Bible Teaching on Divorce?

[donnyblake]

A Protestant friend of mine insists there is Scripture to support the fact that divorce for reasons of adultery or abuse is allowed by God. I told her divorce is always wrong in God’s eyes and it would be adultery to divorce and remarry. I think she is probably referring to Moses in the OT. I believe in the NT Jesus makes it clear divorce is never allowed, under any circumstances, even adultery or abuse. Can someone help me with the Scripture my friend is thinking of where it states divorce is allowed under certain coditions, and the Scripture I can combat that with that says divorce is always sinful and wrong. Thanks a lot.

 

[KCT]

Divorce is not always wrong in God’s eyes. An abused woman does not have to stay and be abused.

You are correct, though, that divorce and remarriage (w/o annulment) is wrong. Divorce alone is not. —KCT

 

[donnyblake]

Anyone know the Scripture on divorce to support it? Thanks.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Matthew 19 and Mark 10 both have sayings of Jesus concerning divorce. The “loophole” the OP’s friend is referring to comes in Matt 19:9 when Jesus says: I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for [marital unfaithfulness], and marries another woman commits adultery.

What the NIV has translated there as “marital unfaithfulness” and the KJV and Douay-Rheims render “fornication” is a more expansive Greek word “porneia” that is more of a blanket term for illicit sexual activity - it covers both adultery and incest; this leads some commentators to believe it refers to situations that would have rendered the marriage invalid to begin with (impediments to marriage). Others argue that the “except it be for fornication” is more of a parenthetical reference to a case when divorce would be licit, but not remarriage.

At any rate, we can trust the Church’s authoritative teaching on divorce and remarriage as a guide to our interpretation of the passage: since we know it is sinful to divorce and remarry, we know the Scriptures at this ambiguous point must not be trying to create a case where this is okay to do.

 

[FCEGM]

A Protestant friend of mine insists there is Scripture to support the fact that divorce for reasons of adultery or abuse is allowed by God. I told her divorce is always wrong in God’s eyes and it would be adultery to divorce and remarry. I think she is probably referring to Moses in the OT. I believe in the NT Jesus makes it clear divorce is never allowed, under any circumstances, even adultery or abuse. Can someone help me with the Scripture my friend is thinking of where it states divorce is allowed under certain coditions, and the Scripture I can combat that with that says divorce is always sinful and wrong. Thanks a lot.

What Andreas said.

The word sometimes translated as “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is the Greek word “porneia”; a more accurate translation is “unchastity” or “illicit marriage”. The Lord here is absolutely not giving an exception to His forbidding divorce. He is speaking here of those who have engaged in an already illicit (both morally and legally) “marriage.” Therefore, for such couples to “divorce” is allowed since they are not actually married in the first place.

This footnote from The Navarre Bible: Matthew is of help:

[The RSVCE carries a note which reads: ‘unchastity’: The Law of Moses (Deut. 24:1), which was laid down in ancient times, had tolerated divorce due to the hardness of heart of the early Hebrews. But it had not specific clearly the grounds on which divorce might be obtained. The rabbis worked out different sorts of interpretations, depending on which school they belonged to – solutions ranging from very lax to quite rigid. In all cases, only husband could repudiate wife, not vice-versa. A woman’s inferior position was eased somewhat by the device of a written document whereby the husband freed the repudiated woman to marry again if she wished. Against these rabbinical interpretations, Jesus re-established the original indissolubility of marriage as God instituted it (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; cf. Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 1:31; 1 Cor. 7:10)… . .The Greek word used here [“*porneia

”] appears to refer to marriages which were not legally marriages, because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev. 18:6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase ‘except on the ground of unchastity’ does not occur in the parallel passage in Luke 16:18. See also Matthew 19:9 (Mark 10:11-12), and especially 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.] The phrase, ‘except on the ground of unchastity’, should not be taken as indicating an exception to the principle of the absolutely indissolubility of marriage which Jesus has just re-established. It is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law and in rabbinical tradition. The reference, then is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment. When persons in this position were converted to the true faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage. Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather affirms it.

On the basis of Jesus’ teaching and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church has ruled that in the specially grave case of adultery it is permissible for a married couple to separate, but without the marriage bond being dissolved; therefore, neither party may contract a new marriage. The Navarre Bible: St. Matthew, Four Courts Press, 1988.

 

[kcnorcal]

What Andreas said.

The word sometimes translated as “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is the Greek word “porneia”; a more accurate translation is “unchastity” or “illicit marriage”. The Lord here is absolutely not giving an exception to His forbidding divorce. He is speaking here of those who have engaged in an already illicit (both morally and legally) “marriage.” Therefore, for such couples to “divorce” is allowed since they are not actually married in the first place.

This footnote from The Navarre Bible: Matthew is of help:

I am wondering in this day and age if “unchastity” has a broader meaning, because certain forms of sexual behavior, i.e. contraception, contraceptive acts, substitute behavior for intercourse open to life (don’t know how to say this tactfully) are so common, even among people presenting themselves to be married in the Church. It seems to me that these would have been practiced only by pagans, at least openly. It seems that even between two persons of an acceptable degree of consanguinity, if they had embraced a pagan VIEW of marriage and a pagan VIEW of fertility and sexual practices, that this would also be porneia, or unchastity, or unlawful marriage. This is in keeping with a few recent articles posted on Catholic Exchange by persons working on marriage tribunals. All these authors have reported that almost always, nowadays, the core cause of the marriage not really being one, or “failing”, was contraceptive or antilife sexual practices along with premarital sex and cohabitation, all of which are part of the same big lie, that so many Catholics bought into in the 1970s to 1990s. What do ya’ll think? Have any biblical scholars commented on this? There is such a big discussion about homosexual “marriage” currently, and one of the homosexual arguments often raised (and I heard this one by a nun! God have mercy on us!) that heterosexual couples engage in the same acts that are not open to life, so that makes homosexual behavior and “love” and “marriage” on a part with heterosexual marriage. This is tricky, but there is a certain internal consistency to it, and only the Catholic Church has a consistent response----which is that any disordered sexual acts are wrong. I think a true understanding of this scripture has implications that go much farther and could bring abundant light and blessings to many areas, beyond just divorce and annulments. I would like to possibly venture out and write an article about this because I think it is an underrecognized problem and a part of the big lie that has yet to be fully exposed, and from which many heterosexuals, not just homosexuals, need to be healed. I am interested to hear what others think, and I am judging no one, only care about all people getting healing, God’s understanding of sexuality and family, and hope. It is difficult to post about this without being crude or unnecessarily detailed, which would be dishonorable in itself, so if anyone has any ideas of wording to be clear but honorable and not scandalous that would be better than what I have written, I would like to know.

Kathleen in CA

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First to Donny,

As pointed out in the final paragraph of the Navarre commentary, the Catholic church does permit divorce (while encouraging, rather reconciliation) in the case of adultery-- because the church recognizes the depth of damage that adultery causes to a marriage.

I am going to speak from a theological perspective for a few moments.

The permanency of marriage is not based primarily on human considerations, but on divine. We are the image of God – most especially, as a church – we are the bride of Jesus whom was brought forth from his side on the cross. In promising faithfulness and permanence to us by marrying his bride (singular), Jesus set a standard for his church.

To claim that a spouse can become bored with their mate, and take another – is tantamount to representing the possibility that God himself could grow weary – and divorce his bride. Salvation goes down the drain…

This image is the primary reason that one can’t take a low view of marriage without undercutting the very promises that God has made to us.

A meditation on divorce, adultery, and “pornea” is to be found in the OT book of Hosea as well as the NT scriptures cited by the Navarre commentary.

This subject is extremely difficult because it bleeds into so many other issues of salvation history. Onanism is another issue which comes to mind – as Kathy partially expresses in her post with respect to marital union – which begins to address the DUTIES of marriage, as well as the physical reward God has given as part of that covenant.

I know from experience that a protestant argument will tend to spiral around the hard heartedness of not allowing a woman whose fault it wasn’t – to find comfort in another man’s arms. Or again, from previous CAF arguments – how that once they are divorce the feat is accomplished, and the sin is a point in time.

I have also seen Catholics use the same arguments when a flirtation has raised their passions after a nasty divorce.
What you are dealing with is more than an intellectual scripture argument – it’s an emotional appeal to guilt which is being played with. So long as the standard is human, the ability to spin the argument will be a large part of the discussion.

 

[runandsew]

It is the remarriage that causes adultery.

Even the early church fathers noticed the peculiar way the passage is written in Matthew 19:9

“And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.”

It is written as if to say that you can not divorce except for the case of unchastity, but in any case you may not remarry for any reason.

Again, this is not a new notion of the passage, even Origen noticed that this passage was worded in a strange way, though he didn’t speculate why it was written that way in his commentary.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Kathleen,

As far as scripture scholars go … I have the head of a “Catholic” institution making a comment which will cause you to roll on the floor laughing (or crying). The premarital part – has historical Jewish twists (supposedly), which prefigure the Catholic marriage principles expressed by Jesus and end up in polygamy. This same person acts as an advocate, apparently, at annulment tribunerals…

There are many things about pornea which could bear examination in today’s culture. But there is also a very strong use of rhetoric by people purposely trying to manipulate their spouses, partners, culture, etc. and I think healing is not always a self help item.

Within marriage (not to mention outside of it), there are duties, pleasures, children, barrenness, depression (false understandings / false guilt), Onanism (and some details which are not clear), concupiscence and the role it plays with respect to marriage.
I tend to think marriage law and theology are some of the most difficult things to really understand within the church.

Feel free to PM me, and hold a private conversation. But this is a difficult subject to fit into an article – and book sized subjects don’t reach the junk food culture mentality. It is an interesting Idea, as I don’t think Christopher west did it full justice – and Pope John Paul’s theology of the body – though excellent – is definitely out of reach for many readers.