A Note on the Translation of
poieiÍ au)th\n moixeuqh=nai
("causes her to commit adultery")
in Matthew 5:32

Gary D. Collier

February 3, 1999

e)gwÜ de\ le/gw u(miÍn oÀti pa=j o( a)polu/wn th\n gunaiÍka au)tou= parekto\j lo/gou pornei¿aj poieiÍ au)th\n moixeuqh=nai, kaiì oÁj e)a\n a)polelume/nhn gamh/sv moixa=tai.

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the matter of harlotry, forces her into adultery; and whoever marries a woman who has been divorced is guilty of adultery.

The form moixeuqh/nai ("to be guilty of adultery, to commit adultery,") is an aorist passive infinitive (only here in the NT). It is generally translated as a verb which indicates the woman's action, "makes her commit adultery" (KJV, NASV, TEV, and others), or as a verb which indicates her subsequent status, "makes her an adulteress" (RSV, NRSV, ASV, and ERV). The NIV translates "causes her to become an adulteress."

R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Matthew's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 232-35, objects to this practice, energetically arguing that it should rather be translated as "has been adulterated," exculpating the wife of any wrong doing (cf., NEB: "involves her in adultery"). He further notes that, "No attempt is made to prove that the passive forms of this verb have the same sense as the active." He is followed in this by John Edwards, An In Depth Study, 123-131, who also cites S. Zodhiates, What About Divorce? (Chattanooga: A. M. G.), 130-34.

Unfortunately, Zodhiates gives inaccurate information about the occurrences of the passive forms of moixeu/w in the NT, and Lenski's charge is at least outdated (perhaps he based his study on lexicons that did not list extra-biblical sources). BAGD 526 notes numerous instances in which the passive form is common in reference to the adulteress, the one "with whom" adultery is committed. Among other examples, see Sirach 23:23; Philo, Decalogue 124; and Josephus, Antiquities 7:131. In addition to these, see Lev. 20:10 and Jn. 8:4 (although Jn. 8:4 could be understood as a middle, this is not the case with Lev. 20:10 which tranlsates a Hebrew active. See below.)

Surely, the situation has been stated correctly by Davies/Allison, Matthew, 528f: "The unstated assumption is that the woman will remarry." This point is very important, inasmuch as (1) Deut 24:1ff is the text directly under review and it clearly indicates the remarriage of the divorced women — a life of "remaining single" after divorce was not a consideration in the Deuteronomy text; (2) the husband is blamed for forcing his wife into that situation; and (3) the point is not that "divorce is allowed, but remarriage is adultery," the point is that divorce in the first place results in adultery. So, it is the practice of divorce and of justifying it by Scripture that are under attack in Matthew 5.

It is important to see in Matt 5:32 that the charge is against the husband who uses Scripture to justify the divorce: he is responsible for forcing his wife into adultery. Many people miss this point. According to Jesus, the one who views Deut 24:1ff as a law which makes divorce legal (and so divorces his wife using Deut 24 as a sanction) breaks the very intent of the law and forces his wife into adultery. The husband is at fault and therefore is held responsible for causing adultery. Even though she ends up guilty of adultery, the husband is blamed for it. (The notion that the wife is merely "tainted" with adultery and is somehow not guilty or responsible is not a part of this text.)

The point here is about translating the passive voice of the verb moixeu/w: Let us look at two texts from the Septuagint (LXX) which use our word in the passive voice.

First, Lev 20:10 (LXX and MT) can be helpful here since, in Greek, the active, middle, and passive voices of this verb are all three used in one sentence to translate the Hebrew active voices! Note the LXX text first, followed by a comparison of the Hebrew and Greek (OT) texts:

Lev. 20:10 (LXX)
aÃnqrwpoj oÁj aÄn moixeu/shtai [Aor MID Subj 3s]
Every man who adultrates himself

gunaiÍka a)ndro\j hÄ oÁj aÄn moixeu/shtai [Aor MID Subj 3s]
with the wife of a man, or who adultrates himself

gunaiÍka tou= plhsi¿on qana/t% qanatou/sqwsan
with the wife of his neighbor, let them die the death

o( moixeu/wn [Pres ACT Part ms]
[both] the man who commits adultery

kaiì h( moixeuome/nh [Pres PASS Part fs]
and the woman who commits adultery

Heb: And a man who COMMITS ADULTERY [Qal (act) Impf 3ms]
LXX: And a man who COMMITS ADULTERY [Aor MID Subj 3s]

Heb: w/the wife of a man [or] who COMMITS ADULTERY [Q act Impf 3ms]
LXX: w/ the wife of a husband or who COMMITS ADULTERY [Aor MID Subj 3s]

Heb: w/the wife of his neighbor, let them die the death
LXX: w/the wife of his neighbor, let them die the death

Heb: [both] the "man who COMMITS ADULTERY" [Qal act Part ms]
LXX: [both] the "man who COMMITS ADULTERY" [Pres ACT Part nms]

Heb: and the "woman who COMMITS ADULTERY" [Qal act Part fs]
LXX: and the "woman who COMMITS ADULTERY" [Pres PASS Part nfs]

Second, in Sirach 23:23 (LXX) a woman who leaves her husband and provides an heir by a stanger is described thus:

prw½ton me\n ga\r e)n no/m% u(yi¿stou h)pei¿qhsen kaiì deu/teron ei¹j aÃndra au)th=j e)plhmme/lhsen kaiì to\ tri¿ton e)n pornei¿# e)moixeu/qh kaiì e)c a)llotri¿ou a)ndro\j te/kna pare/sthsen

First, she has disobeyed the law of the Most High; second, she has committed an offence against her husband; and third, in harlotry she has become guilty of adultery and has had children by a different husband.

The verb e)moixeu/qh (Aor Pass Indic 3 sg) does not refer to anything which has been brought upon her by another, even though it is in the passive voice. Instead, the verb refers to her status as a result of her own actions: she has become guilty of adultery. This example provides a close parallel to Matt. 5:32, even if the specific situations are very different.

There are other examples. The point here is that the LXX is not making subtle differences between active, middle, and passive voices on this verb. In the first example, the Greek active, middle, and passive forms of this verb are used to translate the Hebrew active voice. When this is coupled with other classical and hellenistic references which use the passive form in similar ways as Lev 20:10 and Sirach 23:23, then one must be cautious about reading too much into the alteration of voices for this particular verb. (See Liddell/Scott's classical lexicon p. 1141 for specific references to ancient texts with moixeuqh=nai [aor pass inf] et al for women who are guilty of adultery.)

Lenski's argument that the divorced wife is merely "adulterated" and somehow exculpated cannot be sustained. The bottom line is that moixeuqh/nai, though passive, is well translated with an active sense: "to commit adultery," or better still with a sense that focuses less on an action than a status: "to be guilty of adultery."

The context of Matt. 5:32 is best understood, not as an attempt to define every manner in which one might become guilty of adultery, or as an attempt to distinguish between divorce and remarriage so as to precisely locate adultery (e.g., at remarriage?), but as an attempt to condemn those who would use Scripture itself to justify or sanction the practice of divorce. Just because Deut. 24:1ff offers instructions on a divorce decree (says Jesus) does not mean that Scripture should be used to justify the practice or pursuit of divorce. In the same way, just because Matt. 5:32 uses the aroist passive moixeuqh/nai does not mean that the real issue to be discovered is whether the woman (in this case) is an innocent or guilty party. It is always a danger that in focusing on technicalities we will miss the major concern of a text. The point, here, is rather simple: Using scripture to justify or sanction what God has never wanted is always wrong and always causes terrible problems!

For Matthew, divorce is clearly against the desire of God. In this context, the phrase poieiÍ au)th\n moixeuqh=nai is well translated as "forces her into adultery," or "forces her to become guilty of adultery." The concern of the context is not on exactly how this happens, or on precisely what she does that brings about the status, "adultery," but on the actions of the husband in using the law to justify divorce in the first place. Whatever her status, it is not what God wanted; and the husband is the one who caused it by his abuse of Scripture.

Return to
E-Publications Table of Contents