in (130 of
151 times)”44, and equally avoided Markan repetitions (Mk14:1; Matt 8:16).
In his composition, Matthew lengthened Mark by marking changes at both
endings such that no longer does the narrative conclude abruptly as in Mark. He
combined the discourse with the narrative materials in a fascinating way such that
40
41
42
43
Keith Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, Louisville: WJK Westminster Joint Knox
Press, 2001, p. 105.
44
Keith Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, p. 105.
19
each of the five major discourses45 is interspersed between narrative sections. If we let
P=prologue, N= narrative, D= major discourse and E-Epilogue, the pattern will be
(p)-(N-D)-(N-D)-(N-D)-(N-D)-(N-D)-(e). The two minor discourses46 thus serve as
oral interpretations of the narrative events in the sections.47 Further, where Mark gave
prominence to Jesus’ deeds, Matthew emphasizes sayings and teaching. 48 He
gathered the miracle stories found in Mark and concentrated many of them in one
section of his Gospel (Matthew 8-9).49 In this process, he altered the Markan versions
by making them shorter and more compact.
1.5 Structure and Literary Style
1.5.1 Structure
One thing common among modern scholars of the Matthean Gospel is that it is
regarded as a well-structured book.50 It has “several layers of orders that are helpful.”
A careful reading of the gospel shows that it is: 1) chronological, 2) geographical, and
3) contains five major discourses, 4) structural markers, 4) thematic, and, 5)
epitomizes the Israelite history.51
Chronologically, Matthew gave us a biography of Jesus beginning from his
lineage (1:1-16) through his birth (1:18-25), his mission (1:21) his death, and his
45
The term five major discourses of Matthew refer to five specific discourses by Jesus within
the Gospel of Matthew. There are marked with, “when Jesus had finished speaking. They are
the Sermon on the Mount (3:1-7:29), the Missionary Discourse (8:1-11:1), the Parabolic Discourse
(11:2-13:53), the Discourse on the Church (13:54-18:35), and the Discourse on End Times (19:1-
25:46). See John Meier, Matthew: New Testament Message, Vol. 3, 4th ed., Dublin: Veritas
Publications, 1984, pp. vii-viii
46
The minor discourses refer to the prologue- infancy narrative (1:1-2:23) and the epilogue-the passion
and resurrection (26:1-28-20).
47
48
49
Keith Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, p, 114.
50
Richard France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, USA: Intervarsity Press, 1985, p. 23.
51
Fred Sander, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel, Feb. 11, 2011 The Structure of Matthew's Gospel -
The Scriptorium Daily Accessed April 29, 2022.
20
resurrection (27, 28). Also, following the Markan plot, the Matthean author divided
Jesus’ ministry between two geographical locations: Galilee (Judea) (1-19) and
Jerusalem, the place of his death (20-28).
The Matthean discourse is structured into five blocks each ending with a
similar formula: “When Jesus had finished these . . ..” It follows that Matthew
combined the discourse with the narrative material in a fascinating way such that each
of the five major discourses is interspersed between narrative sections.52 Reflecting on
the five-fold structure’s theology, Curtis writes, “this literary technique highlights the
dual significance of the works and words of Jesus, and more so, Matthew presents us
with five ‘books’ about the Messiah, parallel to the five books of Moses.”53 The idea
is that Matthew offered his Gospel as a new Torah for the new People of God.
The Matthean Gospel employs structural markers which read, ‘from that time
Jesus began to…’; they serve as a signal from the narrator that something important
was about to happen. David Garland notes that these markers break the gospel into
three sections: introduction (1-4), the proclamation of the Kingdom (4-16), and the
necessity of passion (16-28).54 Also, the gospel reflected on some key themes making
it thematic, themes such as, ‘the kingdom of heaven, Church, and discipleship, etc.
And lastly, as earlier mentioned, Matthew presents Jesus as the new Israel in person
thereby recapitulating the history of Israel.55
52
53
54
David Garland, Reading Matthew, A Literary and Theological Commentary, Georgia: Smyth &
Helwys Publishing, Inc, 2001, p. 9.
55
Fred Sander, The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel, Feb. 11, 2011.
21
1.3.2 Literary Style
Regarding the style of composition, scholars generally view Matthew’s Greek
style as aesthetically good if not exceptional.56 For Tuner, “the author was relatively
fluent in Semitic languages as well as Greek, which led to frequent Semitisms.”57
Matthew seems to be fond of various numerical patterns, such as the seven petitions in
the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–13), the seven parables (Matt 13), and the genealogical
format of fourteen (double-seven) generations (Matt 1:1–17).58
Lastly, the Matthean Gospel employed chiasmus as a literary style.59 It is
derived from the Greek letter Chi (X). It denotes inverted parallelism60 and it involves
two fundamental elements: inversion and balance, and at times a third feature which is
climactic centrality. Graphically, it may be represented as A-B, B-A.61 Chiasmus in
Matthew: Sermon on the Mount (4:25-81:1), the parable of the sower (13:13-18, 54-
57), Authority of Jesus (12:22-45). It is the linking of paragraphs this way that binds
them together as a chiasm.62
1.4 The Matthean Theology
1.4.1 Unique Message: Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Promise
The Matthean Gospel is unique in the sense that, it is a Gospel of fulfilment,
and Jesus is the fulfilment, the promised Messiah63 (1:21; Deut 18:15). The
56
57
58
Keith Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, p. 107
59
Keith F. Nickle, The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction, p. 118.
60
Nils Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic
Structures, North Carolina: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1992, p. vii.
61
62
Bernard Sadler, The Structure of Matthew, Sydney: Burns Oates, 2013, p. 4.
63
This cluster of references to Jesus as the Messiah strongly links Jesus to Israel’s history and hopes. It
is certainly the key to the identity of Jesus in Matthew. A messiah is literally one anointed by God
22
presentation of Jesus’ ancestral background (1-16), the reference to Jesus as the
Messiah v 17, and Matt 1:22-23 being a typology of Isaiah 7:14, all these indicate
Matthew’s insistence on Jesus as the promised Messiah.
Matthew presentation of Jesus as the fulfillment64 of the Promised Messiah
finds its culmination in chapters 16 and 17 respectively. In chapter 16:16, in response
to Jesus’ inquiry about his identity, Peter professes ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of
the living God.” And this was confirmed with ‘the events of the transfiguration’ in
chapter 17 which featured Moses-the Torah and Elijah-the Prophet. On this, David
Garland opines that “Matthew’s frequent appeal to the fulfillment of the scripture is
an attempt to show that Jesus’ life and death conform to the divine blueprint.”65
1.4.2 Matthean Theological Emphasis: The Kingdom of Heaven Motif
A critical reader of the Matthean text notices that central to his theological
emphasis is the ‘the King of heaven motif.’66 The Matthean text of the “kingdom of
heaven” is a theme that branches out in several directions.67 Christ stands at the
center, it spreads to salvation, discipleship, ecclesial, and eschatology. Consequently,
this study takes the ‘kingdom of heaven’ as the Matthean emphasis. Yet briefly, it
reflects on the others mentioned. On this, Curtis writes,
The Gospel of Matthew is preeminently the gospel of the

kingdom. The first indication of this is statistical: the word
for special service or office (1 Sam. 9:15–16; 10:1; 12–13; Exod. 28:41; Isa. 45:1). For details, see
64
Matthew’s distinctive use of the Hebrew Bible revolves around his ten fulfillment formula
quotations, which utilize the verb πληρόω (plēroō, fulfill). These are especially prominent in Matt.
1–2. in order that what was said by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, which says. It
appeared in verbal form sixteen times 1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 27:9.
For details, see David Turner, Matthew: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp
17-25; Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. I, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 17.
65
David Garland, Reading Matthew, A Literary and Theological Commentary, p. 7.
66
Floyd Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel of According to Matthew, p. 32.
67
Curtis Mitch and Scott Hahn, (eds.), The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New Testament, p. 47
23
“kingdom” appears over fifty times in the gospel. With its
keynote expression, “the kingdom of heaven,” accounting
for more than thirty occurrences. The biblical world was no
stranger to the concept of a kingdom but this leading motif
in Matthew points us to something radically different from
the normal fare of historical monarchies.68
But what does Matthew mean by ‘kingdom of heaven?’ It is central to his
unique message that ‘Jesus is the promised Messiah who has come to save his people
from their sins (1:21). By the kingdom of heaven, Matthew is neither referring to a
state nor a geographical location. Also, the kingdom is not reducible to a purely
spiritual or otherworldly realm, nor is it exclusively linked with the future blessings of
eternal life.69 Rather, it is a proclamation, an announcement of the reign of God in the
person of God the Son who came to establish God’s will (6:10).70 Curtis writes:
In Matthew’s theology, the kingdom of heaven is the divine

perfection of the ancient kingdom of David. It is the object
of hope, prayer (6:10), and proclamation which unifies the
entire narrative and provides an eschatological horizon and
goals.71
As such, it answers the ancient expectation that Yahweh, in fulfillment of his
oath (Ps 89:3-4), would establish the kingdom of David forever (2 Sam 7:12-16) by
sending a royal messiah, a new and “definitive David,” to reign forever as the heir to
his throne (see Isa 9:6–7; Jer 23:5; Ezek 34:23–24; Hos 3:5).”72
Christology: At the center of the kingdom of heaven is Jesus: Jesus is the
Messiah (Matt 1:17), the fulfillment of the promise (Is. 7:14-16) who has come to
inaugurate the reign of God’s kingdom. This Jesus according to Matthew is the Son of
68
Curtis Mitch and Edward Siri, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 23
69
70
For detail study of the ‘kingdom of heaven’ See Floyd V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel of
According to Matthew, p. 32.
71
Benedict Viuiano, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 632.
72
Curtis Mitch and Edward Siri, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 24.
24
David, Son of Abraham, Immanuel, etc. (1:1, 23). The most Christological title of
Jesus for Mathew is ‘Son of God’. It extends all through the phases of Jesus’ life.73
The title highlights the unique filial relationship that Jesus has with God (2:15; 3:17;
4:1-11). Tuner and Harrington hold that “with Psalm. 2:7; 89:27 as a likely
background, Matthew presents Jesus as the virginally conceived Son who uniquely
signifies the presence of God with his people.”74
Discipleship: The announcement of the kingdom calls for a human response,
summons hearers to repentance, and all to a life of discipleship in which seeking the
surpassing righteousness of Christ (5:20) is the highest priority (6:33).75
Ecclesiology: The Matthean Gospel is the first to use the word ‘church’ (Matt
16:18; 18:17).76 With the inclusion of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba in Jesus’
genealogy (1:3, 5, 6), all Gentiles with overtones of scandal in their backgrounds, the
Matthean Church was prepared for converts from Judaism and even Gentiles. The
requirement to be a member is faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and baptism (Matt
28:19). The proclamation of the kingdom is at the heart of the Church’s mission (3:2;
4:17; 10:7; 13:19).77 The kingdom is ecclesia because it births the Church and its
saving power is made present in the world through the Church, the sacrament of
salvation. This explains the importance of the Church in Matthean soteriology.
Eschatology and Soteriology: In Matthew, Jesus’ mission is to save his
people from sin (Matt 1:21). Hence his gospel is essentially given to salvation. Also,
it speaks of the last day, the last judgment (Matt 25). The salvation won by Jesus in
73
74
75
Curtis Mitch and Scott Hahn, (eds.), The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New Testament, p.47.
76
77
25
Joseph Ratzinger’s view is affected by the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven
which is the proclamation of the new and everlasting covenant established through
Jesus Christ. It is a transcendent fulfillment of the Davidic covenant of kingship,
raising its rule from earth to heaven and extending its reach over the entire creation.78
In Jesus’ reign, a new and “definitive David”79 abides with us.
1.5 Rèsumè
This chapter explores the Matthean background. It holds that the question of
Matthean authorship is still open for further inquiry. Nonetheless, at least, the gospel
came from Matthew the Apostle’s community and has access to his tradition. The
Gospel audience located in Antioch is a minor Jewish community expelled from the
synagogue. The Gospel dates back to around 80-90 A.D, and it has three sources:
Mark, Q, and Special Matthew (M). The unique Matthean message is that Jesus is the
fulfilment of the promised Messiah who has come to save his people from their sins.
The Matthean theological emphasis is the kingdom of heaven which designates the
reign of God to which we are called to respond to.
78
Joseph Ratzinger, God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life, Henry Taylor, transl., San
Francisco: Ignatius, 2003, pp. 15-16.
79
The expression is that of Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. I, p. 10.
26
2.0 Chapter Two
Literature Review on Matthew 19:3-9
2.1 Introduction
This chapter takes into focus a review of literatures on the Matthean text
(19:3-9). While the focus is on Jesus’ teaching on “marriage and divorce”, the
controversy lies heavily on “divorce” and not so much on marriage. The literatures are
arranged according to their year of publication thereby showing progression of
thought.
2.2 Shirley Jackson
Jackson, in his paper titled, Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of Jesus,
opines that Jesus refused to dogmatize;80 rather, he was flexible and made exception.
And because of this, he opines, “Jesus did not condemn divorce, but censure the
conditions which made such law a necessity.”81 He explains that rather than revoking
the Mosaic Law, Jesus’ remedy for Israel hardness of heart was to soften their heart.
Nonetheless, amid this concession or exception, Jackson holds that Jesus reiterates the
ideal: that marital bond is permanent.
2:3 John Kilgallen, SJ
Kilgallen in his article titled, To what are the Matthean Exception-Texts (5:32
and 19:9) an Exception?, notes that while the former focus on “divorce as an act of
adultery, the latter deal with the question of permissibility of divorce.” 82 In his
analysis, the Matthean Jesus was very careful; he evaded the Pharisees trap. In
80
An associate professor of New Testament- Shirley Jackson, “Divorce and Remarriage in the
Teaching of Jesus”, in The Biblical World, Vol. 45, No. 1, The University of Chicago Press, 1915, p.
19.
81
Shirley Jackson, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of Jesus”, p. 19.
82
John Kilgallen, “To what are the Matthean Exception-Texts (5:32 and 19:9) an Exception?” in
Biblica, Vol. 61, No. 1, Peeters Publishers, 1980. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42706840 Accessed
March, 2023, p. 104.
27
contrast to Jackson, he opines Jesus denies the validity of Moses decision. In doing
this, Jesus, Kilgallen argues taught that marriage is permanent; there is no exception
to it because in marriage God joins the man and his wife together (19:6). He adds that
the Matthean Jesus in 9:9 argues that divorce because it attempts to destroy what God
has joined together is wrong. Kilgallen furthers opines:
The argument against divorce based on the inability of

man to sunder what God has joined is the fundamental
and primary reason why man cannot declare himself
‘sundered’ from his wife; a secondary and serious
aspect of divorce is that divorce is in most cases
adulterous, 5:32.83
From this, a careful reading of him allows one to opine that his reading of the
text is premised on the v.6. Thus, he concludes that
“the context of the divorce-cum-exception sayings is

above all else the indicator that, if there is a meaning to
the exception, it is that not every divorce is necessarily
adulterous; Jesus, therefore, does not offer the
possibility of exceptions to His law against divorce, but
only to the general rule that divorce is adulterous.84
2.4 Robert Gundry
In his commentary on divorce in Matthew (19:3-9), Gundry argues that Jesus
draws his principle from Gen 1:27; 2:24-that marriage is intended to be unbroken; a
husband should not divorce his wife because “God has yoked them together.” 85 He
opines, “God’s intent at creation, Jesus argues, weighs more than the later law of
Moses (Gal 3:17). Yet even that law testifies indirectly to God’s original intent in that
the later permission to divorce arose only in a set of instructions designed to check
83
John Kilgallen, “To what are the Matthean Exception-Texts (5:32 and 19:9) an Exception?”, p. 104.
84
John Kilgallen, “To what are the Matthean Exception-Texts (5:32 and 19:9) an Exception?”, p. 105.
85
Robert Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, Michigan: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1982, p. 377.
28
haste in divorce, the loaning of wives, and similar abuses by prohibiting resumption
of the initial marriage.86
On the exception, he holds that Matthew, to prepare for his “adding the
exceptive clause” in v.9, adds “for any cause at all”87 to the Pharisees. Thus, in his
study, he opines:
The exceptive phrase is not present in the other

synoptics or reflected elsewhere in the NT. It comes
from Matthew, not from Jesus, as an editorial insertion
to conform Jesus’ words to God’s Word in the OT.88
This view is held by Hagner89 Stein90, and Bruner.91 They argued that the
exception clause in Matthew 19:9 had not come from Jesus due to the absolute
prohibition of divorce in Mark 10:11 which Matthew used as his source. Rather,
Matthew or his redactor later inserted it because of his Jewish audience. This however
had been criticized by Sewakpo. He opines that it is a “kind of assumption of literary
dependence that forces scholars to diminish the historical precision of Matthew’s
account.”92 Thus, on account of inerrancy, he affirms the exception as Jesus’ teaching.
Furthermore, Gundry argues that the scope of the exception clause does not
cover remarriage, it applies only to divorce:
Had Matthew been concerned to establish the right of

the husband to remarry under the exception, he would
hardly have omitted remarriage in 5:32 and then put the
exception only after the matter of divorce in 19:9 given
that the Jews took the right of remarriage after divorce
86
Robert Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, p. 380.
87
88
89
Donald Hagner, “Matthew 1-13”, in Word Biblical Commentary, 33a. David A. Hubbard, Glenn W.
Barker, ed., Dallas: Word Books, 1993, p. 123.
90
Robert Stein, The Synoptic Problem, An Introduction, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987, p. 152.
91
Frederick Bruner, The Christbook, A Historical/Theological Commentary: Matthew 1—12, Dallas:
Word, 1987, p. 191.
92
Honore Sewakpo. 53.
29
as a matter of course. But it is not for nothing that
Matthew's Jesus demands a surpassing sort of
righteousness (19-21).93
2.5 Donald Carson
Carson on divorce began with sort of clarifications: First that the setting of the
Matthean (5:32) differs from (19:9). While the former is set within a discourse of the
kingdom and sanctity of marriage, the latter is set in a theological disputation on the
permissibility of divorce.94 Having done this, in his exegesis, he argues that against
the Shammai and Hillel, Jesus aligns himself with prophet Malachi (2:16): God hates
divorce. Jesus, he opines, draws his principles from Genesis (1:27; 2:24):
If marriage is grounded in creation then it cannot be

reduced to a merely covenantal relationship that breaks
down when the covenantal promises are broken.95
From this, Carson notes that divorce is not part of the Creator’s plan. He
argues that the essential teaching of Jesus here is that divorce is a reflection of sin, an
evidence of man’s hardness of heart.96 And in v.8 Jesus taught that Moses’ concession
is not prescriptive, but descriptive that reflects the hardness of hearts.
Amid all these, Carson, in contrast to Hagner, Stein, and the Jesus’ seminar
argues that the exception clause is real, and original.97 It is not a work of a redactor.
The problem for him was not the originality of the exception, but the exact meaning
of porneia.98 He gave a trajectorial presentation of the different meanings of porneia;
93
Robert Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, pp. 90-91.
94
Donald Carson, “Matthew” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank Gaebelein, Vol. 8,
Michigan: f Zondervan Publishing House, 1984, p. 411.
95
Donald Carson, “Matthew”, p. 412.
96
Donald Carson, “Matthew”, P. 413.
97
98
30
in doing this, he opines that the porneia has a broad scope such that it covers a wide
range of sin such as “adultery, fornication, incest, etc.”99
The exception is particularly appropriate to Jesus’ day

and to Matthew’s Jewish readers; for though Jesus had
formally dismissed the Mosaic divorce provisions and
substituted marital unfaithfulness as the sole basis of a
rupture of the one flesh, this exception collided with
the Mosaic sentence of stoning in such cases-a fact of
which Jewish audiences were doubtlessly aware.100
In the final analysis, he opines that the disciples reaction has in many ways be
over exaggerated; “in the light of the position, tacitly adopted by most Jews, that
marriage was a duty, the disciples rather cynically conclude that such strictures surely
make marriage unattractive.”101
2.6 Phil Hill
Hill attempts a presentation of Jesus’ teaching by approaching it from the
Jewish root of the New Testament in relation to divorce and remarriage. Reflecting on
the Old Testament text cited by the Pharisees (Deut 24:1-4), he argues that the text
acknowledges the reality of divorce, permits it, and it ends marriage covenant.102
Further, he argues that according to Ezra 9-10, divorce is approved in some situations.
With this as point of departure, in his exegesis of the Matthean text argues that what
Jesus taught is:
A man who divorces his wife without the serious

grounds mentioned in Deut 24 victimizes not only the
woman unjustly divorced but also the man she then
legitimately marries because he places them in the
position of being regarded as adulterous even though
99
100
101
102
Phil Hill, “Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT laws concerning marriage, divorce, and
remarriage?” in Mary’s Well Occasional Papers, 1:5, November, Nazareth, Israel: Nazareth
Evangelical Theological Seminary 2012, p. 7.
31
they have done nothing wrong. They are not guilty
before God, but the original husband certainly is.103
For him, Jesus in the Matthean text affirms divorce and remarriage. However,
Jesus did not take side with neither Shammai nor Hille, rather, he contradicts them.
Jesus he opines “regarded something indecent as less than unfaithful sexual activity
but only something fundamentally contradictory of faithfulness to the marriage.” 104 In
his submission, he notes that those who maintain that Jesus disapprove of divorce and
remarriage places him in opposition to his own affirmation of the OT and Ezra 9-
10.105
2.7 Honore Sewakpo
In the article titled The Challenges of Interpreting Jesus’ Teaching on πορνεία in
Matthew 19:9¸ Sawakpo employs the Stuhlmacher’s106 theory of biblical interpretation
to engage the Matthean text (19:9) on divorce with special attention on πορνεία. He
gave a trajectorial background reading taking Deut 24:1-4. He acknowledges Deut
24:1-4 as a descriptive; a concession to human sinfulness and hardness of heart107
aimed at regulating existing practice, more so to protect the ‘woman’. 108 Sewakpo
calls his reader to note that, Jesus in his teaching draws a distinction between Moses
allowance and God’s command. Jesus in the Matthean text teaches that marital bond
is permanent (19:6) yet divorce though not God’s ideal intention for creation is
allowed on the account of πορνεία (19:9). Amid the command of permanence,
103
Phil Hill, p. 13.
104
Phil Hill, p. 13.
105
Phil Hill, p. 17.
106
Peter Stuhlmacher’s theory of biblical interpretation posits that “a biblical theology... must attempt
to interpret the Old and New Testament tradition as it wants to be interpreted.
107
Honore Sewakpo, “The Challenges of Interpreting Jesus’ Teaching on πορνεία in Matthew 19:9 in
Contemporary Biblical Scholarship in Africa” in Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 4 No.2,
2014, p. 54.
108
Honore Sewakpo, p. 55.
32
exception is allowed. Richard shares this view when he writes: Despite the ideal of an
unrepeatable union of ‘one flesh’ set out in vv. 4-6, Jesus, like Moses made allowance
for the hardness of men’s hearts.”109 In the final analysis:
The study reveals Jesus’ emphasis on the indissolubility

of marriage. It also shows that divorce is not desirable
but permissible on the absolute biblical ground of
πορνεία.110
2.8 Fermin Lopez
In the article titled A Soteriological Interpretation of Matthean Divorce Exception
Clauses, with particular attention on the Matthean exceptive ‘clause’, Fermin Lopez
engages Alex Deasley, a professor of New Testament and gave a soteriological
interpretation. He began by engaging the Old Testament texts that appear foundational
to the issue at hand (Gen 1;27; 2;24; Deut 24:1-4; Is. 54:5-10 ). In his word, “The One
who, by His creative act divided the one flesh of Adam into male and female, God is
the witness and instigator of marriage covenant.”111 Citing Carl Laney, Fermin writes
that the concept of One Flesh which results from the covenant implies that the
marriage bond is indissoluble.112 For him, a careful reading of that narrative in
Genesis indicates not only that the bond should not be broken but that it cannot be
broken, it least by man. For the woman is the Man’s bone and flesh. Taking a cue
from this, he argues that it follows from the fact that the biblical concept of divorce
both in the old testament and new testament especially with Jesus and Paul does not
dissolve the marital bond: “Divorce in biblical enterprise means “separation: a
109
Richard France, Matthew, pp. 277-278.
110
111
Fermin Lopez, “A Soteriological Interpretation of Matthean Divorce Exception Clauses” in Paper
published on www.academia.edu, March 2017 p. 4.
112
Fermin Lopez, p. 4.
33
temporary discontinuation of married life, not the dissolution of marriage as is often
asserted by evangelical theologians.”113
Fermin notes that the interpretation of divorce as dissolution of the bond is
inconsistent with what Jesus taught in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:2-12. This is so
because even the exception clause does not allow remarriage. Why? For him “What
Jesus is saying is that, in case of indecency, separation is permissible, but neither
dissolution nor remarriage since the marriage covenant is still intact.”114 This was the
view of Bruce Vawter115, and Quesnell.116 Fermin attempts to link 5:32 to 19:9:
While temporary separation, because of indecency is

permissible because of mankind’s hardness of heart”,
the marriage covenant nevertheless remains intact; that
is why neither the wife nor the husband can re-partner
without committing adultery. Essentially these same
things are repeated in Matt. 19:9, albeit in an
abbreviated form. 117
Making allusion to Wenham, he writes:
Thus, the “exception clauses͟ express an exception, not
to the principle that whoever puts away his wife and
marries commits adultery, but rather to the principle
that a man should not separate from his wife. Dr
Wenham maintains with some force that this is not only
a possible meaning of the Greek text but its natural
meaning118
Fermin further draws attention to the Apostles reaction in v. 10. In contrast to
Donald Carson, he argues that such a reaction is only consistent with “indissolubility
113
Fermin Lopez, p. 5.
114
Fermin Lopez, p. 6.
115
Bruce Vawter (1977) defended the preteritive view which was espouses by St. Augustine of Hippo.
According to this view the exception clause is taken as a preterition. See Bruce Vawter, “Divorce
and the New Testament” in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4, 1977.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43714465 Accessed March, 2023.
116
Quesnell himself argues that Jesus by using the verb apolyo (v. 9) permits, in the case of the wife's
marital infidelity, separation but not divorce
117
Fermin Lopez, p. 6.
118
Fermin Lopez, p. 6.
34
of marital bond. In the final argument, Fermin holds that the separation which God
permits in the case of indecency is only permissible for a period of time until
mankind’s harden heart is softened (Ezekiel 36:26)). For in the old testament when
God divorced Israel he simply separated himself from her for a time because of her
indecency: “divorce” did not nullify God’s marriage covenant with Israel. In
Jeremiah 3:8, God divorced Israel; and in Jeremiah 3:14 God declared himself: “I am
your husband.”119
2.9 Michael Barber
In his paper, Jesus as the “Fulfillment” of the Law and His Teaching on Divorce in
Matthew, Barber began by investigating the nature of the Deuteronomic Concession,
and thereafter, reviews the concept of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Torah. He
explains that Jesus recognized what many Old Testament scholars have noted: at
points the law itself seems to sanction practices that are contrary to its own principles.
In particular, Deuteronomy seems to make concessions to behavior not only absent in
the preceding books of the Torah but that even contradict the law’s own stated
standards.120 He draws attention to a cogent point:
According to Matthew, for Jesus the fulfillment of the

law does not necessarily involve recognizing each and
every one of the commandments as upholding the
perfect standard of righteousness. Jesus indicates that
the dawning of the eschatological age involves a
transcending of the Torah. This is especially clear in
Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5
and 19.121
119
Fermin Lopez, p. 6.
120
Michael Barber, “Jesus as the “Fulfillment” of the Law and His Teaching on Divorce in Matthew”
in Letter & Spirit 9, 2014. (PDF) Jesus as the "Fulfillment" of the Law and His Teaching on
Divorce in Matthew | Michael P Barber - Academia.edu Accessed March 27, 2023.
121
Michael Barber, p. 49.
35
If he is the fulfillment, what is his verdict on the ‘divorce’ question? Barber
argues that: “Jesus not only rejects the Mosaic concession, and allowance of divorce
and remarriage, he considers it as a sort of “defiling concession” in a moral sense.”122
It follows that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:3-9 seems to echo a view similar to
Ezekiel’s. There he explains that divorce and remarriage was only tolerated by Moses
because of Israel’s “hardness of heart,” stating that “from the beginning it was not
so.” This, as we have seen, summarizes the canonical record: there is no provision for
divorce and remarriage until the book of Deuteronomy. For Jesus in Matthew, the
regulations for this practice entailed nothing less than the sanctioning of adultery.
2.10 Rèsumè
This chapter-literatures reviewed has aptly express the complexity of the issue
of “marriage and divorce” in Matthew (19:9), and how it has be studied from different
perspective. In the writings of Jackson, Hill, Carson, and Sewakpo, Jesus is seen to
retaliate the ‘ideal will of God for marriage as permanent, yet, like Moses, he gave
exception for divorce on the condition of porneia.
On the other hand, for Kilgallen, Gundry, Fermin, and Barber, Jesus draws his
principle from Genesis (1:27; 2:24), he aligns himself with prophet Malachi: God
hates divorce. At best, divorce in Matthew us “separation,” hence remarriage is
adultery.
122
Michael Barber, p. 40.
36
3.0. Chapter Three
An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-9
3.1 Introduction
This chapter takes into focus the exegesis of Matt 19:3-9. It attempts a
delimitation of the text; examines its genre, form and exposes the socio-political,
religious situation of the text. Thereafter, it structures the text, and analyse it verse by
verse. The English translation is taken from the New Revised Standard Version; the
method is diachronic and synchronic.
3.2 The Delimitation of Text
Biblical passages are made up of units. These units otherwise called pericopes
have limits. Recent studies in Matthean Gospel show that there is no uniformity123 in
determining the limit of a pericope. At most, a pericope is what the Biblicist is able to
demonstrate according to canonical exegesis.124 Nonetheless, a careful reader of the
gospel is able to delimit its text of study by ascertaining the characters, place, time,
and theme of the pericope. This text of Matthew 19:3-9 is one of the four units that
make up chapter 19125. It is delimited by the characters, place (location), and theme.
Characters: As against vv. 1-2 where the characters were Jesus and many
crowds, the characters in vv. 3-9 were Jesus and the Pharisees.126
Place: Matt 19:1 tells us Jesus enters Judea beyond the Jordan. Carter notes
that by now, he leaves Galilee127 (19:1), and the ministry which began there (4:17), is
ended. The phrase ‘Judea beyond the Jordan’ though is an unusual geographical
123
Regazzi Mark, “The Delimitation of Pericopes: A Case Study in Matthew” (2000) Dissertations 135
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/135 Accessed May 11, 2022.
124
Regazzi Mark, “The Delimitation of Pericopes: A Case Study in Matthew”, Accessed May 11,
2022.
125
Charles Talbert, Matthew, Michigan, USA: Baker Academic, 2010, p. 232.
126
127
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, p. 376.
37
description. According to Meier, the Matthean construct “Judea beyond the Jordan” is
technically incorrect.128 France shares the view of Meier; he comments that “the
region of Judea beyond the Jordan seems to point to Perea, the part of Transjordan
East of Judea. Curtis writes, “Perea is precisely where Jesus would expect to find
himself among many crowds making their way to the Holy City.”129 According to
biblical history, Jesus’ location has a dual significance to the issue of divorce:
This location is linked with John the Baptist (3:5), who was
executed for condemning the divorce and remarriage of
Herod Antipas and his mistress, Herodias (14:3-10). This
tragedy looms in the background of the ensuing question
about divorce (19:3). One suspect that the Pharisees hoped
to lure Jesus into the same trap that cost John his life. The
region beyond the Jordan is also the place where Moses
gave Israel the laws of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:5). It seems
more than coincidental that Jesus is about to repeal the
Deuteronomy concession for divorce in the very place
where it was ratified.130
Theme: The text is delimited by its theme: marriage and divorce (19:3-9. It was a
disputed issue between Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai.131 It is one of the multiple
halakhic132 debates Jesus and the Pharisees had.
3.3 The Unity/Genre/Form
3.3.1 The Unity of the Text of Matt 19:3-9
The Matthean text of study (19:3-9) is a subunit133 of the household
discourses, yet it is a homogenous unit. It is a modification of the Markan text (10:3-
9) which Matthew copied. To the Pharisees’ question, Matthew added ‘for any cause’
128
John Meier, Matthew, p. 214.
129
130
131
132
Halakic -Jewish Law and Jurisprudence, based on the Talmud, Halakha - Wikipedia Accessed May
17, 2022.
133
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, p. 376
38
which is not part of the Markan text. The vv. 11-12 of the Markan text was Jesus’
response to the question of his disciples in a private discourse between Jesus and the
disciples in the house. In Matthew, the Markan private discourse is added as part of
Jesus’ responses to the Pharisees. On this, Benedict Green writes that while the
“Markan sequence is the familiar rabbinic one of the public question-public answer
and private question-private answer, Matthew has rearranged the content; the
assertion that the marriage of divorced persons is adultery is now with an exceptive
clause added made part of the public answer.”134 Matthew already made provision for
this when he added ‘for any cause’ to the question of the Pharisees to Jesus.
Truth be told, while the Matthean text of the study is a modification of Mark,
the Matthean skilful changes have imposed on the materials a seal of his interests and
style,135 which shaped it to serve the Matthean audiences’ need- strengthening their
faith amidst persecution, and rejection from the Jews and the Roman authority.136
3.3.2 The Literary Genre of the Matthean Gospel/Form of the Text: Matt 19:3-9
Every written text has a genre and a form; thus, we cannot understand137 a
literary text properly if we have no idea of what kind of genre it belongs to. 138 Genre
is usually distinguished from forms based on length and complexity; forms are short
and structurally simple.139 The form is a bigger umbrella to which genre belongs.140
This brings us to the question: what genre does Matthew belong to? This has been
134
Benedict Green, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 167.
135
Floyd Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, p. 2.
136
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, p. 376
137
Donald Carson, Matthew in “The Expository Bible Commentary, Frank Gaebelein, (ed.), Michigan:
Grand Rapids, 1984, p. 38.
138
Christopher Tuckett, “Introduction to the Gospel” in Eerdmans Commentary in the Bible, James
Dunn, (ed.), Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003, p. 990.
139
James Bailey and Lyled Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A HandBook, Louisville:
John Knox Press, 1992, p. 14.
140
James Bailey and Lyled Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A HandBook, p. 14
39
disputed and, a lot of opinions have been put forward, namely: apocalyptic literature,
Old Testament Books, Greco-Roman biographies, etc.141 For others, it a tale, theology
or history.142 Adela Collins on Richard Burridge opines that:
The debate is perennial because the issue is not merely a

question of labeling but interpretation as well. The decision
to define the Gospels as representing an original Christian
genre, a type of biblical or Jewish historiography, or a kind
of Hellenistic biography has enormous implications for the
choice of the primary cultural context in which to interpret
the texts, as well as the perception of the purpose.143
Charles Talbert opines that Matthean Gospel follows the Greco-Roman
biography pattern.144 Citing Neyrey, he argues that within that larger circle, Matthew
seems to be an encomiastic biography written to praise a hero and more so defend its
hero from attack.145 In the final analysis, he opines that the gospel has no unique
genre of its own; rather it is a “Christian version of an ancient Mediterranean genre
that focused on an individual’s life intending to expose what was essential to that
person’s being.”146 Burridge shares a similar view; however, he holds that Talbert’s
approach is too rigid since many biographies have several purposes.147 For him,
Talbert overlooks the fact that the genres of prose were never as clearly fixed as those
of poetry.148
141
Donald Carson, Matthew, p. 38.
142
143
Adela Collins, “Reviewed Work(s): What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman
Biography by Richard A. Burridge,” in The Journal of Religion, Vol. 75, No. 2, The University of
Chicago Press, Apr., 1995, pp. 239-246.
144
Charles Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels, Philadelphia: Fortress,
1977, p. 54.
145
Charles Talbert, Matthew, Michigan, USA: Baker Academic, 2010, p. 4.
146
Charles Talbert, Matthew, p. 4.
147
Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 58.
148
Adela Collins, “Reviewed Work(s): What Are the Gospels?”, p. 240.
40
More so, Burridge acknowledges that there are no clear-cut ancient criteria for
defining biographies. Hence, he defined the genre inductively, using a list of generic
features derived from modern literary criticism.149 In the last analysis, Burridge
opines that the “differences between the gospel and biography are not sufficiently
significant to prevent the Gospels from belonging to the genre biographies. 150 At best,
while the Gospels may constitute their subgenre because of their shared content, the
biographies comprise the ‘family’ to which they belong.151
Adela argues that Burridge’s argument is very wide and unsatisfactory. 152
Adela draws attention to a fundamental and essential point that renders Burridge and
Talbert’s submission unsatisfactory:
Given the Gospels’ obvious conceptual and literary

connection with older Scripture, the fact that it includes no
clear example of the genre biography raises a question
about the Gospels as bioi. If, as Burridge argues, the
authors of Matthew and Luke recognized that Mark is a bio
and, in their works, brought the Gospel genre closer to
Greco-Roman bioi, why did they not describe their works
as such, as Philo did, rather than as a book in the case of
Matthew?153
David Aune argues that Talbert and by extension advocate of the bioi genre
have misunderstood not a few ancient sources and has arrived at his conclusions by
adopting ambiguous categories that hide essential differences. 154 Aune “insists that
the Gospels belong in a class of their own. This however does not mean that the
Gospels have no relation to other genres.”155 Amidst this debate, a careful reading of
149
Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels? p. 111.
150
Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, p. 243.
151
Richard Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, p. 239.
152
153
154
Donald Carson, Matthew, p. 38
155
Aune David, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, London: James Clarke, 1987, p. 29.
41
the gospel allows us to adopt Carson’s submission. For Carson, the genre of the
Matthean Gospel is not “exactly history, biography, theology, confession, catechism,
tract, homage, or letter. Rather, it is all these.” It is a “Gospel”. 156 It is a unique
literary resulting from the earliest preaching of the church. The gospel as a genre is a
mixed genre, made up of sub-genre fashioned from existing traditions.157
What is the literary form of Matt 19:3-9? The form is the controversial
discourse apothegm. Apothegm is a brainchild of Rudolf Bultmann,158 it means “a
thing uttered.”159 In this literary form, the opponent, the Pharisees ask a question
dealing with the Halakhic- (Jewish ruling on the law), and Jesus answers, usually
with a question, or illustration. This description aptly fits our text of study. Thus, the
form is ‘controversial discourse apothegm.
3.4 The Social-Political and Social-Religious Situation of the Text.
What was the political and religious situation at the time of this controversy?
Who was the ruler? What was the status of women, and children? What was the
attitude of people to marriage?
3.4.1 The Social-Political Situation of the Text of Matt 19:3-9
From both internal and external evidence, at the time of Jesus, Palestine was
ruled by the Greek-Herod dynasty and Pontius Pilate-Roman power.160 The verses (1-
2) which preceded our pericope, place the discourse in Perea, the territory of Herod
Antipas161 the fifth son of Herod the Great who murdered the innocent children (2:16-
156
157
James Bailey and Lyled Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A HandBook, p. 91.
158
Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, ET Oxford: Blackwell, 1963, p. 74
159
Nils Lund, Chiasmus in the New Testament, 1942, p. 20.
160
Johannes Wijngaards, Background to the Gospels, Bangalore, India: Theological Publication, 1993,
p. 117.
161
Johannes Wijngaards, Background to the Gospels, p. 91.
42
18). This location brings to mind John the Baptist (3:5), who was arrested and
beheaded by Herod Antipas for condemning him for marrying Herodias the divorcee
of his brother Philip (14:1-12).162 This tragedy looms in the background of the
ensuing question about divorce (19:3). This pericope, therefore, is to be read keeping
in mind that women were considered property, and inferior to men among the Jews
especially in marriage (Deut 22:13-29).163 In the Greco-Roman world, male power
over women was unrestricted, and divorce was legitimate for most reasons.164 For
Herod Antipas, the question of marriage, divorce, and remarriage are life and death
issues, as John died on it, (14:1-12). It follows that the Pharisees hoped to lure Jesus
into the same trap that cost John his life.
3.4.2 The Social-Religious Situation of the Text
Scholars165 unanimously hold that the controversy took place on their way to
Jerusalem for the Passover Feast. The many crowds that followed Jesus whom He
healed (19:2) were also going to the Passover. 166 The Pharisees who came to ensnare
him (19:3), together with the Scribes who occupied the seat of Moses rather than
being a model were “hypocrites and heartless legalistic”167 (23:13), lacking in the
kingdom of heaven (23:13). Yet, much of the leadership that had been enjoyed by the
162
163
Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was, Minnesota: A Michael Book,
2012, p. 202.
164
165
John Meier, Matthew, p. 214; Floyd Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew,
p. 206.
166
Passover number among the three Jewish feasts of Pilgrimage. On Passover, See John Castelot, and
Aelred Cody, “Religious Institutions of Israel” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Raymond
Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Roland Murphy, (eds.), Bengaluru, India: Theological Publications,
2019, p. 1281; Sebastian, Kizahakkeyil, The Pentateuch, Bandra, Mumbai: St. Paul’s, 2013, pp. 230-
232.
167
43
priestly class (Sadducees) was now the Pharisees after the Maccabean revolt.168
Alongside the Pharisees were the Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection of
the dead like the Pharisees, they became increasingly identified with the ruling
Hellenized aristocracy which have no regard for the people.169 There were also, high
priests and scribes. Together, they became opponents of Jesus. Nonetheless, worthy of
note is that amid this opposition from these groups, a careful study of biblical history
allows us to opine that the choice of Perea, that is, beyond the Jordan as the location
for the law of divorce- seems more than coincidental that Jesus is about to repeal the
Deuteronomist concession for divorce and remarriage (Deut 24:1-4) in the very place
where it was ratified170 given that Perea is also the place where Moses gave Israel the
laws of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:5).
3.5 Immediate Context of the Text
The immediate context of our pericope is chapter 18:1-35. It has no
connection to our pericope. The clause in 19:1, when Jesus had finished saying these
things ended the previous discourse and draws attention to the fact that a new phase
was about to begin. Hence while the location of the immediate context is Galilee, the
pericope of study takes place in Perea on his way to Jerusalem. In the words of Carter,
“a new location (Perea), audience (crowds), and activity (healing) set this new section
apart from the immediate context.”171 Another essential fact that indicates that there is
no connection is the content: the focus of the immediate context is sustaining
relationships within the church through forgiveness and humility; the pericope on the
168
Johannes Wijngaards, Background to the Gospels, p. 117
169
170
171
44
other hand centers on the controversy of ‘marriage and divorce’. In a related
argument, Carter opines that the pericope subverts patriarchal structure by insisting on
disciples a more egalitarian pattern (20:12).172 In contrast to the immediate context,
the pericope is essentially a counter narrative, a unit of resistance.173 It resists the
conventional Jewish image of a woman as property: husbands are not to rule over
wives but to participate in a ‘one-flesh’ union. In this way, the family is restored to
the ideal will of God.
3.6 Analysis of Matthew 19:3-9
3.6.1 Structure of Matthew 19:3-9
First, Matthew replaces Mark’s “ἀνήρ” with “ἄνθρωπος”, probably to make a
better connection between the Pharisees’ question and Jesus’ declaration about
divorce in which he uses “ἄνθρωπος” (19:6).174 Steven Stiles notes that the
controversy, like the previous ones over the Sabbath and hand washing, is initiated by
Jesus’ opponents, the Pharisees.175 Thus, unlike Mark, the Matthean structure was not
interested in what Moses allowed, but in what happened in the ‘beginning’. The
Matthean construct with the addition of “κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν” for any cause
‘emphasizes the cause176 and not the legality and permissibility of divorce177 as we
have it in Mark. Proponents of this view include Harrington178 and Talbert179. And
lastly, the Matthean structure contains two exchanges: vv. 3-6 Pharisees and Jesus, vv.
172
173
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, p. xviii.
174
Steven Stiles, Jesus' Fulfillment of the Torah and Prophets: Inherited Writing Strategies and Torah
Interpretation in Matthew's Gospel, New Testament Language, Literature and Theology, Ph.D.,
University of Edinburgh, 2017, p. 193, http://hdl.handle.net/1842/33212
175
Steven Stiles, p. 193.
176
177
Steven Stiles, p. 193
178
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. I, Matthew, p. 273.
179
45
7-9 Pharisees and Jesus.180 But the Markan parallel contains three exchanges, two
public, and one private involving the disciples.181 For this study, the text Matt 19:3-9
is structure as follow:
v. 3a, the motive of the question-to test him

v. 3b, for any cause- question
vv. 4-6, citing Genesis on the origin, definition, and dignity of marriage as an
institution of unity and love (Gen. 1:27; 2:24); apothegm.
vv. 7, Deuteronomist regulation for divorce (24:1-2) - a rebuttal of Jesus’ Gen 2:24
vv. 7-8, controversial discourse
v. 8, divorce as an exception: Jesus’ defense of marriage integrity- reference to
‘beginning’ (Gen. 1:27; 2:24)
v. 9, apothegm-Jesus’ authoritative teaching?
3.6.2 Analysis of Matthew 19:3-9
V. 3a, Some Pharisees came to him to test him.
Like Mark (10:3), Matthew identified the opponent of Jesus in this pericope
as Pharisees. The term Pharisees is a derivative of parash- meaning ‘separate’.182
They were the ‘separated ones.’183 Brown is of the view that they split from the
Hasmonean184 descendants of the Maccabees who became secularized rulers.185 The
Pharisees were made of lay people,186 which insisted on the strict observance of the
law. According to Josephus, the Pharisees were one of the three parts that came to the
limelight amidst the Maccabean struggle under Jonathan around 145 BC.187 At the
time of Jesus, Josephus insists they were the leading sects. 188 In the Matthean
narrative, they were in constant conflict with Jesus, they resisted his ministry
180
181
182
183
184
See the Book of Maccabees for details
185
186
187
Josephus, War, 2.8.14; Antiquities, 18.1.3.
188
Josephus, War, 2.8.14; Antiquities, 18.1.3.
46
throughout (3:7; 9:11; 14, 34; 12:2, 14, 24:38; 15:1, 12), thus they were Jesus’
opponents. And in Jesus’ view, they were hypocrites, legalistic, and lacking in the
kingdom of heaven (23:13). Thus, in their last encounter, Jesus warned against their
teachings (16:1, 6, 11-12), and declared that they were not God’s agent (15:12-14).
In this pericope, Matthew indicates that in this encounter like the previous
ones, their motive is malicious, for they came to test Jesus. The verb πειράζω (testing)
is a present participle. Turner holds that “the participle πειράζς is telic in force, as in
Matt 16:1; 22:35.”189 Carter holds that “the verb denoted the devil’s attempt to turn
Jesus from God’s purpose (4:1, 3) and the Pharisees’ similar efforts in 16:1.”190 Most
scholars are of the view that while the verb πειράςω often implies a hostile intent, in
this pericope, it is delivered in the hope that Jesus would say something to damage his
reputation with the people or even seem to contradict Moses. John Meier affirms that
the motive for the test is malicious. Tuner comments that their desire and motive was
to show that Jesus contradicts Moses (19:7).191 France put it aptly that they “expected
Jesus to incriminate himself by apparently making light of the ‘law’ of Deuteronomy
24:1-4, and to lose popular support by condemning the divorce which was freely
practiced by his contemporaries.”192
From this, contrary to the opinion of those193 who opine that the Pharisees
were asking whether Jesus favoured the Shammai or the Hillel, the testing aimed at
subverting Jesus, turning him against the law, and the many crowds who were
following him and those whom he healed (19:2). It is worthy to note as Turner and
189
190
191
192
Richard France, Matthew, p. 275.
193
47
Carson aptly propose, in the testing, “they hoped that Jesus would say something that
would entangle him in the Herod-Herodias affair so that he might meet John Baptist’s
fate since Machaerus194 was not far away (14:3-12).”195 This is cogent and valid given
that they were looking for a way to destroy him.
V. 3b, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce the wife of him for any cause?”
A careful reading of the structure of the question is essential here. Note that
the question εἰ ἔξεστιν- Is it lawful takes the same form as the halakhic dispute over
the Sabbath (12:10). Note also that Matthew replaces Mark’s “ἀνήρ” with
“ἄνθρωπος”, Unlike Mark (10:12) where the woman can also initiate a divorce, the
Matthean question was essentially about what man can do, it was male-cantered, only
the man can initiate and divorce the wife.196 Among the Jews, the wife was not
regarded as a partner but as a part of her husband’s property197, and if she is
unmarried, she was her father’s property.198 This immediately gives us an insight into
the kind of society199 Jesus lived in, a patriarchal society. Carter holds that the
“Pharisees posit a husband’s natural right to exercise unrestricted male power over the
inferior submissive, obedient, child-producing wife in a patriarchal household.”200
194
Machaerus was a Hasmonean hilltop palace and desert fortress, now in ruins, located in the village
of Mukawir in modern-day Jordan, 25 km Southeast of the mouth of the Jordan River on the
Eastern side of the Dead Sea. According to the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, it was the
location of the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist. According to the chronology of the
Bible, the execution took place in about 32 CE shortly before the Passover, following an
imprisonment of two years. Machaerus « See The Holy Land Accessed June 1st 2022. For details on
Machaerus see Machaerus: Beyond the Beheading of John the Baptist, Biblical Archaeology
Society; Bohstrom, Philippe: “King Herod’s Throne Room Where ‘Salome Danced’ Found in
Jordan”, Haaretz, December 14, 2020
195
196
197
Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was, p. 202.
198
199
For details see John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd edition, Philadelphia: WesterMinster, Press,
1981.
200
48
On the Pharisees’ question, unlike the Markan 10:3 and Lukan 16:18, the
Matthean question formulation with the inclusion for any cause was not concerned
about the lawfulness or legality of divorce.201 Rather, it was assumed that divorce was
granted by the law. Here, it is expedient to note that under the Rabbinic law, divorce
was compulsory for two reasons: For adultery; a woman who commits adultery must
be divorced and stoned to death (Jn 8:5; Deut 22:22-27; Dan 13), and for sterility- a
violation of the command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). 202 Consequently, the
ground for divorce is the central question of the Pharisees. Steven comments that by
“adding the qualifying phrase κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, for Matthew, the issue at hand is not
whether or not divorce is lawful, for Deuteronomy 24:1-4 permits it. This is a much
more accurate first-century halakhic question.”203 Harrington agreed that with the
addition of any cause, Matthew moved the Pharisees’ question …to one about the
ground for divorce.204 Bruner comments that, as posed, the question sounds
deliberately provocative.205
The Matthean issue becomes “for what reason can a man divorce his wife,”206
a sort of continuation of the Hille and Shammai debate. It is valid and cogent as many
commentators link the phrase κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν to the debate between Hillel and
Shammai.207 Accordingly, the correct interpretation of something indecent which Deut
241:1 requires for the validity of divorce remains enigmatic, assiduous, and
201
202
203
Steven Stiles, p. 193; Charles Talbert, Matthew, p. 232.
204
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 1, Matthew, p. 273; Charles Talbert; Matthew, p. 232,
205
Frederick Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, The Church Book Matthew 13-28, Vol. II, p. 669.
206
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 1, Matthew, p. 273; Charles Talbert, Matthew, p. 232;
207
See Charles Talbert, Matthew, p. 232; William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. II, p. 233.
49
consequently, disputed over the years even in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees belong to two
schools of thought: some followed the conservative position of Rabbi Shammai, who
allowed a man to divorce his wife only if she was guilty of sexual infidelity or
immodest exposure; others followed the liberal view of Rabbi Hillel, who ruled that
even something as trivial as a wife’s burning dinner.208
The view that the Pharisees in asking for any cause were inviting Jesus to take
sides209 does not agree with their intent of testing πειράζω Jesus. Simply taking a side
would only make Jesus a Pharisee, and that was not an offense. Again, considering
their intention to destroy, Meier aptly notes that taking side hardly constitutes the type
of malicious and dangerous test we see elsewhere in Matthean presentation of the
Pharisees (22:1-7).210 What then is the intent of the test question? Considering their
recurrent conflicts, the Pharisees sort to spur Jesus into an open break211 with the
Torah,212 they want him to openly contradict the Torah.213 “They hoped that Jesus
would say something that would entangle him in the Herod-Herodias affair so that he
might meet the John Baptist’s fate (14:3-12).
Worthy of note here is that the Matthean modification of the Markan question
does not resonate with the malicious intent. While Matthean emphasis is on the
ground for divorce, whatever answer Jesus gave at most would only amount to taking
a side in the long Jewish dispute. What then is the point? Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri
best capture the position of this study when they aptly submit that,
208
209
Charles Talbert, Matthew, p. 233; William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. II, p. 233;
Federick Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, p. 669.
210
211
212
213
See St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62.1.
50
“It seems to us that the Pharisees are asking Jesus whether
divorce itself is lawful (as in the parallel passage in Mark
10:2). This interpretation better explains how Jesus is being
tested by the Pharisees.”214
V. 4a, have you not read?
Here, Jesus’ answer as posed sounds so outlandish and provocative; such that
one cannot but suspect that he was questioning the Pharisees’ claims to authority.
The Pharisees were supposed to be well-read authorities on the Scriptures, they were
largely scribes,215 and thus, to ask them have you not read was an insult to their
authority. What then was Jesus doing? The rhetoric of the critique de-legitimizes the
Pharisees’ primary claim to authority and ability.216
V. 4b, the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female
Again, Matthew did not follow the Markan structure here, rather he swapped
the verse. In Mark, Jesus asked for what Moses commanded. However, in Matthew,
Jesus was unwilling to invoke Moses as the authority in this regard. This follows from
the fact that for Matthew, Jesus ranks higher than Moses,217 he is the promised
messiah (1:16), the fulfillment of the promise made through the prophets. 218 Thus, in
response, the Matthean Jesus appeals to the authority of the original will of the
Creator in the beginning.219 Note that, the positive element in Jesus’ teaching involves
God’s will in creation.220
The citation of male and female is a subtle criticism of the subjugation of the
female, and a verbal rebuttal of the Pharisees whose very question is male-centered.
214
215
216
217
Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, pp. 5-6.
218
Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. 1, p. 6.
219
220
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 1, Matthew, p. 273.
51
In this regard, Frederick comments that in this citation, Jesus opines that women are
no less than men; they are the image of God.221 Jesus was therefore restoring women
to their original place as the image of God and partner to their husband in marriage
and no property.222 Jesus after rebuking them as people who ought to know God’s will
but do not,223 recalls God’s will on marriage, a union of man and woman.
Vv. 5-6a, ‘for this reason, a man will leave his father and the mother and be joined
to his wife, the two shall become one flesh, they are no longer two but one flesh.
ἕνεκα τούτου means- for this reason, or on account of this. In this context, it
refers to Adam’s perception224 which eventually prevailed among the Jews. For
Adam, the woman was “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” because she had been
made from him and for him therefore his property. But on the contrary, the true
meaning of for this reason is that because they were made male and female, they were
made for each other. Carson holds that “the man and the woman were in the deepest
sense ‘related.’225 The same thing is implied by Genesis 1:27. The ‘one flesh’ in every
marriage between a man and a woman is a reenactment of and testimony to the very
structure of humanity as God created it.”226 For this reason, connects 1:27 and 2:24,
because they are male and female, they are made for each other. 227 Their unity is
emphasized by the one flesh.
A man will leave the father and the mother: καταλείψει is key to
understanding this phrase. It is in future tense-shall leave. It is an imperative verb, a
221
Frederick Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, p. 670.
222
223
224
225
226
227
52
statement of fact, and divine command.228 By this, the son and the daughter must
leave the father and mother. This is in no way disobeying Sinai's command to honour
their parents, rather, in this leaving, he yokes to the bone of his bone. The idea in
contrast to Steven Stiles’229 position is not to establish a new family but to continue
one that already exists. According to Waldemar Molinski, this follows from the OT
tradition where marriage functions essentially as an institution for the preservation of
the husband’s clan.230 The leaving of father and mother is in view of bonding: the two
becoming one flesh. The one flesh is marked by procreation, companionship,
solidarity, equality, trust, and well-being.231
V. 6b, Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate
Here is Jesus’ conclusion after citing the creation-marriage narrative. First, he
declares that marriage is God’s initiative. Secondly, man and woman are yoked
together by God. Frederick’s translation of συζεύγνυμι as yoked picture marriage as a
companionship in which the partners both share responsibilities.232 Frederick insists
that “Jesus does not say, “therefore, what nature, or fate, or even your love has yoked,
but therefore, what God has yoked-indicating Jesus’ conviction that the personal God
is the author of marriages.”233 Therefore, it is not the prerogative of the husband to
undo what God has done. Note that the “man” here is the husband, and not some third
party like the priest, judge or family members. Harrington aptly submits that “the man
228
229
Steven Stiles is of the view that the marriage is between the man and woman, and not the entire
family. In citing Gen 2: 24, Jesus made another counter narration, the marriage does not extend to
the father’s household, the man is required to leave the father’s house, and together with his wife,
they are to form a family. See Steven Stiles, p. 195.
230
Waldemar Molinski, “Marriage” in Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi,
Karl Rahner, (ed.), Bandra West, Mumbai, India: St. Paul’s, 2017, p. 906.
231
232
233
53
mentioned is the husband because in Judaism marriage was a contract, which could be
broken by the male partner alone.”234 Reflecting on the structure of the text with keen
attention to ὥστε which is an inferential particle, Carson holds that,
Jesus concludes if God has joined them together, according

to the structure of his own creation, divorce is not only
“unnatural” but a rebellion against God. God and man are
so far apart on this issue that what God unites, man
divides.235
Jesus disassociates himself from the Pharisees and Deut 24:1. He aligns
himself with the prophet Malachi, who quotes Yahweh as saying, “I hate divorce”
(2:16). Carson comments that:
The Creator made the race “male and female” (v.4): the
implication is that the two sexes should be united in
marriage. But lest the implication is missed, the Creator
then said that “for this reason” (v.5) a man will leave father
and mother, be united to his wife, and become one flesh
(Eccl 25:26; Eph 5:2-1).236
Some scholars hold that while God is the author of marriage, they deny God’s
joining in some marriages. In Frederick’s view, some marriages are all too humanly
joined.237 This too was the view of Luther.238 Frederick holds that it is safer to hold
that God joined God-believing people only.239 This study insists that God joins all
marriages that have the consent of the couple unless those contrary to the Torah;
such as marriage between siblings, mother, and son, or people of the same-sex (Deut
23).
234
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 1, Matthew, p. 273.
235
236
Donald Carson, Matthew, p. 413; Curtis Mitch and Edward Sir, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 239.
237
238
239
54
V. 7, they said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of
dismissal and to divorce her?”
Here, the trap is sprung; Jesus’ answer repudiated what Moses commanded
thereby doing away with divorce.240 The Pharisees appealed to Moses (Deut 24:1-4),
indicating that they were well informed on the subject matter and that Moses
commanded it.241 They asked, why did Moses command us? Note that the text of
Deut 24:1-4 does not enact divorce; it is descriptive of how to regulate and mitigate
existing practices.242
V. 8b, he said to them, “Moses on account of the hardness of your heart allowed
you to divorce your wives
Here, Jesus made a rebuttal: Moses did not command divorce. Hence, while
the Pharisees use the verb ἐντέλλομαι-command, Jesus on the contrary uses ἐπιτρέπω-
allowed.243 What Jesus did was to insist that Moses’ words did not enact divorce as
the Pharisees claim in v. 7, but a concession to regulate it.244 Note that Jesus did not
refer to anything sexual as the reason for Moses’ concession. It follows that for Jesus,
something indecent was not adultery since the punishment was death, not divorce.
This allowance however was not because it was right; rather, it was because of their
hardness of heart. The heart says Carter, is the center of a person’s willingness,
deciding, the core of a person’s commitment (5:8, 28). The heart could either be
directed to God (6:21; 18:35), or the devil in opposition to God’s will (13:15, 9).245
240
241
242
Honore Sewakpo, “The Challenge of Interpreting Jesus’ Teaching on Πορνεία in Matthew 19:9 in
Contemporary Biblical Scholarship in Africa” in Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, Ijourels, Vol. 4
No. 2, 2014, p. 54.
243
Richard France Matthew, p, 276; Frederick Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, p. 675.
244
245
55
Jesus’ choice of σκληροκαρδία was deliberate, he was teaching that something
indecent could not have been sexual since adultery warrants death and not divorce. In
his opinion, the something indecent was σκληροκαρδία; it denotes Israel’s
stubbornness, rebellious act, and unwillingness to be taught and guided by God’s
word.246 This provision was a reflection of their rebellious will and sin. 247 Carson
comments that what Jesus was saying is that, “if Moses permitted it, he did so because
sin can be so vile that divorce is to be preferred to continued indecency.” 248 Note that,
for Jesus, those who were hardhearted were the male and not the women. Here we see
a counter-narrative, while Deut 24:1-4 refers to something indecent, it was with
regards to women, but Jesus directed hardheartedness to men.249 What this means is
divorce was allowed by Moses not because of something indecent done by women
alone, but also because of the stubbornness, cruelty, and insensitivity of the men.
V. 8b, from the beginning, however, it was not so.
Again, Jesus refers them to the beginning; the beginning was the moment God
instituted marriage (Gen 1:27; 2:24), it was the period of innocence. The beginning
could also mean that period Israel represented by Abraham in faith was obedient and
willing to be taught and guided by God. France comments that Jesus referring to the
beginning “therefore refuses to allow a necessary concession to human sinfulness to
be elevated into a divine principle.”250 Similarly, Carson comments that Matthew and
Mark show that Jesus taught that Moses’ concession reflected not the true creation
ordinance but the hardness of men’s hearts. Divorce is not part of the Creator’s
246
247
248
249
250
Richard France, Matthew, p. 276.
56
perfect design.251 Thus, the ideal is to be found in going back to the first principles, to
what was in the beginning. An ethics that truly reflects God’s will must be built, not
on concessions, but on basic principles. Benedict Viuiano aptly added that, here,
“Jesus aims for the ideal, the paradisical will of God.”252
V. 9, and I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity and marries
commits adultery.
V. 9a, I say to you- λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν. Jesus introduces his verdict in a legal form.
Gerhard Lohfink writes that “legal decrees are issued in this form: Anyone who does
X shall be held guilty of Y”253 (Lev 17:3-4; Numb 35:16-21). In this legal form that
Jesus employed, the first clause defines the deed, and the subsequent clause states the
consequences. This structure is emphatic, contrasting in a strong tone the prevalent
teaching on divorce. It is a construct that indicates authority. Here, in the “I”, we can
speak of the law of Christ’s freedom (Gal 6:2). Commenting on this, Ratzinger writes
that “the Messiah was expected to bring a renewed Torah-His Torah.”254 This Torah
does not abolish but fulfills the Mosaic Law.255 Frederick notes that whenever he
speaks this way, “we are in the place of Jesus’ deepest convictions and, of God’s
highest will.”256 God’s highest will is that, “he hates divorce” (Mal 2:16).
V. 9b, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity…
Here, we are dealing with an exception; divorce is permitted on the cause of
πορνεία. It is an exception because, in vv. 4-5 Jesus had explicitly stated God’s will
for marriage, and in v 6, he shared the same sentiment with Mal. 2:16, God hates
251
252
Benedict Viuiano, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 643.
253
Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was, p. 203
254
255
256
57
divorce hence let no man separate what God has yoked together. On the value of the
exception, some scholars are of the view that it is not real but passive. Their premise
is built on vv. 4-6, and v. 10-the disciple’s reaction. The proponents include Curtis,
Edward, McBrien, and Meier. To paraphrase Curtis and Edward, Jesus’ absolute
prohibition of divorce is the only possible explanation for the “the response of the
disciples which is one of stunned disbelief. 257 This was aptly capped by McBrien that
“the early Church adds an “exceptive clause” as a softening of Jesus’ demands:
“except on the ground of πορνεία” (5:32).”258 Meier holds that the exception clause is
passive at best; it does not weaken Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce. Meier’s
exegesis is rooted in the disciples’ reaction in v. 10: Their astonishment would be
uncalled for if Jesus had simply taken side with the Shammai over the Hillel.”259
On the contrary, Carter, 260 Frederick,261 and Sewakpo,262 are of the view that
the exception is real, and divorce in Matthew is permitted only in the case of adultery.
Amidst all these, a careful reading of the text with keen attention to v 6, and v.
10 within the synoptic context one cannot but note that Matthew in adapting the
Markan passage made it suit his community. Markus Bockmuehl aptly expressed this
when he wrote that the logic of Jewish halakha of the Deut 24:1-4 is such that “any
sexual interference with an existing marriage bond produces a state of impurity,
which precludes a resumption of that marriage.”263 He argues that, with this halakhic
tradition, “if a man remains with his wife after she becomes unclean from an affair
257
258
Richard McBrien, Catholicism, p. 999.
259
260
261
262
263
Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian
Public Ethics, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003, p. 19.
58
and has sex with her, he would also become impure and break Deuteronomy 24:4.”264
This is most likely the primary reason why Matthew redacted Mark’s divorce
pericope to discuss if there is “τὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν” for lawful divorce. This follows from
the fact that if someone from the Matthean community was trying to adhere to Jesus’
complete restriction of divorce as it is found in Mark 10:11-12 and their wife had an
affair, they would be forced to break Deuteronomy 24:4. Moreover, other people
could accuse this person of breaking the Torah. Matthew, therefore, develops this
exception clause (i.e., μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ), not so much to find a reason for divorce but to
provide a way to avoid being trapped/forced into impurity and breaking Deuteronomy
24:74. Stiles aver, “Once again Matthew’s Jesus has not disregarded the Torah with
his radical interpretation and teaching. Rather, he uses Scripture combined with his
authority, to interpret the Torah at the standards of the kingdom of heaven.”265
What we are left with is the exegetical difficulties of 19:9266 compounded by
the textual problem267 and conceptual elusiveness of πορνείᾳ. The concept πορνείᾳ
just like something indecent (Deut 24:1) has aggregated for itself a wide range of
diverse meanings. Carson cautions that πορνεία covered a wide gamut of sexual sins,
and thus, “should not be restricted unless the entire context requires it”268. In a bit to
elucidate the concept of the exception, Meier avers that in this context, πορνεία refers
to “incestuous unions (Lev. 18) contracted by Christians before baptism.”269 Carter
264
Public Ethics, p. 20.
265
266
The variations in the text shown in RSV represent attempts to assimilate this verse to 5:32.
267
See David Turner, Matthew: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 462, 466
268
Donald Carson, Matthew Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, Ed., Vol. 8, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Pub., 1984, p. 414.
269
59
argues that the absence of πορνεία from Lev 18 rules out incest.270 For him, the
context of marriage confirms πορνεία as adultery.271 For Frederick, πορνεία is
something indecent, it is sexual infidelity.272 He notes that Jesus did not use the less
vague word μοιχεία which means adultery because πορνεία was the term used more
often when women were the subjects.273
Carl Laney avers that, “the word πορνεία does not normally mean adultery.”274
“The usual word for adultery is μοιχεία.”275 Matthew was well aware of the word for
adultery μοιχεία, using both μοιχεία and πορνεία in the same context; if he intends
πορνεία, and μοιχεία to be the same, why would the redactor not have used the same
word? Either he would have leaned towards adultery or more towards fornication. In
what follows, this study holds that πορνεία is not “adultery” for two reasons: first,
Matthew is not unaware of μοιχεία which means adultery he used it in that same
context. And secondly, Matthew, a Jew writing for a Jewish community is not
unaware that the penalty for adultery is death. Nonetheless, while the concept of the
exception remains nebulous and elusive, this essay suggests that it is a kind of sexual
interference that renders the woman impure such that her continual stays with her
husband makes the man impure and therefore breaks the Torah.
And marries another commits adultery- here, the text speaks of remarriage.
The difficulty is whether the exceptive clause also covers this conjunct or the first
conjunct alone. Simply put, after divorce on the ground of sexual interference, is the
270
271
272
273
274
Carl Laney, Divorce and Remarriage, Four Christian Views, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1990,
p. 34.
275
Carl Laney, p. 34.
60
man allowed to marry another? The exact scope of the exception has attracted
different opinions among scholars. A careful reading of the text shows that in v. 9, the
placement of the exceptive clause after divorce limits its scope and coverage; in this
pericope, divorce and remarriage are not treated as one unit otherwise the exceptive
would have been placed after “and marries another,” and thereby making remarriage
permissible in circumstances of sexual interference. But placed after the first verb, it
refers only to the first conjunct thereby prohibiting remarriage irrespective of the
circumstances. Carter is of the school of thought that since Jesus has already
prohibited remarriage for a divorced woman in 5:32, here, in 9:9, he prohibits it also
for the men. It is adultery for a man to marry such a woman. Carter capped it by
stating that: “This verse now expands that prohibition to a man thereby placing man
and woman on the same footing.”276
2.7 Rèsumè
This chapter delimited the text by its characters which are Jesus and the
Pharisees, location-Perea, and theme-divorce and marriage. It holds that the literary
genre is gospel, while the literary form is controversial discourse otherwise called
scriptural debate by Harrington.277 Furthermore, it ascertains that the social-political
and religious context reflects the Greco-Roman world with Herod Antipas as ruler of
the region of Perea while Pilate was the governor of Jerusalem. It was around the
period of Passover; that Jesus alongside the many crowds was likely heading to
Jerusalem.
276
277
Daniel Harrington, Sacra Pagina, Matthew, p. 275.
61
On the content analysis, it avers that v. 9 is presented in the form of a legal
decree. And that the Matthean text is a modified Markan version. And finally, it
submits that the exceptive clause πορνεία is not part of the original text on the ground
that it does not follow Jesus’ citation of Gen 1:27, and 2:24. Like the Markan and
Lukan, it is more consistent to hold that the original Matthean text prohibits divorce.
The exceptive clause, therefore, is plausibly the work of the redactor due to the
Pharisees’ hardness of heart. On the final note, regarding the exceptive clause,
because it does not extend to remarriage, Jesus prohibited remarriage for men as he
had done for women in (5:32).
62
4.0 Chapter Four
Interpretation and Word Study in Matthew 19:3-9
4.1 Introduction
The significance of explication and elucidation of a word is aptly expressed by
Evarestus Igwe when he quoted the ancient philosopher Aristotle’s Latin rendition:
Initio disputandis definitio nominis est (before any discourse, it is good, to begin with,
the definition of terms).278 On this note, the task of this chapter is essentially an
attempt to interpret words and expressions that this study considers essential to the
theology of this pericope.
4.2 The Understanding of Divorce-ἀπολῦσαι in the Old Testament
In the Old Testament,279 Samuel Daiches holds that the technical Hebrew term
for “divorcing” is shalah which means “sending away”.280 It was used by the Prophets
Malachi (2:16), and Jeremiah (3:1-8). In these passages, divorce simply mean sending
away, putting away. But in Deut 24:1, the Hebrew word kə-rî-ṯuṯ was used for
divorce. The word Kriythuwth means “to cut, to destroy.”281 Divorce in OT may aptly
be described as an act of “destroying an existing covenant that exists between the man
and woman.” Daiches writes:
In the Mishna,282 and generally in the Talmud, the deed of

divorcement is called Get. Get is an Aramaic word that is
also found in the Assyro-Babylonian language and
278
Evarestus Igwe, “The Catholic Priest and the New Anthropology: In Honour of Reverend Father
Emmanuel Lewis @ 25 Catholic Priestly Anniversary” in The Identity and Dignity of the Priestly
Ministry, Francis Fabidun, (ed.), Akure, Ondo: Don Bosco Publication-Nig, 2021, p. 271.
279
Henceforth it will be written as OT
280
Samuel Daiches, “Divorce in Jewish Law” in Journal of Comparative Legislation and International
Law, 1926, Third Series, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1926, Cambridge University Press, p. 216.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/753227 Accessed July 7, 2022.
281
Strong’s Hebrew Online Dictionary Project, Strong's Hebrew:3748 -‫ תּו יתִכְּכ‬-kriythuwth -divorce(-
ment) (web-ministry.com) Accessed July 4, 2022
282
Mishna literally means “learning”; the Jewish Code of Laws composed in Palestine during the first
two centuries of the common era.
63
frequently occurs in Babylonian contract tablets.283 The
volume in the Talmud dealing with divorce in its various
aspects and the legality of the documents of divorce are
called Gittin (“Documents” of Divorce).284
What then is the content of the Get in relation to divorce? In Daiches’285
words, the content read thus:
On the - day of the week, the - day of the month, in the year
- of the creation of the world, according to the number we
reckon here, --- the city which is situated on the river --, I, -
son of -- who stand this day in the city situated on the river
-, do hereby consent with my own will, without force, free
and unrestrained, to grant a Bill of Divorce to you, my wife
-, daughter of -, who has been my wife from time past, and
with this I free, release and divorce you, that you may have
control and power over yourself from now and hereafter, to
be married to any man whom you may choose, and no man
shall hinder you from this day for evermore, and thus you
are free for any man. And this shall be unto you from me a
Bill of Divorce, a letter of freedom, and a deed of release
according to the Law of Moses and of Israel.
son of -, witness.
son of -, witness.
What this quotation indicates is that the husband could not ‘cut nor destroy’
the bond with his wife by mere word of mouth. A bill must be written to286 indicate
that the existing covenant of marriage no longer exists, but destroyed. 287 Thomas Hale
opines this was meant to protect the rights of the woman, not to justify divorce.288
Thus, the bill of divorce gives the woman certain legal rights, such as the right to
marry again. The insistence on the bill was made by the Lord (Is 50:1; Jer. 3:8).
The written bill must be delivered into the hands of the wife. The delivering of
the bill is a definite step, requiring a second decision on the part of the husband; it
283
Samuel Daiches, “Divorce in Jewish Law”, pp. 216-217.
284
Samuel Daiches, “Divorce in Jewish Law”, p. 217.
285
286
287
Ernest Burton, “The Biblical Teaching concerning Divorce”, p. 123.
288
64
gives time for anger to cool and sober.”289 Burton notes that this is to ensure that the
husband does not dissolve the bond in a moment of anger.290 Daiches has observed
that in the reception of the bill, it is required that: “The wife shall place her hands
together (palms upwards) to receive the Get. He (the Rabbi) shall ask her whether she
receives the Get of her free will, and she shall answer “yes”. The Rabbi shall say to
her: “Know that with this Get you shall be divorced from your husband.” The
husband shall give the Get into her hand and shall say to her: “This is the Get, take
your Get, and you are divorced from me by it from now, and you are free for any
man.”291 The effect of the divorce prohibits the man from remarrying the woman.292
In a related argument, Burton has argued that among the Jews, divorce was
already in practice. The classical Deuteronomy passage is descriptive and not
prescriptive; it sets out to regulate it.293 He added, like Frederick, that “the ground of
divorce is some unseemly thing in the wife or the hatred of the husband for his wife. It
does not seem to be a part of the intent of the passage to define with exactness the
legitimate grounds of divorce, or to insist that they shall be serious.” 294 Nonetheless,
“the language implies that divorce ought not to be, or will not be, for a trivial
cause.”295 The text however allows the man to be the judge, to decide what constitute
“something indecent”.
289
290
291
292
See Josephus Antiquities, IV, viii, 23, Josephus in his paraphrase of the laws of Moses: “He that
desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause (and many such causes happen among men), let
him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife anymore; for by this means she
may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before the bill of divorce be given, she is not to
be permitted to do so. But if she be misused by him also, or if when he is dead her first husband
would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him.”
293
294
295
65
Digging further into OT, Hosea and Jeremiah, compares the restoration of a
divorced wife to God’s love for Israel; but implies that what Deut. 24:1-4 prohibits,
that no man would be willing to do and that the doing of it would greatly pollute the
land. Ernest draws our attention to the fact that the Jeremiah passage (Jer 3:1 )296 is an
allusion to Deut 24:1-4. Interestingly, Jeremiah’s activity began five years before and
extended for some years after the discovery of this “Book of the Law” in Josiah’s
reign, 621 B. C.297 The prophet Malachi, who wrote in the days of Ezra, avers that
God hates that his people be cut off or destroyed from the covenant. God hates this
destruction of relationship. This is because the marriage contract between the man and
woman yoked together is a covenant, a binding agreement with God as the witness.298
A careful reading of the OT indicates that the OT writers from the eighth to
the fifth centuries are in substantial agreement with the ideal of marriage; viz., the
union of one man and one woman till death part them. That ideal is not insisted upon
or embodied in statute. On the one side, polygamy is not prohibited; and, on the other,
the husband is permitted to divorce his wife for causes of the adequacy of which he is
apparently to judge. But the teachings of the prophets discourage divorce, and
proclaim the realization of the ideal of a lifelong union of husband and wife. Hence,
in one instance only is divorce encouraged; in the case of the Israelites of the days of
Ezra who had married pagan wives.299 Yet, as Fermin opines,
In OT when God divorced Israel he simply separated

himself from her for a time because of her indecency
296
Jer. 3: I, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, will he return
unto her again? will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many
lovers; yet return again to me, saith Jehovah.
297
298
Diane Gates, What Does the Bible Say About Divorce? Are There Biblical Grounds?
(biblestudytools.com) March 28, 2019, Accessed July 4, 2022.
299
66
divorce” did not nullify God’s marriage covenant with
Israel. In Jeremiah 3:8, God divorced Israel; and in
Jeremiah 3:14 God declared himself: “I am your husband.
Divorce is made profane by the absence, by the banishment of love. Marriage
is celebrated. Marriage is blessed with beautiful words of divine praise. Divorce is
affected by a ceremony that is grim and austere.300
In our pericope of study, απολῦω, a verb is used in the aorist tense, infinitive
active ἀπολῦσαι. It appeared in this pericope six times denoting “to discharge” (19:3,
7, 8, 9). It appeared sixty-nine times in the entire New Testament Bible.301 Like in
Jeremiah 3:8, 14, in this Matthean pericope, divorce does not sever the marital bond
since the remarriage of a divorced person is adultery.302 At best, it separates them.
4.3 He who made them from the beginning made them male and female (Matt
19:4/Gen 1:27). ὁ κτίσας ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ
Let me quickly note at the onset that, “male and female he created them” is a text
(Gen 1:27) from the Priestly account of creation. The Priestly account of creation is
exceedingly compressed, marked by a repetitive structure of announcement and
execution reports.303 Yet, a careful reader cannot but notice that it is also
comprehensive, detailed, intentional, and specific in attempting to identify, locate and
describe in their essential features all of the primary elements and orders of creation.
Citing Von Rad, Bird has rightly emphasized, “only what is essential is here; nothing
300
Samuel Daiches, Divorce in Jewish Law, p. 222.
301
Abarim Publications, Greek New Testament concordance of the verb απολυω - page 1 (abarim-
publications.com) Accessed June 29, 2022.
302
Waldemar Molinski, “Marriage” in Encyclopedia of Theology, p. 907.
303
Phyllis Bird, "Male and Female He Created Them: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account
of Creation” in The Harvard Theological Review, Apr., 1981, Vol. 74, No. 2, Apr., 1981, Cambridge
University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School, p. 135.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509444 Accessed July 19, 2022.
67
is accidental or included merely because it stood in the received tradition.”304 From
this, it is highly instructive to note that the specification of male and female is not
semantics, but theological. But how does it function within the Priestly composition?
Why was it included?
From the text, there are two aspects: the nature of marriage as God’s initiative
of love for man and woman (sexual distinction)305, and that marriage belongs to the
order of creation. Here, our focus is on the first aspect. In citing this text, Jesus in
Matthew 19:4 taught that marriage as God’s initiative is a union between man and
woman. This sexual difference between man and woman and their sexual encounter
with each other according to the text belongs to the order of creation and is part of
God’s plan.306 In an age where gender distinction is endangered, and stands on the
verge of being obliterated medically and socially, this text provides the background
and basis for gender distinctions, sexuality, and marriage. Commenting on this text,
Kasper writes, “This relationship is so fundamental in the Bible that it forms part of
the theological definition of humanity’s being that is provided in Genesis 1:27.”307
Accordingly, the reference to male and female is insistent on the difference in
sexuality, but also it draws attention to the fact that God was intentional about it and
willed it so. Kasper added, “The specification of human sexual distinction and its
position in the text is determined by the sequence of themes within the account and by
the overall structure of announcement and execution report within the chapter.”308 Our
304
Phyllis Bird, "Male and Female He Created Them: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account
of Creation”, p. 135.
305
Phyllis Bird, “Male and Female He Created Them: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account
of Creation”, p. 146
306
Walter Kasper, The Theology of Christian Marriage, p. 26.
307
308
68
understanding of the place and function of this specification in the account dissociates
the word of sexual distinction, specifically sexuality, from the idea of the divine
image, and the theme of dominion, and associates it with a larger theme of
sustainability or fertility running throughout the narrative of creation.
On content analysis, male and female he created them which is vs 27c is a
synthesis of vv. 27a and 27b. 27a -And God created Adam in his image; 27b- in the
image of God he created him. In our text, 27c, the two preceding colas are combined
with a sort of modification. Note that cola a and b are parallel, not synonymous, but
progressive. Also, strikingly, cola b adds to the first but does not interpret it. Bird
comments that this text functions for the P, that God is the source of marriage, and the
specification alludes to reproduction.309
Yet, the analysis thus far does not allow us to opine that the specifying clause,
“male and female he created them,” as distinguishing humans from other creatures or
as giving to human sexual distinction a special meaning. Rather, in the economy of
the Priestly writer’s account, it is mentioned here only out of necessity: The Priestly
writer has chosen his terms, as well as their placement, with care. Note that zakar-
male and neqebah-female are biological terms, not social terms as ‘is-man and ‘issah-
woman in 2:22-24. Bird draws out attention to the fact that the same specification, in
the same terms, zakar neqebah is made elsewhere with reference to the animals and
for a similar reason of clarification and emphasis (Gen 6:19; 7:9).310 It follows that the
specification is in view of the second purpose of marriage: procreation. Thus, a
309
310
69
marriage that is oriented towards procreation must be open to it, and this begins with
the acknowledgment that the male and the female are specifically mentioned as those
to contract and enter into this bond.
Also, it is valid to hold that Jesus’ citation of male and female is a subtle
criticism of the subjugation of the female, and a verbal rebuttal of the Pharisees whose
very question is male-centered. In this regard, Frederick comments that in this citation
Jesus opines that women are no less than men; they are the image of God.311 Jesus
was therefore restoring women to their original place as the image of God and partner
to their husband in marriage and no property.312
4.4 The Hardness of the Heart -τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν (Matt 19:8/Deut 10:16; 33:6)
The heart is biologically the most vital organ of a living organism. It functions
primarily in circulating blood to the different parts of the body. Among the Greeks
‘καρδία’ primarily described mental constitution and disposition.313 Hence, it is used
both in the Masoretic Text and Septuagint of the OT, and in the Koinonia Greek of
the NT respectively as the organ where God encounters man. The ‘heart’ therefore is
not an alien concept in the scripture. Statistically, Chafer notes:
The word heart occurs over 600 times in the Old Testament
and at least 210 times in the New Testament … The
extensive use of the word ‘heart’ in all its varied
implications places it in a position of extreme
importance.314
311
Frederick Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 670.
312
313
Abarim Publications, καρδια | Abarim Publications Theological Dictionary (New Testament Greek)
(abarim-publications.com) Accessed October 25, 2022.
314
Lewis Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, U.S.A: Victors Books, 1973, pp. 187-88.
70
Worthy of note is that in this extensive usage, it denotes315 the seat of the inner
life in contrast to the flesh and stone (Ps. 73:26; Ezekiel 36:26); the seat of rationality-
the heart thinks (Dan 2:30, Job 34:10); the heart understands, and remembers (I Sam
21:31; Prov 10:21). Furthermore, it is the seat of emotion; it could be sorrowful or
joyful (Deut 15:10; 28:47; Is 65:14). The seat of volitive life such as deciding,
wishing and deliberating (Is 10:7; Deut 2:30) and the seat of morals and religions
(Neh 9:8; Ex 4:21; 7:13).
The OT sees the heart figuratively as the center of the real person, the center
of spiritual life. However, when the adjective ‘hardened or hardness’ is affixed to it,
τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν depicts the peoples’ rebellious responses to God’s saving events
in their lives. In Deut 2:30, the Lord God hardened the spirit and made obstinate the
heart of Sihon King of Heshibon. In the book of Exodus where we read of God,
Moses, and Pharaoh’s dialogues, the expression was frequently used. In these
interactions, a careful reader notices that the expression was fascinatingly predicated
on Pharaoh in three different ways. First, Pharaoh himself hardens his heart, “When
Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart and would not listen to
them, as the Lord had said” (8.15). And in (v. 19) Pharaoh was acted upon; his heart
was hardened, and he would not listen to Moses. Lastly, in (10: 1), the Lord made
Pharaoh’s heart hardened when he said to Moses; for I have hardened his heart and
the heart of his servants.
Furthermore, the expression was not lacking in the book of the Prophets
Isaiah (6:10; 42:25); Ezekiel (36:2-6), and Jeremiah (Jer. 16:12). In the New
315
Lious Hartman, Ed, Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, Belgium: Usines Brepols S.A, 1963, p.
947.
71
Testament, Matthew (13:5) spoke of a dull heart; Acts (28:27) dull heart; Romans
(2:5) unrepented heart.
From the above “hardness of heart” in the biblical parlance means stubborn
resistance, rebellion, and unwillingness to yield to the ordinances of God. Kuyper
opines that, “Hardened heart is a rebellion against God, and it takes on various
descriptions throughout the Old Testament, such as blinded eyes, stopped ears, and
stiff necks.”316 More so, a hardened heart is a complex activity in which both God and
the people both participated. In some cases, he acted upon the person, and in other
cases, the people are active and chose to be rebellious. Notice that even when the
Lord acted upon and caused their heart to harden as in the case of Pharaoh and the
people in Isaiah, it was still because of their sin and rebellious attitude.
For Matthew, Jesus is not only talking about the past generations but to the
Pharisees. They were the direct object who continually expressed hardness of heart
hence, Jesus says because of your hardness of heart. The possessive pronoun (your
wives) indicates these Pharisees were hard-hearted in resisting God’s will, and
unyielding to the ordinances of God which have been there from the beginning that
marriage is indissoluble. The Matthean Pharisees are hard-hearted because their
hearts are dull (13:15); they make void the word of God for the sake of tradition
(15:6), their hearts are far from God (15:8); they do not practice what they teach
(23:3); they tie up heavy burden hard to bear, and lay them on the people (23:4).
316
Lester Kuyper, ‘Hardness of Heart according to Biblical Perspective’ in Scottish Journal of
Theology / Vol. 27 / Issue 04 / November 1974, pp. 459 - 474 DOI: 10.1017/S0036930600034268,
published online: 02 February 2009, p. 462, http://journals.cambridge.org/
abstract_S0036930600034268, Accessed October 15, 2022.
72
Matthew (23:13-36) aptly described the hardness of heart exhibited by the Pharisees
when it states that:
“They lock people out of the kingdom of heaven, they tithe

mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the matters of the
law such as justice and mercy and faith which they ought to
practice. They are blind guides and are full of greed and
self-indulgence.”
4.5 What does πορνείᾳ mean for Matthew in the Text?
The word πορνεία is a broad concept, and extensive use of the word is found
in the New Testament. Πορνεία is a Greek derivative of πόρνη which means
prostitution. For Latin and English, it connotes fornication. Osiek has warned that
such a translation is circular and unsatisfactory.317 Martin has equally opined that the
precise meaning of πορνεία is simply uncertain given the lack of evidence we have.318
Let it be noted that this caution is warranted; the meaning of a word so ideologically
charged as πορνεία is neither simple nor static. It has a wider range of connotations
throughout the area of sexual sin and impropriety, including the act of adultery.319
In a related argument, Gregory of Nissa cited by Harper Kyle argues that,
πορνεία means extramarital sex; sexual intercourse that did not injure a third party
such as a husband, father, or male relative who stood in a position of protection over a
woman’s sexual honour. In a word, it is fornication. In contrast, μοιχεία is adultery;
the sexual violation of another’s wife.320 Similarly, Laney avers that “The word
πορνεία does not normally mean adultery; the usual word for adultery is μοιχεία”.321
317
Carolyn Osiek, p. 268.
318
Dale Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation, Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2006, p. 231.
319
Instone-Brewer, Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002, p. 156.
320
Kyle Harper, “The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 2012,
Vol. 131, No. 2, The Society of Biblical Literature, p. 364.
321
Carl Laney, Divorce and Remarriage, Four Christian Views, p. 34.
73
Meier and Fitzmyer hold that πορνεία means incest.322 Fitzer writes that in this
context, πορνεία connotes either of the following: prostitution, unchastity, and
fornication, and every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse. 323 What these varied views
have shown is the elusiveness of the concept.
In his article, Carson calls our attention to the fact that πορνεία covered a wide
gamut of sexual sins, and thus, “should not be restricted unless the entire context
requires it”324. Hauck and Schulz insist πορνεία included adultery, but it could also
mean incest, intercourse with prostitutes, premarital sex, homosexual practices, and
bestiality325. For Sewakpo “Matthew probably used πορνεία as a general term
referring to all forms of deviant sexual behaviours such as incest, adultery,
homosexuality, bestiality, etc.” All these, he holds, resulted in the break of the bond,
and thus, precipitate an occasion that could ultimately end in divorce.326
The Matthean context, and his use of μοιχεία as adultery in (15:19; and 19:19)
allows us to rule out adultery as a possible intended meaning. Matthew is not
oblivious of μοιχεία as the proper word for adultery 327. Also, Matthew being a Jew
322
Joseph Fitzmyer, “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some Palestinian Evidence.” Theological
Studies, Vol. 37, 1976, pp. 208-211.
323
Gottfried Fitzer, πορνεία. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3. Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider, (eds.), Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994, p. 137.
324
Donald Carson, Matthew. Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, (ed.), Vol. 8, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Pub., 1984, p. 414.
325
Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, “πόρνη, πόρνος, πορνεία, πορνεύφ, ἐκπορνεύφ,” in
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 6, eds., Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, trans.
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968. For details see Mark 7:21; John
8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:1; 6:13, 18; 7:2; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3;
Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Rev. 2:21; 9:21.
326
327
In all the four passages given above μοιχήω (or the kindred forms of the verb) means to violate the
marriage bond without reference to the definite act of post-nuptial fornication, which is denoted in A
and Β by πορνεία. But our word ‘adultery’ is restricted to the one way of violating the bond, which in
A and Β is called fornication, and hence the English rendering is very confusing. As a matter of fact,
excluding John viii 3 there is no passage in the New Testament where the words μοιχεία, μοιχός, and
μοιχενω necessarily refer at all to the sinful act (πορνεία) except strangely enough verse 28 of this
chapter, just before our passage. See Edward Lyttleton, “The Teaching of Christ about Divorce” in
74
and writing for a Jewish community knows the Torah, and thus knows that adultery
attracts death penalty and therefore it was not necessary to make it the exception.
Another difficulty of πορνεία as adultery is aptly expressed by Vawter:
If the πορνεία of Matt 5:32 and 19:9 meant ‘adultery’, as

both traditional Protestant and now some Catholic
commentators want to insist, the Matthean ‘exceptions’
would take on rather different acceptations in their separate
contexts. In 5:32 we would be left simply with a banality:
He, who divorces his wife, unless she is already an
adulteress, now makes her liable to become an adulteress.
In 19:9, however, where the husband makes himself an
adulterer through divorce and remarriage, πορνεία really
says something about the liceity of divorce. Is it likely that
the Matthean redactor would have intended that these two
πορνεία additions should have served such disparate ends,
or if such ends had in fact been served inadvertently, that
such a fact would indeed have escaped his attention?328
In this pericope, since Matthew used both μοιχεία and πορνεία in the same
context he intends to convey a different message.329 If Matthew does not intend
πορνεία to mean adultery since he already employed μοιχεία which is the proper
word for adultery, while πορνεία in (15:19) denotes fornication, it is safer to opine
πορνεία denotes fornication or any sexual interference.
4.6 Rèsumè
This chapter gives us a clue to the possible meaning intended by Matthew: In
some cases, it exposes how the words were used in the OT, and thereafter indicates
instances where there are variances with the Matthean pericope. On απολῦω-divorce,
while in OT it denotes ‘releasing’ one’s wife thereby breaking the existing marital
bond, in this Matthean pericope, it does not sever the marital bond since the
The Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1904, Vol. 5, No. 20, Oxford University Press, pp. 622-
623.
328
Bruce Vawter, “Divorce and the New Testament”, p. 531.
329
75
remarriage of a divorced person is adultery.330 At best, it separates them. This follows
from the prophet Malachi’s oracle that God frowns at it and hates it. τὴν
σκληροκαρδίαν (hardness of heart) connotes sin, rebel, stubbornness, and unyielding
on the part of the Pharisees to God’s will for marriage. This hardness of heart was the
essential reason why there was a drift from God’s will for marriage. The enigmatic
πορνεία is not adultery this is because Matthew is very much familiar with the proper
word for adultery which is μοιχεία, and given that Matthew had used πορνεία in 15:19
to denote fornication, and it is safer to opine that in this pericope, πορνεία refers to
fornication or prostitution.
330
76
5.0 Chapter Five
The Theology of Matthew 19:3-9
5.1 Introduction
It was Joseph Ratzinger who lamented that the enigmatic task of translating
dogma into preaching is a crisis that we cannot shy away from any longer. 331 This
crisis does not only loom in the area of systematics but scripture. There are so many
exegeses with little or no theology. The inner tension that hinders this transition
among many is the historical gap and cultural differences. Nonetheless, avoiding a
theological presentation of exegesis is a radical cure that deprives scripture of its
relevance to all people irrespective of historical and cultural differences. This chapter
attempts a theological presentation of the Matthean (19:3-9) theology of “marriage
and divorce” in the synoptic context.
5.2 The Matthean Theology of Marriage
Let me begin by noting that in the entire synoptic writings the Matthean
account of Jesus’ teaching on marriage is the most controversial. As a modification of
the Markan version, it has an imposing character. Yet, in many ways clearly expresses
the identity of the Matthean audience as a Jewish Christian Community which in the
opinion of Carter is “marginalized,”332 and Harrington, “persecuted”.333 In this
pericope (19:3-9) we encounter the tension between being faithful to Jesus’ kerygma
and cutting loose from the Jewish tradition.334 The author in his attempt to keep the
kerygma of the absoluteness of the “Kingdom of Heaven” and its ethics, and yet not
331
Joseph Ratzinger, Dogma and Preaching: Applying Christian Doctrine to Daily Life, Michael
Miller and Matthew O’Connell, transl., San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005, p. 7.
332
Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Social political and Religious Reading, p. v.
333
Daniel Harrington, Sacred Pagina Series, Vol. 1, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 1.
334
Donald Hagner, “Matthew 14-28,” in World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33B, Dellas, Texas: Word
Books, Publishers, 1995, p. 550.
77
offend his community, resulted in the exception made in 19 v 9 which is not in the
Markan and Lukan accounts respectively.
Having said this, let us now concisely state the theology. The Matthean
theology of marriage may be grouped into three themes: the definition of marriage;
the source of marriage and the unity of marriage. These themes are not isolated but
interrelated hence they overlap.
Like the other Synoptics, the Matthean Jesus in his citation of Genesis argues
that marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish themselves into
one flesh for their well-being for their whole life. Here, those who can enter into this
covenant of marriage are identified as male and female; it is therefore a rejection of
any innovations such as homosexual unions, lesbianism as well as a subtle criticism of
the subjugation of the female, and a verbal rebuttal of the Pharisees whose very
question is male-centered. Frederick affirms that the Matthean theology is that
marriage is for male and female, and more so, women are no less than men, they are
the image of God just like the men.335 It follows that Jesus was therefore restoring
women to their original place as the image of God and partner to their husbands in
marriage, and no property.336
The source of marriage is equally elucidated: For Matthew, marriage is a
divine institution.337 Again, this follows from the OT theology of marriage. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church captures this when it states, “the intimate
community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established
by the creator and endowed by him with its proper laws…God himself is the author of
335
336
337
CCC, no. 1603.
78
marriage.”338 Marriage belongs to the order of creation. Like creation, it was God who
established it and bequeathed it to mankind for their well-being. The vocation to
married life is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the
hand of the creator.339
On the unity, for Matthew, regardless of the exception, the unity of the marital
bond is absolute. The unity is created and established to express the love of God. It
begins with the act of leaving the father and mother. The leaving of father and mother
is in view of bonding: the two becoming one flesh. The one flesh is indissoluble, and
sanctified; it is manifested in the acts of procreation and companionship which are the
goals of marriage. The goodness of marriage is defined as the well-being of mankind:
it is not good that man should be alone, (Gen 2:18); and God blessed them…, Be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, (Gen 1:28).340 Carter writes that
it is also marked by solidarity, equality, trust, and well-being.341 Meier adds that it
indicates the closest personal union possible.342 Here, we discover that the union of
the first couple in Eden is the pristine model for all marriages. The wonderful mystery
here is the “one flesh union” that binds husband and wife together. No doubt this
includes the sexual intimacy that is proper to married life. But more is intended, such
as their shared life together, their spiritual and emotional closeness, and the mutual
support they offer each other as trusted friends and confidants. All these for Matthew
manifest and express the unity of marriage.
338
CCC, no. 1603.
339
CCC, no. 1603
340
Austine Flannery, (ed.), “Gaudium et Spes” in Vatican Council II, Vol. I, Bandra, Mumbai: St.
Paul’s, 2010, no. 48.
341
342
79
5.3 The Matthean Theology of Divorce
The Matthean theology of divorce is well captured in v. 6: What God has
joined together, let no man put asunder. On the question of divorce, Matthew presents
Jesus as the Promised Messiah who ranks higher than a Rabbi and Moses, and
because of this, he is able to speak in the first person pronoun “I say to you” (19:9)
and thus able to go behind scribal debate to the essential principle of God’s will.343 It
follows that rather than Deut 24:1, Jesus’ principle is drawn from Genesis 1:27 and
2:24, which show not only that sexual union is God’s creation purpose for man, but
also that that union is covenantal, exclusive, and unbreakable. Jesus disassociates
himself from the Pharisees and Deut 24:1. He aligns himself with the prophet
Malachi, who quotes Yahweh as saying, “I hate divorce” (2:16). Jesus, therefore,
refuses to allow a necessary concession to the human hardness of heart (sinfulness) to
be elevated into a divine principle. The ideal is to be found in going back to first
principles, to what was in the beginning. The point for Matthew as well as the other
Synoptics is that ‘an ethics’ which truly reflects God’s will must be built, not on
concessions, but on basic principles. On this, France writes, “this is a crucial element
across the whole field of ethical discussion, and one which has not always been
observed are the ‘weightier matters of the law’.”344
Jesus’ appeal to first principles has the effect of apparently setting one passage
of Scripture against another, but this is not in the sense of repudiating one in favour of
the other, but of insisting that each is given its proper function, the one as a statement
of the ideal will of God, the other as a (regrettable but necessary) provision for those
343
Richard France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 276.
344
Richard France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 276.
80
occasions when human sinfulness has failed to maintain the ideal. It follows that in
this pericope we encounter the absoluteness of the kingdom of God and its ethics. The
kingdom of God brought by Jesus ultimately involves the restoration of the perfection
of the pre-fall creation, and the ethics of the kingdom as taught by Jesus reflect this
fact. As God intended no divorce for the Garden of Eden, so divorce is not to be
allowed in the new era of the kingdom of God.345 Hence the concept of divorce as an
act of discharging or dismissing one’s wife in Matthew is special and peculiar.
The dismissal of the woman does not sever the marital bond since the
remarriage of a divorced person is adultery.346 Buttressing this theology, Molinski
write that, “Jesus indicates that the deepest purpose of marriage in God’s eyes is the
unity, the oneness of the man and wife.”347 This follows from God’s concern for
mankind: it is not good that man should be alone, Gen 2: 18. Back to the Matthean
construct, the possible interpretation is that she is not free from the previous marital
bond since the dismissal or divorce does not sever the bond, at best, for Matthew,
“divorce is simply separation”. The separation is to allow the Jewish Christian to
remain pure since his continual cohabitation will render him unclean.348 According to
Molinski “Matthew 5:32 is to be read in the light of 19:9 so that Jesus is re-
interpreting as a separation a mensa et thoro349 the dismissal which the Jews took to
sever the marital bond.”350
345
Donald Hagner, “Matthew 14-28”, p. 550.
346
347
348
Public Ethics, p. 20.
349
A Mensa Et Thoro is a Latin term which means “from board and hearth”. It is a kind of divorce
which does not dissolve the marriage bond, but merely authorizes a separate life of the husband and
wife. This is similar to a court-sanctioned separation where the husband and wife are not legally
obligated to live together, but their marriage has not been dissolved. It may be granted for the
81
This theology follows from Jesus’ teaching that divorce is not God’s will
(Matt. 19:8); in this way, he teaches his disciples that they are to recapitulate the
harmonious relationships of humanity before the fall when hard hearts began to
pervert God’s original plan. Jesus’s disciples anticipate the future renewal of the
world (19:28), but until then they long for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in
heaven (6:10). In this light, the unity of marriage, that is, marital permanence ought to
be the rule in the Christian community as an aspect of righteous life that anticipates
the coming of God’s kingdom on earth.351 Moses did not command divorce, and
certainly, neither did Jesus. Even in the case of marital infidelity, (divorce) separation
should not be the first option.
5.4 The Relevance of the Matthean Text Today
In an era, such as ours where the concept and dignity of marriage are
bastardized, misinterpreted on the altar of relativism, and besieged with all sorts of
strange innovations such as free marriage, homosexuality, lesbianism, polygamy,
unlawful contraceptive practices, hedonism and the plague and pain of divorce, the
beauty of marriage is not reflected everywhere. In the midst of all these, Jesus’
teaching on marriage and divorce elucidated above from the Matthean text offers an
insight into what God’s will for marriage is. As against homosexual and lesbianism,
the text citing the OT defines marriage as a covenant that established unbreakable
union of love between man and woman for their well-being. It stresses that the well-
being of the person is closely bound with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.
causes of extreme cruelty or desertion of the wife by the husband. This kind of divorce does not
affect the legitimacy of children. When the divorce is a mensa et thoro, neither spouse can remarry.
See USlegal.com, A Mensa et Thoro, Law and Legal Definition, A Mensa Et Thoro Law and Legal
Definition | USLegal, Inc. Accessed November 11, 2022.
350
351
Donald Hagner, “Matthew 14-28”, p. 550.
82
Another relevance of the text is that it draws our attention to marriage as a
divine institution authored by God. The implication is that the prerogative to undo
what God has yoked together does not lie with man.
Another significant message of the text is that in an attempt to help the Matthean
community, Jesus in granting an exception, unlike Moses, he kept in mind the Divine
will for marriage hence the Matthean concept of divorce does not sever the marital
bond but only allow a sort of separation which offers them a moment to sort out their
differences without severing and damaging the unity of the marriage. What this
teaches us is that in an attempt to compromise, the essential must not be compromised
rather; it must be protected at all costs irrespective of the situation and people
involved. The deep wounds caused by marital infidelity can be healed by the love of
God in Christ. Couples contemplating divorce must contemplate the implications of
18:21-35 and 19:8. When one is sinned against, forgiveness is the primary Christian
duty. Forgiveness can lead to restored relationships and is a powerful testimony to the
power of Jesus’s gospel. If God hates divorce under the old covenant (Mal. 2:14-16),
how much more so now that the kingdom has been inaugurated
83
5.5 GENERAL CONCLUSION
The findings of this research are: In addressing the controversy of divorce that
finds its reference point in the Mosaic exception (Duet 24:1), Jesus appeals to God’s
will for marriage at the very beginning (Gen 1:27; 2:17, 24). He argues that the unity
of marriage is unbreakable; the prerogative to undo the bond does not lie with man
since God is the author. In this way Jesus neither aligns himself with the Hillel nor the
Shammai but with the Prophet Malachi (2:16). Nonetheless, in the redactor, he took
into consideration their hardness of heart and made an exception which allows
husband to divorce from his wife.
The divorce in Matthew is separation since remarriage is adultery (19:9), same
way the woman commits adultery by being married (5:32). Jesus refuses to allow a
necessary concession to the human hardness of heart (sinfulness) to be elevated into a
divine principle. The ideal is rather to be found in going back to first principles, to
what was in the beginning. The point for Matthew as well as the other Synoptics is
that ‘an ethics’ which reflects God’s will, must be built, not on concessions, but on
basic principles. For God hates divorce; for in the OT when God divorced Israel he
simply separated himself from her for a time because of her indecency. Divorce did
not nullify God’s marriage covenant with Israel. In Jeremiah 3:8, God divorced Israel;
and in Jeremiah 3:14 God declared himself: “I am your husband.”352
352
Fermin Lopez, p. 6.
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Holy Bible. The New Revised Standard Version

Catholic Edition, Bangalore:
Theological Publication, 2011.
Bible Work, Version 10.
Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. II, India:

Theological Publication, 2016.
Boadt, Lawrence. Reading Old Testament: An

Introduction, New Jersey: Paulist Press,
1984.
Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament,

India: Theological Publication, 2014.
---------------------. The Birth of the Messiah, New York:

Double Day and Comp, Inc., 1977.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition,

ET Oxford: Blackwell, 1963.
Burridge, Richard. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison

with Graeco-Roman Biography, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Bright, John. A History of Israel, 3rd ed.,

Philadelphia: WesterMinster, Press, 1981
Bockmuehl, Markus. Jewish Law in Gentile Churches:

Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian
Public Ethics, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2003.
Bruner, Frederick. The Christbook, A
Historical/Theological Commentary:
Matthew 1—12, Dallas: Word, 1987.
…………….…. Matthew, A Commentary, Vol. II, The

Church Book Matthew 13-28, Dallas:
World Publishing, 1990.
Bailey, James, and Broek, Lyled. Literary Forms in the New Testament: A
HandBook, Louisville: John Knox Press,
1992.
85
Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Social
political and Religious Reading, India:
Theological Publications, 2007.
------------------. Matthew and the Empire: Initial

Explorations, Harrisburg, U.S. A: Trinity
International Press, 2001.
Cory, Catherine. A Voyage through the New Testament,

New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall,
2008.
David, Aune. The New Testament in Its Literary

Environment, London: James Clarke,
1987.
Deasley, Alex. Marriage & Divorce in the Bible and the
Church, 1st ed., Kansas City, MO:
Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 2000.
Filson, Floyd. A Commentary on the Gospel According

to St. Matthew, New York: Harper &
Brothers, Publication, 1960.
France, Richard. Matthew: An Introduction and

Commentary, U.S.A: Intervarsity Press,
1985.
Fenton, John. Saint Matthew, London: Penguins

Books, 1963.
Fabidun, Francis, (ed.). The Identity and Dignity of the Priestly

Ministry, Akure, Ondo: Don Bosco
Publication-Nig, 2021.
Green, Benedict. The Gospel According to Matthew in the

Revised Standard Version, London:
Oxford University Press, 1975.
Garland, David. Reading Matthew, A Literary and

Theological Commentary, Georgia:
Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc, 2001.
Gundry, Robert. Matthew, A Commentary on His Literary

and Theological Art, Michigan:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.
86
Hagner, Donald. “Matthew 1-13”, in Word Biblical
Commentary, 33a. David Hubbard, &
Glenn Barker, eds., Dallas: Word
Books, 1993.
Harrington, Daniel. Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. I, The Gospel

of Matthew, Minnesota: A Michae
Glazier Book, 2005.
Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2006.
Instone, Brewer. Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible,

Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002.
Kasper, Walter. The Theology of Marriage, New York:

CrossRoad Publishing Company, 1983.
Kizahakkeyil, Sebastian. The Pentateuch, Bandra, Mumbai: St.

Paul’s, 2013.
Lund, Nils. Chiasmus in the New Testament: A

Study in the Form and Function of
Chiastic Structures, North Carolina:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1992.
Laney, Carl. Divorce and Remarriage, Four

Christian Views, Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 1990.
Lohfink, Gerhard. Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted,

Who He Was, Minnesota: A Michael
Book, 2012.
Meier, John. Matthew: New Testament Message, Vol.

III, 4th ed., Dublin: Veritas
Publications, 1984.
-------------------- Matthew: An Access Guide for Scripture

Study, Chicago: William H. Sadlier, Inc.,
1983.
------------------ Matthew, Dublin: Veritas Publication,

1980.
Mitch, Curtis and Hahn, Scott, (eds.). The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New
Testament, New Edition, San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001.
87
Mitch, Curtis, and Siri, Edward. The Gospel of Matthew, Michigan,
U.S. A: Baker Academic, 2010.
Martin, Dale. Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and

Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation,
Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2006.
McBrien, Richard. Catholicism, 4th ed., New York:

Harper San Francisco, 994.
Nickle, Keith. The Synoptic Gospels: An Introduction,

Louisville: WJK Westminster Joint Knox
Press, 2001.
Ratzinger, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth, Vol. I, New York:

Bloomsbury, 2007.
----------------------. Church, Ecumenism, and Politics New

Endeavors in Ecclesiology, transl. by
Michael J. Miller et al. San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1987.
-----------------------. God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the

Heart of Life, transl. By Henry Taylor,
San Francisco: Ignatius, 2003.
Sadler, Bernard. The Structure of Matthew, Sydney:

Burns Oates, 2013.
Sperry, Lewis. Systematic Theology, Vol. II U.S.A:

Victors Books, 1973.
Stein, Robert. The Synoptic Problem, An Introduction,

Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Schmidt, Werner. Old Testament: Introduction, Brandai,

Mumbai: St Paul’s, 2002.
Turner, David. Matthew: Baker Exegetical Commentary

on the New Testament, Michigan: Baker
Academic, 2008.
Talbert, Charles. Matthew, Michigan, U.S.A: Baker

Academic, 2010.
88
----------------------- What is a Gospel? The Genre of the
Canonical Gospels, Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977.
Tresmontant, Claude. The Gospel of Matthew: Translation and

Notes, U.S.A: Christendom Press, 1986.
Wijngaards, Johannes. Background to the Gospels, Bangalore,

India: Theological Publication, 1993.
Josephus Flavian. Antiquities of the Jews, 4:8:23.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church. India: St. Paul’s, 2004.
Commentaries/Dictionaries/Documents
Brown, Raymond, and et al, (eds.). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
Bengaluru, India: Theological
Publications, 2019.
Farmer, William. The International Bible Commentary:

A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary
for the Twenty-First-Century.
Minnesota: A Liturgical Press Book,
1998.
Frank, Gaebelein, (ed.). The Expository Bible Commentary,

Michigan: Grand Rapids, 1984.
Flannery, Austine, (ed.). “Gaudium et Spes” Vatican Council II,

Vol. I, Bandra, Mumbai: St. Paul’s, 201
Gerhard Kittel, and Gerhard Fredrick, (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, Vol. 6, Geoffrey W.
Bromiley, transl., Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1968.
James Dunn, & John Rogerson, (eds.). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible,
United Kingdom: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2003.
James Dunn, (ed.). Eerdmans Commentary in the Bible,

Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 2003.
89
Louis Hartman, (ed.). Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible,
Belgium: Usines Brepols S.A, 1963.
Rahner, Karl, (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Theology: A Concise

Sacramentum Mundi, Bandra, Mumbai,
India: St. Paul’s, 2017.
Viuiano, Benedict. “The Gospel According to Matthew” in

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
India: Theological Publications, 1995.
Journals
Bird, Phyllis. “Male and Female He Created Them:

Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly
Account of Creation” in The Harvard
Theological Review, Vol. 74, No. 2,
London: Cambridge University Press,
1981,https://www.jstor.org/stable/15094
44 Accessed July 19, 2022.
Burton, Ernest. “The Biblical Teaching concerning

Divorce: I. Old Testament Teaching and
Jewish Usage” in The Biblical World,
Vol. 29, No. 2, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1907,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3140621,
Accessed July 6, 2022.
Collins, Adela. “Reviewed Work(s): What Are the

Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-
Roman Biography” by Richard A.
Burridge, in The Journal of Religion,
Vol. 75, No. 2, Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, Apr. 1995.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1205320
Daiches, Samuel. “Divorce in Jewish Law,” in
Journal of Comparative Legislation and
International Law, 3rd Series, Vol. VIII,
No. 4, 1926, London: Cambridge
University Press on behalf of British
Institute of International and
Comparative
Law,https://www.jstor.org/stable/753227
90
Fitzer, Gottfried. πορνεία. Exegetical Dictionary of the
New Testament, Vol. 3. Horst Balz and
Gerhard Schneider, eds., Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1994, p, 137.
Harper, Kyle. “The Making of a Christian Sexual

Norm” in Journal of Biblical Literature,
Vol. 131, No. 2, The Society of Biblical
Literature, 2012.
Hill, Phil. “Do Jesus and Paul agree with the OT

laws concerning marriage, divorce, and
remarriage?” in Mary’s Well Occasional
Papers, November, Nazareth, Israel:
Nazareth Evangelical Theological
Seminary 2012.
Jackson, Shirley. “Divorce and Remarriage in the

Teaching of Jesus”, in The Biblical
World, Vol. 45, No. 1, The University of
Chicago Press, 1915.
Kilgallen, John. “To what are the Matthean Exception-

Texts (5:32 and 19:9) an Exception?” in
Biblica, Vol. 61, No. 1, Peeters
Publishers, 1980.
Accessed March, 2023.
Lopez, Fermin. “A Soteriological Interpretation of
Matthean Divorce Exception Clauses” in
Paper published on www.academia.edu,
March 2017.
Sewakpo, Honore. “The Challenge of Interpreting Jesus’

Teaching on Πορνεία in Matthew 19:9
in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship in
Africa” in Ilorin Journal of Religious
Studies, Ijourels, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014.
Lyttleton, Edward. “The Teaching of Christ about Divorce”

in The Journal of Theological Studies,
Vol. 5, No. 20, U.S.A: Oxford University
Press, 1904.
Accessed October, 2022.
91
Vawter, Bruce. “Divorce and the New Testament” in
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol.
39, No. 4, 1977.
Accessed March, 2023.
Internet Sources
Abarim Publications. Greek New Testament concordance of

the verbαπολυω-page1(abarim
publications.com) Accessed June 29,
2022.
Barber, Michael. “Jesus as the “Fulfillment” of the Law
and His Teaching on Divorce in
Matthew” in Letter & Spirit 9, 2014.
(PDF) Jesus as the "Fulfillment" of the
Law and His Teaching on Divorce in
Matthew | Michael P Barber -
Academia.edu Accessed March 27,
2023.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. “The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some

Palestinian Evidence.” Theological
Studies, Vol. 37, 1976.
37.2.1.pdf (theologicalstudies.net)
Accessed May 17, 2022.
Halakic. Jewish Law and Jurisprudence based on

the Talmud, Halakha - Wikipedia
Gates, Diane. What Does the Bible Say About Divorce?

AreThereBiblicalGrounds?
(biblestudytools.com) March 28, 2019,
Kuyper, John. “‘Hardness of Heart according to

Biblical Perspective” in Scottish Journal
of Theology / Vol. 27 / Issue 04 /
November 1974,
http://journals.cambridge.org/
abstract_S0036930600034268, Accessed
October 15, 2022.
92
Mark, Regazzi. “The Delimitation of Pericopes: A Case
Study in Matthew”, Dissertations, 2000
https://digitalcommons.andrews.
edu/dissertations/135
Stiles, Steven. Jesus’ Fulfilment of the Torah and

Prophets: Inherited Writing Strategies
and Torah Interpretation in
Matthew's Gospel, New Testament
Language, Literature and Theology,
Ph.D., University of Edinburgh, 2017,
http://hdl.handle.net/1842/33212
Sander, Fred. The Structure of Matthew’s Gospel, Feb.

11, 2011, The Structure of Matthew's
Gospel - The ScriptoriumDaily
Accessed April 29, 2022.
Strong’s Hebrew Online Dictionary Project.

Strong'sHebrew:3748-‫תּו יתִכְּכ‬-kriythuwth-
divorce(-ment)(web-ministry.com)
Vörös, Győző. “Beyond the Behead of John the Baptist”

Biblical Archaeology Society;
- Biblical Archaeology Society Accessed
June 17, 2022.
93

Ovie James Emorireh, Jesus' Teaching On Marriage and Divorce in Matthew 19:3-9: An Exegesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ovie James Emorireh, Jesus' Teaching On Marriage and Divorce in Matthew 19:3-9: An Exegesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JESUS’ TEACHING ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN MATTHEW 19:3-9:

OVIE, JAMES EMORIREH

BEING AN ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY,

ST. ALBERT THE GREAT MAJOR SEMINARY, IDOWU-OFFONRAN, IN

PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

THE BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN THEOLOGY.

MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN MATTHEW 19:3-9: AN EXEGESIS;

Idowu-Offonran, in affiliation with the Pontifical Urban University, Rome in partial

the original research carried out by me: James Emorireh, OVIE

Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my household, that

I thank my Superiors in the persons of His Lordship, Most Revd. Anthony O.

I am grateful also to my siblings, especially Edwin Onoriode Ovie, Hon. Godwin

James Emorireh, OVIE

0.1 The Background to Research====================================ix

0.2 The Statement of Problem======================================xi

0.3 The Aim/Purpose of Research===================================xii

0.4 The Scope of Research========================================xii

0.5 The Methodology of Research ==================================xii

0.6 The Division of Research======================================xiii

The Background to Matthean Gospel

1.2 Historical Origins: ===========================================1

1.2.1 Authorship/Audience/ Occasion==============================1

1.2.2 Source/ Date/Place of Composition============================4

1.4 The Matthean Theology: =======================================9

1.4.1 Unique Message.=========================================9

1.4.2 Theological Emphases ====================================10

Literature Review on Matthew 19:3-9

2.2 Shirley Jackson =============================================14

2.3 John Kilgallen= =============================================14

2.4 Robert Gundry==============================================15

2.5 Donald Carson==============================================17

2.6 Phil Hill ==================================================18

2.7 Honore Sewakpo ============================================19

2.8 Fermin Lopez ==============================================20

2.9 Michael Barber =============================================22

Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-9

3.2 Delimitation of Text==========================================24

3.3 The Unity/Genre/Form of the Text================================25

3.4 The Social-Political and Social-Religious Situation of the Text ===========29

3.4.1 The Social-Political Situation of the Text======================29

3.5 Immediate Context of the Text ================================= 31

3.6 Analysis of the Matthean Text 19:3-9 =============================32

3.7 Rèsumè ==================================================48

Interpretation and Word Study in Matthew 19:3-9

4.1 Introduction ===============================================50

4.2 The Understanding of ἀπολῦσαι in the Old Testament==================50

4.4 The Hardness of Heart-τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν

(Matt 19:8/Deut. 10:16; 33:6) ================================57

4.5 What does πορνείᾳ mean in the Matthean Text?======================60

4.6 Rèsumè ==================================================62

The Theology of Matthew 19:3-9

5.2 Matthean Theology of Marriage=================================64

5.3 Matthean Theology of Divorce =================================67

5.4 The Relevance of Matthean Study ===============================69

5.5 General Conclusion==========================================71

0.1 The Background to Research

This essay is an exegesis of Jesus’ teaching on ‘Marriage and Divorce in

flesh.3 It is God’s initiative, and a covenant. According to the biblical creation

in ‘Systematic Theology’, it is opined that “marriage belongs to the order of creation

animals he found in the woman.5

Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she

meant to safeguard the woman in a culturally patriarchal society.14

Shammai still disagreed on the interpretation of something indecent. This explains