As we understand it, adultery is not about money; it is about ‘pleasure’ between two people, at least one of whom is married. Full stop. That is how Christians interpret the Bible. However, in the past, the issue was different, and, above all, it was not so much linked to ‘pleasure’. Biblically speaking, adultery was only possible if a man (whether married or not) slept with a married woman. A married man who slept with an unmarried woman was in most cases obliged to assume his responsibilities, i.e. to take her as his wife (for exceptions, see my book or read the Bible carefully). In the case of rape, the man was sentenced to death. As we have seen, a wife (even if she had been a slave until marriage) could obtain a divorce if the husband did not treat her well. A divorced former slave remained free. However, according to Jesus, a husband could not divorce his wife unless she had committed an act bordering on adultery. The question was a delicate one, because the legal wording in the Torah is vague, especially as in the case of true adultery, both the woman and the man could theoretically be executed. But in practice, the law was not necessarily applied. The Mosaic law rightly gave rise to debate, especially as God himself had ordered Abraham to listen to the voice of his wife Sarah and divorce Hagar, his second wive. In this particular case, the divorce was pronounced by God's command for hereditary reasons and not because of adultery.
The problem of adultery is illustrated in the following text (Sirach 23.22-24):
‘Similarly the woman unfaithful to her husband, who provides him with an heir by another man: first, she has disobeyed the Law of the Most High; secondly, she has been false to her husband; and thirdly, she has gone whoring in adultery and conceived children by another man. She will be led before the assembly, an enquiry will be held about her children.’
The text is not concerned with any kind of pleasure, but with descent. In those days there was no contraception. Making love often meant making a baby. It wasn't ‘making a baby’ that was the problem, but ‘taking care of it’. If you're already a parent, you'll have noticed that raising children is expensive. In the context of Matthew 19:9, the Pharisees confront Jesus with the situation where a man would divorce his wife lightly (i.e. without a legally valid reason). In the case of minor marital problems, the biblical solution would have been to marry another woman, not to replace her. 
We have more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts (copies of the original texts) of the New Testament, which contain certain variations. The differences between these versions amount to less than 1 per cent. The authenticity of the New Testament is therefore, on the whole, extremely reliable. The most widespread group of manuscripts, accounting for between 80 and 90 per cent, is known as the ‘majority text’. The Reformers (King James, Luther) translated the Bible using a version called the ‘Textus Receptus’, which forms part of the majority text. Most modern Bibles are based on a text which, although belonging to the minority, is regarded by some scholars as the most reliable (Nestle-Aland). This is a matter of debate. The reason I mention this is as follows: Matthew 19:9, translated according to the Nestle-Aland edition, reads as follows: 
‘I say to you: Whoever divorces his wife – except for fornication – and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’ 
However, the majority text is undoubtedly more reliable here, as it differs on the following point: 
‘… whoever divorces his wife – except for fornication – and marries another, compels her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’ 
This detail is important, for Jesus makes the following point: in a world where the financial burden rested solely on the shoulders of husbands, a woman could only survive if she belonged to a man. A girl was eligible for marriage from the age of 12, a boy from the age of 13. That may seem extremely early to us, but the basic idea was that a child reached the age of majority as soon as they were capable of procreation. The responsibility for providing for the family fell to the father only until his daughters came of age. A woman who had been cast out therefore had to remarry. By becoming another man’s wife, her ex-husband was, in a sense, forcing her into adultery, since according to the law (as interpreted by Jesus) she should not have been allowed to be divorced. The Greek ‘majority text’ uses the passive infinitive here (ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι): the woman is powerless; she is made an adulteress against her will. It is her ex-husband who forces her to remarry. At first glance, explaining the slight difference between the majority text and that of Nestle-Aland might seem like splitting hairs. Yet it is of fundamental importance, as fanatical hardcore theologians such as John MacArthur or the late Erich Mauerhofer, who proudly claim to be faithful to the Word of God, deduce from this verse that a divorced man must remain unmarried, as remarriage would constitute adultery. It is on the basis of this verse (and its parallel passages) that marriage in the Catholic Church remains indissoluble to this day. And indeed, for more than three decades, adultery and divorce (taken together) ranked second on my list of sins, just after murder. Read Matthew 19:9 once more in a translation based on the Nestle-Aland edition: 
‘Whoever divorces his wife – except for fornication – and marries another commits adultery.’ 
Translated in this way, this text also serves as evidence that Jesus would have been a proponent of monogamy, since having two wives (especially at the same time) would constitute adultery. This is absurd from a biblical point of view, but makes sense from a monogamous perspective. This alteration of the text as handed down by Nestle-Aland is in fact the work of a later, monogamous copyist who had little to no understanding of the Jewish context of this passage and therefore believed he had to correct the text. This provides an argument in favour of the Gospel having been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The original readers of this text had no need of explanations, as they were familiar with its Jewish context. It was only later, when Israel no longer existed and when Christians of Roman (and therefore monogamous) origin became the rule rather than the exception, that Jesus’s argument began to seem confusing.
As for the end of the verse, the point Jesus is making is the same, but this time from the perspective of the future husband:
‘… and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’ 
According to Jesus, a woman who had been divorced lightly, against her will, could not be considered divorced. By marrying such a woman, the new husband would be committing adultery in the sense that the woman was technically still married. This is, of course, hypothetical. Jesus did not wish to impose the death penalty; his point was to emphasise the seriousness of a divorce carried out frivolously, through no fault of the woman’s own and against her will. Once again: if a woman was not treated well, she could file for divorce. Moses illustrated this using three criteria: food, clothing and sex. The whole issue revolved around the ease with which a woman could obtain a divorce (she was, after all, in the weaker position), whereas, according to Jesus’ view, only circumstances bordering on adultery gave a man the right to divorce his wife. Since a man was permitted to have several wives, he was in a position of superiority. Hillel’s interpretation of the Mosaic constitution (that a man could divorce his wife under any circumstances) made the already powerful man even more powerful, and the disadvantaged woman even more disadvantaged. The biblical law on divorce for women stood in stark contrast to Roman law, under which a woman remained under guardianship throughout her life and was divorced by her husband or father. It was not until the reign of Emperor Augustus that a woman could be released from guardianship if she had given birth to at least three children.
In my book, I will illustrate the problem of divorce and adultery using other revealing texts. There is one verse in particular in the prophet Malachi that is probably even more revealing than the one quoted at the beginning from Sirach. In this case, however, it is a passage that some experts call one of the most difficult verses to translate in the entire Old Testament. Faced with the difficulty of translating it correctly, the translators of our Bibles generally draw more on ecclesiastical thought than on the social problems that led the prophet to write the pericope in question.
By Chris Zürcher. Page updated on 24 January 2026