Catholics, what does Matthew's exception clause mean?

[Todd_Easton]

I think it more than a coincidence that of the three gospel writers (Matthew, Mark and Luke) who mention Jesus’ teaching on divorce, Matthew is the only one to add an exception clause and also the only one who mentions Joseph’s intention to divorce his wife, Mary, when he discovered that she was pregnant before they started living together as husband and wife, i.e., before they had consummated their marriage. Perhaps Matthew included the exception clause for Joseph’s sake. Matthew described Joseph as a righteous man. How could Matthew then attribute to Joseph what would otherwise be the unrighteous intention of divorcing his wife, if there was not some sort of exception to the general prohibition against divorce that was applicable in Joseph’s case? And, what was special about Joseph and Mary’s marriage? They had not yet consummated their marriage when her pregnancy was discovered. If this understanding is correct, then the exception clause is only applicable to unconsummated marriages where some sort of unchastity has been discovered.

Even today the Catholic Church, for a serious reason and with the pope’s approval, permits Catholics to divorce with the possibility of remarriage in the case of unconsummated marriages.

 

[rcwitness]

I agree that this would be a situation of “porneia”, since the marriage is not consumated.

Other examples are a non believing spouse, sex with a prostitute, homosexual relationships, incestual unions, and unconsentual vows.

I think we can safely know that Joseph’s situation was not relying on Moses’ concession of divorce, since Joseph was acting justly and NOT out of a hard heartedness.

 

[rcwitness]

If Matthew was telling us that Jesus allowed divorce for the situation of Joseph and Mary, then He wasnt condemning Moses’ rule completely, but agreeing with those who saw adultery as grounds for divorce. And if so, then remarriage was possible according to the same rule of Moses.

 

[Elf01]

We see the condition as invalidity rather than adultery.

 

[rcwitness]

We see the condition as invalidity rather than adultery.

If that is true, then Matthew was NOT including this for the situation of Joseph and Mary, since their marriage was in fact binding. It was a valid marriage.

 

[Elf01]

Indeed. We can infer that adultery was not the exception because by itself it is not grounds for an annulment.

 

[rcwitness]

So Joseph was NOT relying on a bill of divorce which allowed for remarriage? This I wont dispute, but how would we be able to know that?

How would we be able to tell those who say “porneia” used by Matthew meant that adultery was a means to dissolve a marriage, and that is what Joseph did, and was relying on Moses’ concession in Deuteronomy, that in fact Joseph was dismissing her but still bound by marriage?

 

[Gorgias]

If Matthew was telling us that Jesus allowed divorce for the situation of Joseph and Mary

Jesus was making an assertion for the present and future, and not retroactively.

So Joseph was NOT relying on a bill of divorce which allowed for remarriage?

Pretty clear that he was thinking of divorce in the context of Mosaic law.

How would we be able to tell those who say “porneia” used by Matthew meant that adultery was a means to dissolve a marriage, and that is what Joseph did

Nope. You’re being anachronistic here. Joseph was not relying on Matthew’s narrative of Jesus’ discussion on marriage and divorce. Rather, he was relying on the provisions of the Mosaic law, which were in force for him at that point, prior to even the birth of Jesus!

that in fact Joseph was dismissing her but still bound by marriage?

That was not part of the Mosaic prescription on divorce, which is what Joseph was following.