Divorce and the Meaning of Porneia

[rcwitness]

Here’s a link that may clarify some points in a more technical manner. It is, to me, a logical conclusion to say that divorce was permitted for adultery (instead of stoning), but just because one is divorced from an adulterer, the marriage bond would still be in place such that the victim shouldn’t remarry, neither should the adulterer. So, the spouse would be freed from the other, but as the other still lives, the bond is actually still there in a sense.

Matthew 19 Pulpit Commentary You have to scroll down for verse 9.

Well, then you are talking about separation, right. Not actual divorce. This would apply to an adultery which has not been reconciled for. The adulterer would not have the normal rights of marriage until reconciled.

If this is what you mean (I’ll read the article when I get some time), then the Catholic faith does recognize this. As Paul does in 1 Cor. 7

 

[Wesrock]

But again, the context and who He is speaking to are Jews still under the old covenant, and that is underscored by the talk of Moses and what he allowed. Divorce for adultery would not have been discussed because divorce was not the “answer” to adultery then, stoning was, which then freed the spouse to remarry. In essence, no, adultery wasn’t referred to as a divorce-able offense because it was a kill-able offense under the law, no one would have questioned adultery as a divorce-able offense because you could literally legally stone your spouse if they committed adultery.

While stoning was the prescribed punishment under the Old Law, and no doubt sometimes carried out, this doesn’t reflect the situation in the first century. The competing schools of thought of that time were that a husband could divorce in cases of adultery or that a husband could divorce his wife for any perceived slight/deficiency. The fact that divorcing in cases of adultery was already a widely discussed and practiced belief underscores the reaction of Jesus’ disciples. If Jesus had been making an exception only for adultery, which was already agreed on by significant numbers, that would not be anything new or too hard to bear.

 

[1ke]

Am I either missing something

Yes.

This article is from 2014. There are various church prelates (mostly in Europe) who are advocating for a “solution” for the divorced and (civilly) remarried Catholics to be admitted back to Holy Communion.

A divorced Catholic can receive communion and fully participate in the life of the Church (after confession for any role they played in the demise of the marriage). A divorced and *civilly remarried Catholic without a decree of nullity *cannot.

Pope Francis called for a synod to discuss marriage and family. The peanut gallery was ripe with rumors and speculation that this synod would “change” church teaching. That the synod would do something to “smooth it over” with divorced and remarried Catholics to bring them back to the fold without annulment.

All pointless speculation. All ruffled feathers for nothing. Opinion articles such as this defending the traditional Church teaching on marriage and arguing against the “supposed” changes were numerous during 2014-- none of those dire predictions actually materialized, even those with “sources” were basically wrong.

So, yeah, you are missing all the sausage making that goes on in the human side of the church-- those who have diverse opinions, speculate, feed on rumors, and such.

 

[Kliska]

Well, then you are talking about separation, right. Not actual divorce. This would apply to an adultery which has not been reconciled for. The adulterer would not have the normal rights of marriage until reconciled.

If this is what you mean (I’ll read the article when I get some time), then the Catholic faith does recognize this. As Paul does in 1 Cor. 7

That’s what I’m understanding it to be as well, though it would be a “legal” divorce in that the adulterer would have no right over the properties, etc… of the victim spouse. That’s where there is an entanglement that would have to be unraveled between civil situations and spiritual realities.

I’ve argued for quite some time that the Church (by that I mean all of us that actually do believe as the Bible teaches in this case) made a mistake in places like the US where we basically agreed the civil authorities had a “right” to dictate who is and is not Married. Marriage was meant to be a spiritual reality and we handed it over to non-spiritual systems. We would never think the civil authorities could dictate who and who is not baptized, but now marriage is both legally and spiritually linked, hence we find ourselves in a society where the government now says a man and a man can be married.

While stoning was the prescribed punishment under the Old Law, and no doubt sometimes carried out, this doesn’t reflect the situation in the first century. The competing schools of thought of that time were that a husband could divorce in cases of adultery or that a husband could divorce his wife for any perceived slight/deficiency. The fact that divorcing in cases of adultery was already a widely discussed and practiced belief underscores the reaction of Jesus’ disciples. If Jesus had been making an exception only for adultery, which was already agreed on by significant numbers, that would not be anything new or too hard to bear.

Right, there were 2 main schools of thought; a strict rule of divorce, and a liberal one. The thing that was shocking was that they were now locked in and as we follow Jesus’ teaching that meant even a valid legal divorce, or “separation” meant even the victim spouse couldn’t get remarried as long as the adulterer were living. There was no way of breaking the marital bond in a spiritual way. That was a new teaching because stoning became a no-no.

 

[Kliska]

Yes.

This article is from 2014. There are various church prelates (mostly in Europe) who are advocating for a “solution” for the divorced and (civilly) remarried Catholics to be admitted back to Holy Communion.

A divorced Catholic can receive communion and fully participate in the life of the Church (after confession for any role they played in the demise of the marriage). A divorced and *civilly remarried Catholic without a decree of nullity *cannot.

Pope Francis called for a synod to discuss marriage and family. The peanut gallery was ripe with rumors and speculation that this synod would “change” church teaching. That the synod would do something to “smooth it over” with divorced and remarried Catholics to bring them back to the fold without annulment.

All pointless speculation. All ruffled feathers for nothing. Opinion articles such as this defending the traditional Church teaching on marriage and arguing against the “supposed” changes were numerous during 2014-- none of those dire predictions actually materialized, even those with “sources” were basically wrong.

So, yeah, you are missing all the sausage making that goes on in the human side of the church-- those who have diverse opinions, speculate, feed on rumors, and such.

Then I wasn’t missing something, the author was misrepresenting the official stance.

 

[rcwitness]

Then I wasn’t missing something, the author was misrepresenting the official stance.

These articles are frustrating. They cleverly (or just ignorrantly) give impressions that lead to conclusions that build up other conclusions, and so on.

 

[1ke]

Then I wasn’t missing something, the author was misrepresenting the official stance.

The author is arguing against a change, defending Church doctrine. It gets a little confused in the way he’s written the refutation.

 

[rcwitness]

The author is arguing against a change, defending Church doctrine. It gets a little confused in the way he’s written the refutation.

But giving impressions that the Catholic Church wants to change and is making steps towards it.

 

[1ke]

But giving impressions that the Catholic Church wants to change and is making steps towards it.

Yes, but to be fair First Things audience is fellow Catholics, and those who are up on these sorts of things.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, but to be fair First Things audience is fellow Catholics, and those who are up on these sorts of things.

I’m up on the Synods, encyclicals, the Catechism and ETWN (and knew the date was prior to the Synod on the family), and it was confusing because I do know that many lay people were pushing for fundamental changes and were getting mad that they weren’t happening. This article made it seem like the changes either already happened or were a sure thing, and the author was a voice crying in the wilderness. Hence, my confusion. The uniformed would just assume the RCC had already moved to change a fundamental doctrine and move on.

 

[Duane1966]

From the website that I posted earlier.

1. Jesus is Presenting a Radical Teaching

For those who claim that Jesus is creating an exception for adultery (or for sexual infidelity or immorality), consider the Biblical context. The Pharisees asked, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Mt. 19:3).

This question arose out of a dispute between two Jewish schools. Deuteronomy 24:1 permitted a man to divorce his wife if “he has found some indecency in her.” Was this indecency referring to adultery, or any fault? The great rabbi Hillel the Elder had claimed that it permitted divorce for any indecency, opening the door to divorces over completely trivial matters. More conservative rabbis claimed that the indecency in question was adultery. So those were the two camps (and basically, the Protestant positions today).

**If Jesus was saying that there’s an exception for divorce, all He had to do is say that the conservative camp was right. **But He doesn’t. Jesus rejects both camps, saying (Mt. 19:4-9):

“Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”

So Jesus calls us back to the indissolubility of marriage, the Pharisees invoke Deuteronomy 24:1,** and Jesus revokes the adultery exception to restore marriage to its state prior to the Law.
**
This teaching is so radical that His shocked Apostles say “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (Mt. 19:10). And Jesus doesn’t disagree, instead using the opportunity to call those who can handle it to the ideal of celibacy (Mt. 19:11-12). The reaction of the Apostles makes no sense if Jesus is just saying that the pre-Hillel Jewish divorce laws apply. Nor does Jesus’ repudiation of the Mosaic exception.

1. The “Infidelity Exception” is Contrary to Scripture

Whether you argue that Matthew’s Gospel contains an exception allowing divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery, infidelity, or any other instance, you’re going to run into a huge Gospel harmonization problem. Here’s what Luke 16:18 says on marriage:

Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

That’s it. There’s nothing before or after this verse to mitigate its punch: it’s an absolute prohibition against divorce and remarriage. We see this absolute prohibition in Mark 10:11-12 as well.

To hold to the adultery exception is to hold that Jesus taught one thing (divorce and remarriage is okay in some cases) to the Jewish readers of Matthew’s Gospel, while teaching a contradictory thing (divorce and remarriage is never okay) to the Gentile readers of Mark’s Gospel. No faithful Christian can hold to such an incoherent position, since it amounts to claiming that either Matthew or Mark and Luke are presenting a false teaching.

Even leaving aside the impossibility of harmonizing the “infidelity exception” with Mark and Luke’s Gospel, how can one harmonize it with the rest of Matthew’s own Gospel? In Matthew 19:6, right before the verse in question, Jesus says that the spouses “are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”**

 

[Vanny]

Hi rcwitness,

I’m familiar with John Piper (from the link in your post). He also believes the following…

*Those who are already remarried:

1. Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness.
2. Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above).
3. Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God’s eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God’s will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.*

source: desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper

I completely agree with John Piper.

In His Grace

I actually was going to share this article from John Piper when I was researching the various churches stances on divorce/remarriage.
I also agree with John Piper.

 

[rcwitness]

From the website that I posted earlier.

I did read through that article. Thanks.

I actually enjoyed reading the article from my original post because it was refreshing to see a genuine interpretation from non-Catholic Christians. I’m not saying they were necessarily able to interpret this without the Church’s long standing interpretation somewhere in their conscience. But it was an honest and Christ compelled study and conclusion.

It isn’t necessary for a believer to blindly depend on the magisterium for Scripture understanding. And a parent they don’t have it all figured out, either. But the article was a noble search for correct doctrine, and they found it. I hope they further this faith and enjoy what the Church has to offer through full communion of faith!

 

[In_His_Grace]

I actually was going to share this article from John Piper when I was researching the various churches stances on divorce/remarriage.
I also agree with John Piper.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. When I was discerning whether or not to convert to Catholicism (a 3 year process) the issue of divorce and remarriage was the catalyst that forced me to deal with all the doubts I was having about the Catholic Church and in the end drove me back to my “protestant” roots.

In His Grace

 

[rcwitness]

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. When I was discerning whether or not to convert to Catholicism (a 3 year process) the issue of divorce and remarriage was the catalyst that forced me to deal with all the doubts I was having about the Catholic Church and in the end drove me back to my “protestant” roots.

In His Grace

I think a part of this thread is revealing the fact that Protestants are all over the board on this issue (and no not only this issue).

You seem to be a little at odds with yourself. You confess divorce and remarriage to be sin, and then admit the Church’s prohibition of this sin pushed you into a Protestant community which does not prohibit it.

Please take my thoughts as not separate from caring about your personal situation.

 

[In_His_Grace]

I think a part of this thread is revealing the fact that Protestants are all over the board on this issue (and no not only this issue).

You seem to be a little at odds with yourself. You confess divorce and remarriage to be sin, and then admit the Church’s prohibition of this sin pushed you into a Protestant community which does not prohibit it.

Please take my thoughts as not separate from caring about your personal situation.

Please read my post again. I clearly stated that “…the issue of divorce and remarriage was the catalyst that forced me to deal with all the doubts I was having about the Catholic Church…”. My decision not to convert to Catholicism runs much deeper then any one single issue. You are a caring, compassionate person rcwitness and I consider you to be my brother in Christ.

In His Grace

 

[rcwitness]

I read another interesting article about the study of the exception clause in Matthew, here:
logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP2095-Divorce-Fornication-porneia.htm

What do you think about this?

 

[Monica4316]

Hi rcwitness,

I’m familiar with John Piper (from the link in your post). He also believes the following…

*Those who are already remarried:

1. Should acknowledge that the choice to remarry and the act of entering a second marriage was sin, and confess it as such and seek forgiveness.
2. Should not attempt to return to the first partner after entering a second union (see 8.2 above).
3. Should not separate and live as single people thinking that this would result in less sin because all their sexual relations are acts of adultery. The Bible does not give prescriptions for this particular case, but it does treat second marriages as having significant standing in God’s eyes. That is, there were promises made and there has been a union formed. It should not have been formed, but it was. It is not to be taken lightly. Promises are to be kept, and the union is to be sanctified to God. While not the ideal state, staying in a second marriage is God’s will for a couple and their ongoing relations should not be looked on as adulterous.*

source: desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper

I completely agree with John Piper.

In His Grace

I disagree that couples who are remarried should continue to live as couples … since they are still married to the first spouse, (until death), their second vow is invalid… only valid vows are binding. If they are repentant for the remarriage, they should live celibately because how can we be truly sorry for something if we keep doing the same ?

 

[Monica4316]

Sounds appropriate

This attempt should have already been made, and is reliant on the other spouse to accomplish. It is an open ended reconciliation until death. Just as we have in Christ.

This is a personal decision. If John, or any church authority, wishes to instruct the person involved, that is them assuming the guidance of Christ.

I would have to consult Catholic Law, since it pertains to the Law. But, being Catholic, I wouldn’t be in that situation, since there is a process of annulment, if the first marriage was deemed invalid.

Thanks for sharing.

A Catholic priest would deny absolution to someone not living as brother and sister in an invalid marriage… they’d have to intend to live celibately first - that is the Church teaching. It’s not up to a personal decision, there is a clear right and wrong in the Church teaching

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks for that honest answer. I’ll try to return the respect.

I sometimes feel… “uneasy” about annulment because of what you even questioned. Are they really just a divorce?

But I do think I probably don’t know enough about the decisions made and why they are made in so many cases. On principle, it makes sense. But what assures the Church that God has truly NOT united these couple into Holy Matrimony?

Like a lot of things, it comes down to Her authority, and ability to Confirm matters infallibly. And I know the individual cases are conditional on the information provided the Tribunal. So, it’s not so cut and dry. And the Church may not try to make it out to be. Only, She stands by the profession that Sacramental marriage is in fact indissoluable. There is no changing what God has joined, so long as they are living.

There needs to be a reason that prevented the couples from being truly married at all… since the Sacrament is conferred on each other through the spouses, there would be something missing in their intent that is fundamental to matrimony