David Janzen wrote an article in 2001 that was published in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament on the meaning of porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.[1] In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce, Jesus only allows for divorce in cases of porneia. But what does this refer to? It’s usually translated as “adultery,” but the Greek word for adultery is moicheia. Porneia has a wider semantic rate, referring to a range of sexual sins. It can be used of adultery, incest, pre-marital sex, etc.
Janzen argues that Jesus’ use of porneia is best understood from the cultural context. In Jesus’ day, some argued that divorce could be obtained for any reason, while others argued that one must have just cause. All agreed, however, that the husband only had to return the wife’s dowry to her if had just cause for divorcing her. Jesus sided with those who taught that the only justification for divorce was a just cause. He identified that cause as porneia. What does porneia refer to? Is he referring to a wide range of sexual sins? Janzen argues that the cultural context makes it likely that porneia refers specifically to something akin to adultery. Why didn’t Matthew use moicheia, then? The most likely explanation is that Jesus did was not limiting the exception to sex with another person during the marriage (adultery), but was also including sex with another person during the betrothal period (which, in Jesus’ day, was as legally binding as marriage).
Check out the article: Porneia in Mt 5_32 and 19_9–Janzen
_____________________
[1]David Janzen, “The Meaning of Porneia in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9: An Approach From the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Culture,” in Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 2001; 23; 66; available from http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/80/66.
Thinking to Believe 
February 24, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Yahshua as The Prophet of Whom Moses spoke (Deuteronomy 18:15-19) consistently works to bring us back within the protective perimeter provided by God’s Torah/Instructions. Truly as He said, “I am the Good Shepherd’.
In the instance of Matthew 5:32 He manifests that aspect of His Ministry by exhorting us to adhere to foundational Scripture.
*Matthew 5:31, 32. “‘It hath been said’ is again a reference to the Old Testament commandment of Mosaic regulation (cf. Deut. 24:1). The normal custom of the ancient Near East was for a man to verbally divorce his wife. In contrast, the ancient law of Israel insisted on a writing of divorcement or certificate of divorce. This written statement gave legal protection to both the wife and the husband. Jesus explains elsewhere (cf. Matt. 19:8) that Moses’ concession was not intended to be taken as license. The only exception given by Christ is for the cause of fornication (Gr. porneia), meaning sexual unfaithfulness. These statements make it clear that adultery or fornication is a legitimate ground for divorce. However, the legitimacy of the divorce does not necessarily establish the legitimacy of remarriage. Scripture never commands that one must divorce an unfaithful wife or husband. On the contrary, there are many examples of extending forgiveness to the adulterous offender (cf. Gen. 38:26; Hos. 3:1; John 8:1-11). The responsibility of divorce is clearly laid upon the one seeking the divorce. ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife’ without biblical basis ’causeth her to commit adultery.’ Thus, the divorcer brings about an unjust suspicion upon the divorcee.”
A key element to understanding Yahshua’s admonition in Matthew 5:32 rests with the realization that He reverts to Torah: Deuteronomy 24:1-4; i.e., When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it her in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
* Deuteronomy 24:1-4. “The law of divorce is defined and described. ‘When’ is best translated ‘if’ and begins the conditional sentence. ‘Then let him’ should be translated ‘and he writes her,’ It continues the conditional element of the sentence and is not a command. ‘Uncleanness’ seems to be a technical term (lit., ‘nakedness’) but the meaning is no longer clear. In 23:14 the same word is used to designate something ‘unclean.’ However, other usage may mean ‘inadequate.’ Whatever the problem, it was not adultery, since this was punishable by death (22:22). That the couple in view is married, not merely betrothed, is clear from the context, as is the possibility of divorce and remarriage. If the wife was sent out (‘divorced’) by her husband she was free to marry another man, but was not permitted to divorce her second husband in order to return to her first one. To take her back would be an ‘abomination before the LORD.’ Such unchastity would then cause the land to sin (Lev. 18:25, 28; 19:29). The purpose of this law was to prevent hasty divorce, discourage adultery, and preserve marriage. The people of Jesus’ day took this permission to divorce as a promotion of divorce but Jesus reminded them that such was not God’s original plan [as written in God’s Torah] (Matt. 19:4-6), and that divorce was allowed by Moses only because of the ‘hardness of your hearts’ (Matt. 19:8).”
*Matthew 19:3-6. “The Pharisees come tempting Him with a difficult question. They want to test His wisdom with one of the most controversial questions of their day, and Jesus proves far superior to their expectations. ‘Is it lawful:’ They sought to challenge His interpretation of Mosaic Law in Deuteronomy 24:1-5, where a ‘bill of divorcement’ was required. The more strict school of Shammai held that divorce was lawful only upon a wife’s shameful conduct; whereas, the more liberal school of Hillel gave the widest possible allowances for divorce. [Yahshua again cites Torah] ‘Have ye not read:’ Jesus refers them to God’s original purpose in creation, that they should be ‘one flesh.’ Genesis 2:24 indicates that being one flesh is one new entity, and is not to be limited to sexual union. The Bible clearly indicates that sexual union does not itself constitute marriage, which is fundamentally a covenantal agreement between two partners for life (cf. Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14, ‘wife of thy covenant’).”
At this point Yahshua clarifies the ill conceived misconception of Pharisaical leaders; nullifying their takanot while instructing them in the one substantiated ground for divorce:
*Matthew 19:7-9. “The question ‘Why did Moses then command?’ reveals the misuse of Deuteronomy 24 by the Jews of Jesus’ day. Moses did not command divorce. He permitted it. God had instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. He is not the Author of divorce; man is its originator. However, to protect the Hebrew women from being taken advantage of by a verbal divorce, Moses commanded that it be done with a ‘writing of divorcement’, an official written contract, permitting remarriage. Some Jews tended to take this as an excuse or license to get divorced whenever they pleased. Therefore, Jesus gave one exception to the no-divorce intention of God [Matthew 19:6 ‘Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’], for fornication (Gr. porneia), ‘sexual sins,’ not to be limited to premarital sex only, but it includes all types of sexual sin, such as adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality. Among the Jews, only the male could divorce, so Mark 10:12 [‘And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.’] reverses the statement for His Gentile audience.”
Pertaining why Matthew’s Gospel account selects ‘porneia’ as opposed to “moicheia” for Yahshua’s operative word to identify His singular exception involving divorce it requires a study of the connotative & denotative meaning of “fornication”; its usage in Old Testament & New Testament context with particular attention to its significance concerning the act of idolatry/unfaithfulness & the condition of uncleanness/impurity. For that I refer you here: http://www.gotquestions.org/fornication-adultery.html
*The King James Study Bible references and notes copyright 1988 & Published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. {30 31 32 – 10 09 08 07}
LikeLike
November 25, 2019 at 11:31 am
What about sexual immorality that is carried out over a computer, as with use of live videos? Would this be included in the word porneia?
LikeLike
November 27, 2019 at 11:47 am
It is sexual sin, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is cause for divorce. Jesus said looking at a women with lust is a sexual sin, but clearly that is not grounds for divorce.
LikeLike
February 8, 2021 at 3:15 am
God divorced Israel for idolatry. I believe any form of on-going and unrepentant idolatry is truly grounds for divorce. Fornication may be the correct translation as in the KJV and we are trying to cram it into our modern understanding of our English word fornication. Porneia also means idolatry.
LikeLike