The Watchtower's Narrow Reading of Matthew 19:9 — and Its Pastoral Cost

Do not open with accusation. Open with a question, as an apologist who respects the text and wants to understand the Witness reading. Then gently make three exegetical moves. First: the Greek word porneia in Matthew 19:9 has a wider semantic range than "adultery" alone — it covers sexual sin generally, and the Reformed tradition has historically read it in light of the whole canon rather than narrowing it to one act. Second: Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:15 adds abandonment as a recognised ground — "if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." Historic Reformed and Protestant teaching has held porneia and abandonment together as two biblical grounds, and most traditions also recognise physical abuse under the "no longer husband" provision (a husband who assaults his wife has functionally broken the covenant). Third: the pastoral consequence of the narrow Watchtower reading is that battered spouses, spouses of alcoholics, spouses of the emotionally destructive — have no legitimate exit with the right to remarry. Some testimony reports document sisters counselled to remain in dangerous homes. Acknowledge honestly that historic Christianity has also sometimes failed abuse victims — this is not a uniquely JW problem. But the Watchtower's formal judicial enforcement through disfellowshipping makes the cost structurally higher for a Witness than for most Protestants today. Close by asking the Witness whether they personally know a sister in a difficult marriage, and whether they have ever felt uncomfortable with the narrowness of the teaching. You are not trying to win a debate. You are planting the seed of pastoral compassion.

Matthew 19:9 is the core text and I take it seriously. The question is what porneia covers, and how it relates to the rest of Paul's teaching on marriage. In Koine Greek, porneia is a broad term for sexual immorality in general, not just adulterous intercourse. The word encompasses a range of sexual sin. Jesus used the broad term rather than moichaia (which means adultery specifically), and that choice matters for interpretation. The Reformed tradition has historically read porneia in its full semantic range and in light of the whole canon — including what Paul teaches about marriage in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 7:15 says "if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." Paul is adding a second biblical ground for the dissolution of a marriage — abandonment. Read 1 Corinthians 7:15 in Greek: when the unbelieving spouse departs, the believer "is not under bondage" (ou dedoulotai). That phrase, in both Jewish marriage law and Roman legal usage of the period, did not mean merely "you are no longer required to live together" — it meant the marriage contract is voided. If the contract is void, the believer is no longer bound. If they are no longer bound, they are no longer married in the eyes of God. And if they are no longer married, they are free to remarry. The Watchtower's "separation only, no remarriage" reading flattens the Greek and removes the relief Paul intended. Historic Reformed and mainline Protestant teaching has read Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7 together, and concluded that scripture recognises two grounds: porneia and desertion. That is not softening the Bible to please people — that is holding all of scripture together. The Watchtower reads Matthew 19:9 in isolation, and the cost of that isolation falls on real spouses.

This is the hardest pastoral question, and I will not pretend it is an easy text. Most Reformed and Protestant traditions read physical abuse under the "no longer husband" principle — a husband who systematically assaults his wife has functionally broken the marriage covenant, and Paul's teaching in Ephesians 5 that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church is not a decorative verse; it is the covenantal definition of husbandship. A man who beats his wife is not functioning as a husband in any scriptural sense. Most contemporary Reformed pastors would counsel separation for safety, and many would recognise divorce with the right to remarry as biblical in ongoing abuse cases. Now let me ask you: under Watchtower teaching, what happens if a sister is being beaten and divorces for safety? Can she later remarry without a judicial committee?

That is the pastoral cost I am pointing to. A sister trapped in an abusive marriage has, under strict Watchtower teaching, two options: endure unresolved, or lose her right to remarry. She cannot have a full fresh start. And if she divorces and eventually remarries anyway, she faces a judicial committee and potential disfellowshipping — which costs her her family and her community. That is not a pastoral environment for abuse victims. I say this with sadness, not with any joy. Historic Christianity has also sometimes failed abuse victims — I will not claim we have been perfect. But the formal judicial enforcement in the Watchtower makes the cost structurally higher for the Witness sister than for most Protestants today.

I am not softening the standard. I hold to the biblical teaching that marriage is designed for lifelong union, that divorce is always a grief, and that Matthew 19:9 is a real text. What I am asking is whether porneia is the whole of scripture's teaching on marital dissolution, or whether Paul's apostolic teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 is also scripture. If 1 Corinthians 7:15 is inspired, it belongs in the reading. The Reformed position is not lower standards — it is a fuller reading of all the biblical material. And the test is whether the fruit of that reading is justice for the vulnerable or further harm to them. Matthew 7:16 — by their fruits. Ask yourself honestly: what fruit does the narrow reading produce for a battered sister?

I understand the concern and I take it seriously — too-easy divorce is a real sin of our age and I do not defend it. But protecting marriages and protecting abused spouses are not in conflict. The historic Protestant pastoral judgement has been that a covenant broken by abuse or abandonment is a covenant already dissolved — the paperwork simply recognises what the abuser has already done. That is not opening a loophole. It is reading the whole Bible with honest eyes. And it is worth asking: have you ever known a sister in a difficult marriage who felt she had nowhere to go? The question is not theoretical. This is about real people at your Kingdom Hall.

That is exactly the conversation Reformed pastors have been having for centuries, and the answer requires careful biblical reasoning rather than a simple word count. Yes, Matthew 19:9 names porneia. But the whole canon of Scripture defines what marriage is, and what makes a husband actually a husband. Ephesians 5 commands husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" — that is the role of the husband, the office. A man who systematically abuses his wife has not just failed at husbanding; he has vacated the office. He is no more her husband, in the biblical sense, than a man who has abandoned the home. This is not adding to Scripture; it is reading Matthew 19 in the light of what Scripture says marriage is. 1 Corinthians 7:15's "not under bondage" applies, because functional abandonment — whether physical or through abuse — is still abandonment. The pastoral question for the Watchtower is: does Jehovah, who is called a refuge for the oppressed, really require a battered woman to choose between staying in danger and facing a judicial committee?

Yes. I am not defending every Christian tradition's handling of divorce through history. Catholic annulment processes have been abused. Some Protestant churches have drifted into too-easy divorce. Others have been too harsh. I am not claiming Christian history is perfect here. What I am claiming is that at its best, Reformed and confessional Protestant pastoral teaching has held two biblical grounds (porneia and abandonment), has taken abuse seriously, and has not required abused spouses to choose between their safety and their remarriage rights. And where we have failed, we can be corrected — scripture is the authority, and any church that strays can be called back. That self-correcting capacity is itself a biblical fruit worth valuing.

Read Matthew 19:9 within the whole exchange with the Pharisees, and 1 Corinthians 7:15 within the chapter, until you can explain both without notes; add Ephesians 5 on what a husband is called to be. Check in a lexicon or a good commentary what porneia covers and how it differs from the specific word for adultery, so you can say it simply. Read both verses in the NWT on jw.org so you know the wording the Witness will quote. Practise the doorstep question as a real pastoral question, not a trap. Rehearse the "she can separate but not remarry" reply in a tone of sadness, not victory, and be ready for a personal story where listening is the right response.