Did Jesus give us an exception for divorce due to adultery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deidre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deidre

Guest
If anybody can help me answer this question, I’d much appreciate it!!

I belong to an interfaith bible study. The other day we were discussing Matthew 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” My Protestant friends say in this verse, Jesus makes an allowance for divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery. I know the Catholic Church doesn’t interpret the verse that way, but I really couldn’t explain why not. Can someone help me out here? I’d much appreciate it !!

Thanks
 
40.png
Deidre:
If anybody can help me answer this question, I’d much appreciate it!!

I belong to an interfaith bible study. The other day we were discussing Matthew 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” My Protestant friends say in this verse, Jesus makes an allowance for divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery.
Click to expand...
While I understand how they can explain away divorce, how do they justify “remarriage”, since Christ said whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery?

Staying apart might possibly be justified, but once married, one stays married until death, and remarriage is not permitted until then.

hurst
 
This “exception” in Matthew 19:9, isn’t really an exception. If one reads this verse carefully, paying special attention to the punctuation, you will notice that although divorce may be allowed for marital unfaithfulness (the Greek word is pornea), remarriage even in the case of this “exception” is not allowed. If remarriage were allowed, the exception clause would be located after the statement about remarriage rather than before it. Again, the problem is not with the divorce, but the remarriage.
 
The Greek word used in the exception clause, porneia, is not the ordinary Greek word for adultery but has the more general meaning of “illicit sexual intercourse” and could refer to:
a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Leviticus 18.
c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mark 10:11.
It is a matter of interpretation which of these meanings the Gospel writer had in mind.

Personally, I think the exception clause refers back to the case in which St. Joseph found himself in Matthew 1:18-19. Before he and the Virgin Mary had consumated their marriage, she was found with child. Thus, I understand the exception clause to mean that the partners of unconsummated marriages may divorce and remarry.
 
Todd: I think it was a different matter in St. Joseph’s case. Remember that divorce and remarriage WAS permitted under the Law of Moses. Natural marraiges can be dissolved (hence the Pauline privilege applies even today), sacramental marriages can not. As the Church had not yet been instituted, Mary and Joseph would have entered into a natural marriage.
 
Thanks everybody! I think I can work with this!!! It’s making sense now!
 
40.png
Deidre:
If anybody can help me answer this question, I’d much appreciate it!!

I belong to an interfaith bible study. The other day we were discussing Matthew 5:32 “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” My Protestant friends say in this verse, Jesus makes an allowance for divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery. I know the Catholic Church doesn’t interpret the verse that way, but I really couldn’t explain why not. Can someone help me out here? I’d much appreciate it !!

Thanks
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church interprets this verse exactly the way it is written.

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

Divorce for unfaithfulness is accepted as grounds. But no remarriage is ever allowed except as stated later on when one seeks to be reunited to their husband or wife.

“My Protestant friends say in this verse, Jesus makes an allowance for divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery.”

The "and remarriage " is not part of the words ospoken by Jesus.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
The Catholic Church interprets this verse exactly the way it is written.

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

Divorce for unfaithfulness is accepted as grounds. But no remarriage is ever allowed except as stated later on when one seeks to be reunited to their husband or wife.

“My Protestant friends say in this verse, Jesus makes an allowance for divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery.”

The "and remarriage " is not part of the words ospoken by Jesus.
Click to expand...
But by that reasoning if a man divorced his wife for a reason other than infidelity, she automatically becomes an adultress? What is she was not to remarry nor seek any sexual relationships after her husband divorced her for whatever unjustified reason? Obvously she could be divorced and then live chastely, and then would not be an adultress. But Jesus says a woman divorced for an unjustified reason becomes an adultress? Don’t you think then, that Jesus is speaking on the assumption that she would remarry and THEN become an adultress?

Now if divorce is allowed by Jesus and justified only in one case, then it definitely exists and can be justified in one instance. So why would the woman unjustly divorced who remarries become an adultress; she was divorced, right? It has to be because the reason for the divorce was unjust, and therefore invalid in the eyes of God, making the remaried divorcee an adultress. But also it is then possible for the wife to live chastely as a divorcee and not commit adultery, right? Because then to God she is justly divorced.

“and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” Why woud Jesus be speaking of the exception to the rule as opposed to this supposed unjustly divorced woman, who then remarries or has intercourse and becomes an adultress? The man she has relations with or marries automatically then becomes an adulterer as Jesus says because she is not justly divorced in God’s Eyes. It stands to reason that Jesus was speaking about the woman, who by Mosaic law was divorced, but who Jesus did not consider as such, who becomes the adultress and the man she is with. Why even mention a just case for divorce if it technically changes nothing for the divorcees?

If I’m wrong I’m totally fine with that, and I’m not trying to contradict Church teaching, but t seems to be counterintuitive and if not totally counter to logic then at least seems to be counter to reasonable interpretation.?? :confused:
 
The KJV has:

------------ Matthew 5:32 ------------
32 But I say unto you, That
whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery.

“saving for the cause of fornication”.
If his wife was unfaithful, why is it called fornication?. Shouldn’t it be called adultery?

The original word is pornea
As one writers says:
These two examples make it possible, if not likely, that porneia, as well as bearing the generic meaning of impurity, had in certain circumstances the technical meaning of marriage within certain degrees of kinship forbidden by Jewish law. Among the Gentiles there was no restriction on the matter, and marriage between near relatives was not unusual. But it was the Jewish custom which was eventually taken over by the Church, where a marriage of this kind was regarded as being one in name only and in reality as illicit a union as plain fornication. The use of the same word porneia in the context of a dispute about marriage makes it at least possible (more and more scholars today think that it is certain) that the text of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 refers to such illicit unions and excepts from the general law of indissolubility those “marriages” which were already null and void through forbidden degrees of kinship. The text then could be paraphrased: “If anyone divorces his wife, he may not marry again, except when his marriage was not a real one at all, but had only the appearance of one.”

In other words, if the marriage was not valid to begin with, only then they can get a divorce.

As another writer put it: “The word ‘unchastity’ contained in Mt 19:9 is poorly translated. The Greek word found here is ‘pornea,’ which meant incest 2000 years ago. So in another words, there is no divorce unless the couple are related to each other like a father and his daughter, a mother and her son, or an uncle and his niece etc. In other words, a incestuous marriage is not a marriage at all.”

Thus, Jesus permits divorce only in invalid marriages, since they were not real marriages to begin with.
 
40.png
RPConover:
But by that reasoning if a man divorced his wife for a reason other than infidelity, she automatically becomes an adultress? What is she was not to remarry nor seek any sexual relationships after her husband divorced her for whatever unjustified reason? Obvously she could be divorced and then live chastely, and then would not be an adultress. But Jesus says a woman divorced for an unjustified reason becomes an adultress? Don’t you think then, that Jesus is speaking on the assumption that she would remarry and THEN become an adultress?

Now if divorce is allowed by Jesus and justified only in one case, then it definitely exists and can be justified in one instance. So why would the woman unjustly divorced who remarries become an adultress; she was divorced, right? It has to be because the reason for the divorce was unjust, and therefore invalid in the eyes of God, making the remaried divorcee an adultress. But also it is then possible for the wife to live chastely as a divorcee and not commit adultery, right? Because then to God she is justly divorced.

“and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” Why woud Jesus be speaking of the exception to the rule as opposed to this supposed unjustly divorced woman, who then remarries or has intercourse and becomes an adultress? The man she has relations with or marries automatically then becomes an adulterer as Jesus says because she is not justly divorced in God’s Eyes. It stands to reason that Jesus was speaking about the woman, who by Mosaic law was divorced, but who Jesus did not consider as such, who becomes the adultress and the man she is with. Why even mention a just case for divorce if it technically changes nothing for the divorcees?

If I’m wrong I’m totally fine with that, and I’m not trying to contradict Church teaching, but t seems to be counterintuitive and if not totally counter to logic then at least seems to be counter to reasonable interpretation.?? :confused:
Click to expand...
Thinking with a 2000 year old Jewish hat on. A woman Married a man an becomes his wife. She leaves her family. If he divorces her she cannot return to her family, She has no means of supporting herself in any legitimate way. The only alternative for her is prostitution. So divorce is not acceptable because it forces her into adultery.
 
40.png
dcdurel:
The KJV has:

------------ Matthew 5:32 ------------
32 But I say unto you, That
whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery.

“saving for the cause of fornication”.
If his wife was unfaithful, why is it called fornication?. Shouldn’t it be called adultery?

The original word is pornea
As one writers says:
These two examples make it possible, if not likely, that porneia, as well as bearing the generic meaning of impurity, had in certain circumstances the technical meaning of marriage within certain degrees of kinship forbidden by Jewish law. Among the Gentiles there was no restriction on the matter, and marriage between near relatives was not unusual. But it was the Jewish custom which was eventually taken over by the Church, where a marriage of this kind was regarded as being one in name only and in reality as illicit a union as plain fornication. The use of the same word porneia in the context of a dispute about marriage makes it at least possible (more and more scholars today think that it is certain) that the text of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 refers to such illicit unions and excepts from the general law of indissolubility those “marriages” which were already null and void through forbidden degrees of kinship. The text then could be paraphrased: “If anyone divorces his wife, he may not marry again, except when his marriage was not a real one at all, but had only the appearance of one.”

In other words, if the marriage was not valid to begin with, only then they can get a divorce.

As another writer put it: “The word ‘unchastity’ contained in Mt 19:9 is poorly translated. The Greek word found here is ‘pornea,’ which meant incest 2000 years ago. So in another words, there is no divorce unless the couple are related to each other like a father and his daughter, a mother and her son, or an uncle and his niece etc. In other words, a incestuous marriage is not a marriage at all.”

Thus, Jesus permits divorce only in invalid marriages, since they were not real marriages to begin with.
Click to expand...
I agree with the statement that Christ does not permit divorce, but if porneia meant incest 2,000 years ago, that would mean that fornication is nowhere condemned in Scripture.
 
40.png
twf:
Todd: I think it was a different matter in St. Joseph’s case. Remember that divorce and remarriage WAS permitted under the Law of Moses. Natural marraiges can be dissolved (hence the Pauline privilege applies even today), sacramental marriages can not. As the Church had not yet been instituted, Mary and Joseph would have entered into a natural marriage.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it was a different matter for St. Joseph. St. Joseph was an observant Jew following the letter of the Mosaic Law like the Scribes and Pharisees but he was also “a righteous man” (Matthew 1:19) whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting was wholly conformed to the will of God. Being a righetous man, St. Joseph would have followed the higher standards of the law of Christ regarding marriage which admits no divorce for a valid (and consummated) marriage. (Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4-12).

Matthew’s Gospel is the only Gospel that mentions St. Joseph’s decision to divorce the Virgin Mary and it is the only Gospel that includes the exception clause. Without the exception clause explaining how it was in accord with the will of God, righteous St. Joseph’s decision to divorce the Virgin Mary because she was found to be with child before they lived together would have appeared unrighteous to Matthew’s audience, a contradiction.
 
desiringgod.org/library/topics/divorce_remarriage/div_rem_paper.html

John Piper’s opinion on divorce and remarriage is not written from a Catholic perspective, but it (as far as I know) upholds the Catholic teaching. It also goes into detail on the porneia argument.

This paper was the first crack in my Protestant armor, actually. I deeply respect John Piper, and to see him adopt a Catholic viewpoint, scripturally, and to stand up for it against pretty much all of Protestantism gave me the courage to look for more places where the Catholic teaching might be the correct one.

You can see where that path has led me 🙂

Jeremy
 
OK then, how about a question about this situation.

Unkown to me at the time, my wife had several affairs over several years. She soon filed for divorce after I found out. She married one of the people she had an affair with.

I’m finally ready to seek an annulment after three years of divorce. (I fought the divorce and begged her to stay.) If, shall we say, she “slept over” one night, would I be commiting a sin? And if so, how?

I understand she is currently committing adultry by marrying this other person. Does this mean she would not be commiting adultry by sleeping with me? Is it because she is in an invalid marriage with someone else? Would I be commiting a sin by “hurting” another marriage, whether it is valid or not?

BTW, this is just speculation. I hope I would never be so weak as to let her spend the night.
 
40.png
ttg:
OK then, how about a question about this situation.

Unkown to me at the time, my wife had several affairs over several years. She soon filed for divorce after I found out. She married one of the people she had an affair with.
Click to expand...
If you were married in the Church, then you are still married to her.
40.png
ttg:
I’m finally ready to seek an annulment after three years of divorce. (I fought the divorce and begged her to stay.)
Click to expand...
Why seek an annulment?
40.png
ttg:
If, shall we say, she “slept over” one night, would I be commiting a sin? And if so, how?
Click to expand...
a) If you believe your marriage was valid from the beginning, this would not be a sin, but an opportunity for reconciliation
b) If you expect to get an annulment, then I don’t know the answer.
c) If you already had an annulment, then it would be a sin of course because she wouldn’t be your wife.

In fact, getting an annulment means that all past relations were essentially done outside of marriage, because an annulment says that you were never validly married to begin with.
40.png
ttg:
I understand she is currently committing adultry by marrying this other person. Does this mean she would not be commiting adultry by sleeping with me?
Click to expand...
Correct.
40.png
ttg:
Is it because she is in an invalid marriage with someone else?
Click to expand...
Yes.
40.png
ttg:
Would I be commiting a sin by “hurting” another marriage, whether it is valid or not?
Click to expand...
No. They are not married, they merely have a legalized affair. Would you be afraid of hurting her affair by having legitimate relations with her?
40.png
ttg:
BTW, this is just speculation. I hope I would never be so weak as to let her spend the night.
Click to expand...
Weak? If it is for reconciliation, then that is not weakness.

No matter how much she has hurt you, if she comes back take her in, regardless of whether you can trust her to stay. I am not saying to trust her word or anything. I am saying to give her God’s love for as long as she chooses to stay. Do it for the sake of your vow and your honor to God, not for her. Give her a chance to make up for her errors for the sake of God’s love in you, not because she deserves it (she doesn’t). Over time, if she does humble herself, a new relationship could be built, and new trust could possibly form. But the bedrock of a relationship is one’s commitment to God and the desire to love others for the love of God.

hurst
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top