The Matthaean Exception Clause: A 21st Century Interpretation

Sexism in the Bible is not a new field of study; however each scholar takes it upon themselves to contribute new elements not yet considered in the body of literature. Sexism is usually defined as a predominance of patriarchal views which subjugate women. Of all literary works, the Bible is a major source in which patriarchal and sexist views are portrayed and justified. Recent scholarship posits that sexism in Christianity is more prevalent among Christian fundamentalists (Peek, Lowe & Williams 1991), with fundamentalism defined as interpreting the Bible as literal (Peek, Lowe & Williams 1991; Ammerman 1987; Jelen 1987). Although we live in a time of improving gender equality, Christians and Jews still use the Bible and Torah to justify certain limitations on women. One predominate limitation is coerced marital faithfulness despite the unsavory behavior of a woman's spouse. The Matthaean “exception clause” at the surface only allows for divorce if one fornicates, yet it doesn’t cover issues such as misrepresentation, criminal behavior, or marital rape. This study will expose the sexism postulated by literalist interpretations of Malachi 2:16, Matt 19:9, Mark 10:2-12, and Luke 16:18 and employ the method of “binding and loosing” to formulate a non-sexist, 21^st Century interpretation of the Matthaean “exception clause.” This interpretation will encompass the various domestic issues which compromise the bonds of matrimony.

I. The Justification of A New Interpretation

What is not suggested by a formulation of this interpretation is that the Bible is invalid. Rather the law given was necessary and narrowly tailored to suit the needs of the intended audience – the Jews at the respective time. Two factors necessitate the need for a new interpretation. First, the laws found in the law books of the Torah (i.e. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) have changed over time, that is, from book to book. Secondly, the Mosaic Law which governed the societies in which the Torah and the Gospels were written does not have jurisdiction in America. Form criticism will be employed to support the first assertion, while the fact that Mosaic Law doesn’t have jurisdiction in America is supported by the existence and acceptance of our constitution as fundamental law.

Form criticism asserts that Bible critics should first identify the genre of the particular text of interest, and second, identify the sociological factors surrounding the time of the text. The genre of the texts selected for this study is legal code. Based upon the limitations on women, one sociological factor affecting the writers of the Torah and the Gospels is the inequity of the treatment of women. It is evident that women were not regarded as equal citizens as (a) men are shown as leaders and women as followers (Peek et al. 1991, Neville 1974, Wilson 1973) and (b) women were not afforded equal protection under Mosaic Law. When a literalist interpretation of the aforementioned scriptures is applied, the interpreter binds women to the same limitations as did the Jews of the sixth century BCE to 85 ACE.

During this duration of time, the social norms and laws governing Jewish society evolved. Some believe that the Torah is consistent in its stance on subject matters, yet as one closely reads Exodus [written between 1279-1213 BCE], Leviticus [written after 586 BCE] and Deuteronomy [written in 622 BCE], there are differences in how Jewish communities regarded the same subject matter (Brettler 2007). For example, Brettler found that the Torah’s stance on slavery is inconsistent:

Most significant is the way in which Exodus differentiates between the treatment of male and female slaves whereas Deuteronomy insists that they should both be treated similarly. While Exodus and Deuteronomy agree that a slave who loves his master may opt to remain a slave ‘for life’ (Ex 21.6) or ‘forever’ (Deut 15.17), Lev. 25 insists that slavery does not really exist, since slaves must be treated ‘as hired or bound laborers,’ and they may only serve ‘until the year of jubilee’ (v.40). Such legal differences are not surprising once one is open to the hypotheses that the Bible is composite, and that the different legal collections reflect norms or ideals of different groups living in different times. (5)

It is indisputable that social norms have changed from Genesis (sixth century BCE) to Luke (85 ACE) and therefore interpretation must of necessity change also. If legal code adapted to the social norms of the time in which the specific code was written, why shouldn’t American’s interpret biblical code law pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which prohibits the abridgement and deprivation of “life, liberty, or property without due process of the law?”

II. Case Study: Marital Rape Justified By A Literalist Interpretation

A 1990 study conducted by Diana Russell showed that 10 to 14 percent of wives suffered marital rape. One of the causes of marital rape is the sexist view that wives belong to their husbands, therefore husbands are “entitled to sex” (Bergen 1996, Thio 2009, Ferro et al. 2008). Such views can be justified by literal interpretations of Genesis 3:16, 1 Corinthians 7:5, Ephesians 5:22-23, and Colossians 3:18-19.

Genesis 3:16 states, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (KJV). Notice the last charge to the women from God, and he [the husband] shall rule over her. Interpreting this scripture literally, just as a king can demand service from his subordinates, a husband can demand service from his wife. If the service happens to be sex, if she is unwilling he has the God given right to enforce his ruling. 1 Corinthians 7:5 reads, “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (KJV). The Apostle Paul is writing about sex and instructs them not to defraud or withhold sex from one another except it be with συμφωνος (consent). The Greek word συμφωνος means sounding together or accordant. This means that sex can only be withheld if both parties agree not to engage.

Literally, Paul writes that sex must occur as long as one desires it and can only be withheld if both agree to abstain. Paul writes in Ephesians 5:22-23, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (KJV). Paul equates the superiority of the husband over his wife to Christ’s superiority over the church. Ergo saying “no” to your husband is like saying “no” to Christ? Paul issues the same writ of mandamus to the Colossian Church as well. When these scriptures are put behind the back drop of the husband’s desire for sex, the wife has no choice but to let him “rule over her.” Yet in America, non-consensual sex is rape no matter if in or outside of wedlock. Which side should Americans propagate, 85 ACE or 21st Century civil standards? 

III. Binding and Loosing

According to Exodus 12:49, Mosaic Law was the fundamental law of Jewish civilization. Additionally, this law governed Jews and Gentiles which lived in the region of justiciability. The law handed down by Moses is vast yet it centers on the Ten Commandments given to the people of Israel. The additionally books of law were written in response to the needs of a growing society in which the original Ten Commandments were not sufficient to guide the society in all realms of righteous living. For example, the Ten Commandments didn’t address Priestly Order, Leviticus did. Health Codes were not addressed in the Ten Commandments, Leviticus and Deuteronomy expands Jewish Code Law regarding the same. Each Jewish era brought with it specific behavioral challenges in which Mosaic Law failed to determine the action’s lawful status. If this failure perpetuated, the legitimacy of Mosaic Law would cease. To prevent the loss of legitimacy, Rabbis, who had the right to adjudicate, would participate in “binding and loosing” (Drury 2008, Bell 2006, Powell 2003, Derrett 1983).