High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Permanence’s reading of Porneia and Moicheia in MatthewBy Charlie Albright
Introduction
In this article I want to explore the claims made by Permanence holders about Matthew’s usageof Porneia and Moicheia. The reason for this is because this is a very important part of thediscussion on divorce and remarriage. Is Matthew giving exceptions which allow divorce andremarriage or is he not? The answer has big ramifications about how Christians think and teachabout this pertinent issue with real people in our churches.Let me define the discussion which is going on. The traditional evangelical under standing of divorce and remarriage is that there is no legitimate divorce and remarriage except in twoconditions. Number one, that the person committed adultery and number two, if the personwanting out of the marriage is an unbeliever. Outside of these there are no biblical reasons for adivorce. Now there is a more conservative take that is coming up into the discussion. What has been called the Permanence view holds to the belief that there are no reasons for divorce and onecannot get remarried—no exceptions.
Thesis
This is not going to be a full on discussion about the two views. Instead this is going to be afocus on one particular part of the discussion. We are going to be focusing on Matthew’s usageof two Greek words Porneia (
πορνεία
) and Moicheia (
μοιχεία
). Even more specifically weare going to be looking at particular claims about how we are to understand these words inMatthew.The full arguments are going to be given below but sufficient for now to say now that the possible exception clauses in Matthew are important verses in the discussion. Matthew 5:32 and19:9 can seem to state that there are exceptions to the condemnation of divorce that allowsituational divorces and remarriages. We translate the Greek word for Porneia as sexualimmorality and the word Moicheia as adultery. So in these two verses the interpretation of thosetwo words is important. If one finds that the words mean something different then it would affecthow we read Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. So there is a big discussion about thosetwo verses.
Greek Language
Before we get into that I do want to say a word about working in the Greek language for thosethat don’t really know a lot about linguistic studies. When we enter the world of Greek weshould not think that we are entering into a mysterious world of enchantment. The language of
1
It does need to be stated that these are not “unclear verses.” Just because people have written a lot about themdoesn’t mean that the verses are confusing to understand like Paul’s mention the Corinthians baptizing for the dead(1 Corinthians 15:29). Paul, here, mentions something in passing where there is no way to determine what exactly hemeant. Unlike that, the verses in Matthew are clear in what they communicate. The problem comes is the difficultlyin fitting them in one’s views. Thus the problem is in the interpreters, not the verse.
Greek has consistent patterns just like we do in English. It is just that we don’t think how we usethe English language most of the time. We just do what we have absorbed from the use of thelanguage around us without thinking about it. But when we enter into the Greek world we haveto think about why people did what they did with the language. That is the difference. Now theywere consistent in the use of their language in different ways than we are consistent with ours.But the principle of needing to understand the consistency applies for both.This is not, as I stated before, some grand adventure into the mystical world of the Greek language. It is looking at the language to find consistent uses of words and grammar so we canget the most probable meaning from the author we are studying. It is like in English where youmay come across a word or phrase that you don’t understand. If you don’t have a dictionary toexplain it to you, you can go through the author’s work and see how he uses it. And you can thenthink about how the word is used in other books you have read such far. If the word is usedfrequently in books written during the same time or around you can get a good guess at how theauthor probably uses it. This is what we are doing with the Greek language. We do not have aGreek dictionary to simply look up how people used words. We have to study other usages of itand use that information to get the most probable meaning.
Body
With all that said let use dive into the discussion at hand. We are going to be looking into howwe should interpret the word meanings of Porneia (
πορνεία
) and Moicheia (
μοιχεία
) in the book of Matthew. More specifically, we are going to be looking at claims made by thePermanence holders about consistence patterns which shape our understanding of how the wordsare used. So, by looking at the Greek language we can ask the question, “are there patterns tohow we see the words used which gives us a picture of how Matthew used the words?”Here is the information we have and how the Permanence holders understand it. We have four texts where Matthew uses
μοιχεύω
(5:27, 28, 23; 19:18), two times where he uses
μοιχάω
(5:32; 19:9), and once where he uses
μοιχεία
(15:19). Then there are three times Matthew uses
πορνεία
(5:32; 15:19; 19:9).
The Claim by Permanence Holders
When the Permanence holder work through the verses about divorce and remarriage in Matthew(5:32, 19:9) they come away saying that Matthew has a usage of the words which has Moicheiaspeaking to martial adultery only and Porneia is speaking to extra-marital sexual immoralityonly. Then the step is made that the extra-marital sexual immorality the word in Matthew 5:32and 19:9 is speaking to is that of sexual immorality within the betrothal period of Jewishmarriage customs.
2
This is not to deny that an author can have a special usage that goes against the consistent pattern of what wewould find else where. But, for the most part people are consistent with the language.
3
Full articulations of the Permenance readings of these verse can be found in, Daryl Wingerd, Jim Elliff, JimChrisman, and Steve Burchett,
Divorce & Remarriage: a Permanence View
(Kansas City, MO: ChristianCommunicators Worldwide, 2009) 38-39.
How do they get here? There are two linguistic points. First, they observe that each timeMatthew uses Porneia it is used in close proximity to Moicheia, “Notice that each time Matthewuses Porneia (fornication), he also uses either moichiea (adultery) or a verb form.”
(None of them mention the issue that Matthew use two different words to refer to adultery). Second, the point is made that “in 15:19 he places the words, both in noun form right next to each other.”
What they do is construct a grid about how we should see Matthew using these terms. To refer back to what we talk about before they are claiming we see a pattern of consistency by which wecan interpret the words. They say that since it is the case that Porneia happens in close proximityto words that mean adultery (though they only acknowledge one) each time it is used then eachword has to have separate, non-overlapping meanings. So this grid creates what I would call“separate meanings” (SM) category for how Matthew uses the words. Each word has a separatemeaning that should not be blended on any occasion of use. An example of this in English would be “table” and “chair.” Even though they could be under the category of furniture one wouldnever call a chair a table. They have separate meanings. We could illustrate the usage like this:Here we see two words with separate meanings that should not be blended. So this is what is being claimed by the Permanence holders. Like how one would not look at a table and say chair so Matthew would not look at an adulterous act and say Porneia. From here they say that Porneiain Matthew should be seen as referring to immorality before or in the betrothal period inMatthew 5:32 and 19:9. That is the exception that Matthew is giving in those contexts.So we have a claim about how we should understand Matthew’s use of Porneia and Moicheia.Based upon how he uses the terms in other places we can come to conclude that he has a SM for each of the words.
4
Wingerd ,
Divorce & Remarriage,
39. Compare also John Piper, “The only other place besides Matthew5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneiais in 15:19 where it is used alongside of moicheia. Therefore,the primary contextual evidence for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different thanadultery.” John Piper,
Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper,
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper.
55
Wingerd ,
Divorce & Remarriage,
39.
PorneiaMoicheia
Add a Comment