A Critique of John Murray's Argument for Divorce and Remarriage, Part II

John Murray argues in his book, Divorce, that porneia in the Matthean exception clause refers to adultery. The problem with this, however, is that the penalty for adultery in the law is death, not divorce.

In order to get around this, Murray simply argues that Jesus changed the law. The penalty that was once death is now divorce. The problem with this imaginative interpretation is that it ignores the context of Matthew is arguing about Jesus’ teaching concerning the moral law.

In Matthew 5:17-20, we read the following.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. Therefore, whosoever loosens one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do the same will be an outcast in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be highly honored in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!

This is an important passage in showing that Jesus did not come to do away with law by changing it either. Notice, not one yȏd or tittle will pass away from the law is parallel to what Jesus means by “abolish.” It is clear in the rest of the sermon (and Matthew in general) that He is referring to the moral obligations of the law and their penalties. He expands both what is required and the punishment thereof, rather than lessening them. This means the penalties are expanded from death to hell. 

It should further be understood that the expansion does not negate the original punishment, which still remains. It is additional to it, as the expansions of the laws do not negate what is required by the original laws, but instead extends them. The law against murder is expanded into even degrading speech toward one’s brother, but that in no way somehow changes the law so that the physical act of murdering one’s brother is now morally acceptable. In other words, the expansion does not replace the original command. Hence, disobedience to laws that require death if broken are not somehow abolished or changed into laws that require something lesser than the original punishment. They still require death as their punishment. They just are extended now into requiring eternal death in hell as well. 

The fact that Jesus is not changing the moral law, or its penalties, is so strongly stated that anyone who loosens (lusē), i.e., lessens the force of the original command, will be considered an outcast, which is explained by the statement that this is what the Pharisees are doing and are to be identified as those who will not enter the kingdom of God at all. In other words, the phrase “considered least” means to be “considered nothing,” “an outcast from the group,” “a person of dishonor,” and in this context, likely means “damned.” It’s a severe warning that foreshadows the judgment of the “lawless” or “negators of the law” at the end of the sermon.

Hence, Murray’s argument fails to understand the context of Matthew. This means that porneia cannot refer to adultery or even any sexual act that would require death in the OT. This means that the common interpretation that this refers to a bride who is discovered on her wedding night to have slept with another man before her wedding night cannot be the correct interpretation of porneia either, since the penalty for that premarital adultery is death as well. 

The only consistent understanding of the word is to take it as a Second Temple Jewish reader often would, i.e., to refer to illegitimate sexual acts (incest, homosexuality, etc.).