Jesus and divorce

[Josh316]

As a Catholic I have always believed what the Church has taught about there being no such thing as divorce but doesn’t Jesus clearly state the exception when dealing with an unfaithful spouse in Mt. 19:12-13?

 

[joandarc2008]

As a Catholic I have always believed what the Church has taught about there being no such thing as divorce but doesn’t Jesus clearly state the exception when dealing with an unfaithful spouse in Mt. 19:12-13?

I would ask you first which translation you have. What these verses are talking about are explicitly the stuff that decrees of nullity are made out of. Literally the Greek word is “eunuch” which is castrated from birth. Earlier in Mt 5:31-32 it is porneia which means unless unlawful but in many Protestant Bible is mistranslated to unless there is adultery.

The verses that you asked about do not stand together in the Catholic translation - there is a heading break - but I will retype the NAB translation as it appears in the second study edition and we can go from here. I will also add 11 in for you as it flows better

Matthew 19 11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. 12, Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Blessing of the Children13 Then children were brought to im that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them,

 

[Josh316]

I apologize those were the verses that I used to explain the priesthood to my protestant brother. The verses I am talking about which I can’t remember specifically are a little earlier where it talks about Moses granting “divorce” because of their hardened hearts and Jesus replying that no man can seperate what God has joined when two have become one, but then in brackets “unless the spouse is unfaithful” or something very similar. And I own a NAB bible not a protestant version.

 

[joandarc2008]

I apologize those were the verses that I used to explain the priesthood to my protestant brother. The verses I am talking about which I can’t remember specifically are a little earlier where it talks about Moses granting “divorce” because of their hardened hearts and Jesus replying that no man can seperate what God has joined when two have become one, but then in brackets “unless the spouse is unfaithful” or something very similar. And I own a NAB bible not a protestant version.

Without a Chapter and verse I cannot comment - because the only time I have seen it is in poor translations of Mt 5:32 which instead of (unless it is unlawful) is translated (unless the spouse is unfaithful) - did you check the notes? Also just because the Apocrypha are there does not make it a Catholic Bible - NAB does put out a Protestant translation with Apocrypha - so I don’t know what you have in front of you but I am holding the NAB Catholic Bible in front of me.

 

[Josh316]

Without a Chapter and verse I cannot comment - because the only time I have seen it is in poor translations of Mt 5:32 which instead of (unless it is unlawful) is translated (unless the spouse is unfaithful) - did you check the notes? Also just because the Apocrypha are there does not make it a Catholic Bible - NAB does put out a Protestant translation with Apocrypha - so I don’t know what you have in front of you but I am holding the NAB Catholic Bible in front of me.

I am at work and will get back to you but my bible is the NAB Catholic companion edition with John Paul II inside the cover and a list of all the popes and in the back a list of such things as Holy days of obligation and the definition of such words as transubstantiation. But if it helps, I pretty sure it’s in Mt. 19 right before 12-13

 

[joandarc2008]

I am at work and will get back to you but my bible is the NAB Catholic companion edition with John Paul II inside the cover and a list of all the popes and in the back a list of such things as Holy days of obligation and the definition of such words as transubstantiation. But if it helps, I pretty sure it’s in Mt. 19 right before 12-13

OK will be looking forward to it.

 

[Josh316]

OK will be looking forward to it.

Just so you know I do think you’re right about it possibly being a matter of interpretation but am just curious.

 

[Josh316]

OK will be looking forward to it.

You were right! Thank you very much. The verse is Mt. 19: 8-9 and it says unlawful not unfaithful. I must have been thinking of the kjv version that my brother was quoting at me today that said divorce is ok if your wife fornicates.

 

[joandarc2008]

You were right! Thank you very much. The verse is Mt. 19: 8-9 and it says unlawful not unfaithful. I must have been thinking of the kjv version that my brother was quoting at me today that said divorce is ok if your wife fornicates.

Well now you know the Greek word they mistranslated that you can throw back and them - and I even bet you can guess the reason why - Henry VIII anyone?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

As a Catholic I have always believed what the Church has taught about there being no such thing as divorce but doesn’t Jesus clearly state the exception when dealing with an unfaithful spouse in Mt. 19:12-13?

Here is an article that addresses your exact question and shows why the Bible solidly opposes divorce and how to interpret this “except” clause.

 

[Bookcat]

Here: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

 

[EricFilmer]

You were right! Thank you very much. The verse is Mt. 19: 8-9 and it says unlawful not unfaithful. I must have been thinking of the kjv version that my brother was quoting at me today that said divorce is ok if your wife fornicates.

Hey Josh,

To add to this thread discussion, I want to share with you a real life situation in which the KJV translation of Mt. 19:8-9 was, in my opinion, horribly abused. A woman called me who was a friend of a friend. She and her husband were Protestants who used KJV and even though she knew I was Catholic, she also knew that I studied the Bible and wanted my opinion on the heart-breaking situation she was enduring.

Here, in a nutshell, was the situation…

She and her husband had three children (one of them a newborn). She and her husband also went to church and Bible study sessions on a regular basis. They considered themselves born again Christians, and believed in the importance of Christian living based upon biblical teachings.

Her husband was evidently going through some sort of mid-life crisis. He moved out of the house and wanted a divorce so he could start dating someone else.

Even though he professed belief in living according to biblical standards, he actually used the Bible to excuse his actions. This was his reasoning:

1. The husband stated that he had not committed the sin of fornication with another woman. But…
2. He admitted that he had lusted in his heart about other women, and Jesus teaches that such an act is, in itself, adultery.
   This is found in Matthew 5:28 (the exact same gospel, incidentally, in which Jesus presents an exception clause to his divorce ruling).
   Therefore, the husband stated that while married he had committed adultery according to this understanding of the term.
3. The KJV translation of Matthew 19:8-9 presents “adultery” to be the exception for Jesus’ condemnation of divorce.
   Hence, this husband stated that because he was an adulterer (from having lusted in the heart) it is biblically permissible for them to get a divorce.

So the KJV translation gave this guy a biblical excuse to break his wedding vows, turn his back on his family, and look to getting married to someone else. I told this unfortunate woman about the Greek word “porneia” and how it is actually a broad term embracing the idea of improper sexual practices. Adultery is one such practice, but so is incest, which was probably the concern being addressed.

After all, Jesus declared that the Gentiles would accept him and his teachings ( in other words, would want to become baptized converts to Christianity). Many Gentiles engaged in marriages that are considered incestuous by Judeo-Christian law. So what if a Gentile who is married under such conditions wants to become a Christian? His marriage places him in a perpetual state of mortal sin. Therefore, because an incestuous marriage is considered invalid in Judeo-Christianity, a divorce is permitted, and the obstacle preventing one from becoming Christian is removed. It is for this reason that other Bibles translate “porneia” (from Matthew 19:8-9) as “unlawful.” An incestuous marriage is unlawful according to Judeo-Christianity, and likewise invalid (so there is not moral issue in getting a divorce to correct the situation).

But, for the sake of argument, what if the word “porneia” is supposed to be translated as “adultery”? Well, then what is to prevent everyone from using this exception clause in the same way I described above? Why set down a rule (i.e., “no divorce”) and then give it a loop hole big enough for everybody in the world to exploit (i.e., “unless you have committed adultery, which includes lusting after someone in your heart”)? Maybe people don’t lust on planet Vulcan, but among the human race lust is a sin that is pretty darn hard to avoid. So for this fact alone, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the word “porneia” in Matthew 19:8-9 is not intended to be translated as “adultery.”

 

[joandarc2008]

Hey Josh,

To add to this thread discussion, I want to share with you a real life situation in which the KJV translation of Mt. 19:8-9 was, in my opinion, horribly abused. A woman called me who was a friend of a friend. She and her husband were Protestants who used KJV and even though she knew I was Catholic, she also knew that I studied the Bible and wanted my opinion on the heart-breaking situation she was enduring.

Here, in a nutshell, was the situation…

She and her husband had three children (one of them a newborn). She and her husband also went to church and Bible study sessions on a regular basis. They considered themselves born again Christians, and believed in the importance of Christian living based upon biblical teachings.

Her husband was evidently going through some sort of mid-life crisis. He moved out of the house and wanted a divorce so he could start dating someone else.

Even though he professed belief in living according to biblical standards, he actually used the Bible to excuse his actions. This was his reasoning:

1. The husband stated that he had not committed the sin of fornication with another woman. But…
2. He admitted that he had lusted in his heart about other women, and Jesus teaches that such an act is, in itself, adultery.
   This is found in Matthew 5:28 (the exact same gospel, incidentally, in which Jesus presents an exception clause to his divorce ruling).
   Therefore, the husband stated that while married he had committed adultery according to this understanding of the term.
3. The KJV translation of Matthew 19:8-9 presents “adultery” to be the exception for Jesus’ condemnation of divorce.
   Hence, this husband stated that because he was an adulterer (from having lusted in the heart) it is biblically permissible for them to get a divorce.

So the KJV translation gave this guy a biblical excuse to break his wedding vows, turn his back on his family, and look to getting married to someone else. I told this unfortunate woman about the Greek word “porneia” and how it is actually a broad term embracing the idea of improper sexual practices. Adultery is one such practice, but so is incest, which was probably the concern being addressed.

After all, Jesus declared that the Gentiles would accept him and his teachings ( in other words, would want to become baptized converts to Christianity). Many Gentiles engaged in marriages that are considered incestuous by Judeo-Christian law. So what if a Gentile who is married under such conditions wants to become a Christian? His marriage places him in a perpetual state of mortal sin. Therefore, because an incestuous marriage is considered invalid in Judeo-Christianity, a divorce is permitted, and the obstacle preventing one from becoming Christian is removed. It is for this reason that other Bibles translate “porneia” (from Matthew 19:8-9) as “unlawful.” An incestuous marriage is unlawful according to Judeo-Christianity, and likewise invalid (so there is not moral issue in getting a divorce to correct the situation).

But, for the sake of argument, what if the word “porneia” is supposed to be translated as “adultery”? Well, then what is to prevent everyone from using this exception clause in the same way I described above? Why set down a rule (i.e., “no divorce”) and then give it a loop hole big enough for everybody in the world to exploit (i.e., “unless you have committed adultery, which includes lusting after someone in your heart”)? Maybe people don’t lust on planet Vulcan, but among the human race lust is a sin that is pretty darn hard to avoid. So for this fact alone, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the word “porneia” in Matthew 19:8-9 is not intended to be translated as “adultery.”

porneia is the Greek word for unlawful. This is the clause that deals with the decree of nullity. From the sounds of it - If her husband and her are looking for ways out (not considering marriage permanent), it is abusive (one may have psychological issues), there may be consistent adultery that the other does not know about - it sounds like this marriage may not have been valid from the start for a variety of reasons as one never meant to be faithful and permanent in union however this is strictly textbook as we don’t know your friends and it is tough online.

 

[EricFilmer]

porneia is the Greek word for unlawful.

Joandarc, I am not saying that you’re wrong, because “unlawful” is a perfectly legitimate translation for porneia when it is used as an adjective to describe a kind of marriage. But, at the risk of sounding argumentative, it is not correct to simply say “Porneia is the Greek word for unlawful,” because that is not what the face value of the word means. I do not profess to be a Greek scholar but I do know that neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke use “porneia” when describing the event where the Pharisees asked Jesus why his disciples do what is “unlawful” on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:2, Luke 6:2, Mark 2:26; I was trying to recall a passage in the New Testament that uses the term “unlawful” but not in the context of a relationship). When the Bible does, indeed, use porneia as “unlawful”, it is (as I stated above) as an adjective for a kind of marriage.

Marriage is, of course, what we are looking at in Matthew 19:9, and therefore your translation of porneia as “unlawful” in this thread is perfectly valid. But in my last post I was trying to explain why it is perfectly valid. Maybe this time around it would be better for me to explain my material from my last post in a little more detail, and show my sources. This way, when someone who is a Greek scholar presents a case for translating porneia (as used in Matthew 19:9) as “adultery”, people can make a response which makes a case for translating it as “unlawful.”

When we translate porneia as “unlawful,” we are using “unlawful” not only as a translation but also an interpretation. As I said before, at face value, porneia has a broad range of usage, usually associated with illicit sexual behavior. Of them, fornication seems to be the most common application. For example, the Revised Standard Version Interlinear Greek-English New Testament decided to translate the word porneia (from Matthew 19:9) as “fornication.” Likewise, William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek translates it as “fornication”. The Greek dictionary included within Strong’s Expanded, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible translates porenia as “harlotry” (including “adultery”, “incest” and “fornication”) as well as (metaphorically) “idolatry.”

The RSV translation of Matthew 19:9 used in modern Bibles (including Ignatius Press and New Oxford) use “unchastity” for porneia, which, of course, is just another way of saying “fornication.” Keep in mind that the purpose of the RSV to give the closest translation of the original text (without necessarily having a word that also expresses an interpretation). The KJV, therefore, cannot be considered incorrect in using “adultery” (from a strict linguistic point of view) because a married person who commits fornication (or is unchaste) is likewise an adulterer. And, in and of itself, adultery can be a proper application of the word porneia (generally speaking). But all this presumes that this was the direction of Jesus’ teaching. Once again, porneia has a broad usage, so it is helpful to examine the full context of Scripture to narrow the translation down. As is often said, “context is everything”, and due to having such broad usage, people should be especially attentive to the context of porneia when it is used in the Bible.

This is the direction taken by the NAB, and their undertaking has resulted in translating the porneia of Matthew 19:9 as “unlawful”. Its footnote for Matthew 19:9 directs the reader to its footnote for 5:31-32, wherein we read:

“It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judiasm who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s ‘exceptive clause’ is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; c.f. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.”

In light of all this, Joandarc, I agree with you (and the NAB) that when Matthew used the word porneia in 19:9, he meant, “unlawful”.

For those reading this thread and interested ina short but very informative essay on this whole subject, I direct them to Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch’s *Ignatius Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew *(in particular, the essay on page 19 titled, “Jesus on Marriage and Divorce”).

 

[EricFilmer]

Correction: In my last post, my cited reference from Mark should have been Mark 2:24 (and not 2:26).
I didn’t catch this until the 20 minute time limit for editing had expired.

 

[georgemiller]

I don’t see the word “unlawful” in any of the translations provided below. Where does one find the word unlawful marriage in this scripture? Thank you

Matthew 19:9

New International Version (©1984)
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

New Living Translation (©2007)
And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery–unless his wife has been unfaithful."

English Standard Version (©2001)
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

International Standard Version (©2008)
I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I can guarantee that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than her unfaithfulness is committing adultery if he marries another woman."

King James Bible
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

American King James Version
And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her which is put away does commit adultery.

American Standard Version
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Bible in Basic English
And I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife for any other cause than the loss of her virtue, and takes another, is a false husband: and he who takes her as his wife when she is put away, is no true husband to her.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Darby Bible Translation
But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery.

English Revised Version
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for lewdness, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoever marrieth her who is put away, committeth adultery.

Weymouth New Testament
And I tell you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except her unfaithfulness, and marries another woman, commits adultery."

World English Bible
I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery."

Young’s Literal Translation
‘And I say to you, that, whoever may put away his wife, if not for whoredom, and may marry another, doth commit adultery; and he who did marry her that hath been put away, doth commit adultery.’

 

[joandarc2008]

Joandarc, I am not saying that you’re wrong, because “unlawful” is a perfectly legitimate translation for porneia when it is used as an adjective to describe a kind of marriage. But, at the risk of sounding argumentative, it is not correct to simply say “Porneia is the Greek word for unlawful,” because that is not what the face value of the word means. I do not profess to be a Greek scholar but I do know that neither Matthew, Mark nor Luke use “porneia” when describing the event where the Pharisees asked Jesus why his disciples do what is “unlawful” on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:2, Luke 6:2, Mark 2:26; I was trying to recall a passage in the New Testament that uses the term “unlawful” but not in the context of a relationship). When the Bible does, indeed, use porneia as “unlawful”, it is (as I stated above) as an adjective for a kind of marriage.

Marriage is, of course, what we are looking at in Matthew 19:9, and therefore your translation of porneia as “unlawful” in this thread is perfectly valid. But in my last post I was trying to explain why it is perfectly valid. Maybe this time around it would be better for me to explain my material from my last post in a little more detail, and show my sources. This way, when someone who is a Greek scholar presents a case for translating porneia (as used in Matthew 19:9) as “adultery”, people can make a response which makes a case for translating it as “unlawful.”

When we translate porneia as “unlawful,” we are using “unlawful” not only as a translation but also an interpretation. As I said before, at face value, porneia has a broad range of usage, usually associated with illicit sexual behavior. Of them, fornication seems to be the most common application. For example, the Revised Standard Version Interlinear Greek-English New Testament decided to translate the word porneia (from Matthew 19:9) as “fornication.” Likewise, William D. Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek translates it as “fornication”. The Greek dictionary included within Strong’s Expanded, Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible translates porenia as “harlotry” (including “adultery”, “incest” and “fornication”) as well as (metaphorically) “idolatry.”

The RSV translation of Matthew 19:9 used in modern Bibles (including Ignatius Press and New Oxford) use “unchastity” for porneia, which, of course, is just another way of saying “fornication.” Keep in mind that the purpose of the RSV to give the closest translation of the original text (without necessarily having a word that also expresses an interpretation). The KJV, therefore, cannot be considered incorrect in using “adultery” (from a strict linguistic point of view) because a married person who commits fornication (or is unchaste) is likewise an adulterer. And, in and of itself, adultery can be a proper application of the word porneia (generally speaking). But all this presumes that this was the direction of Jesus’ teaching. Once again, porneia has a broad usage, so it is helpful to examine the full context of Scripture to narrow the translation down. As is often said, “context is everything”, and due to having such broad usage, people should be especially attentive to the context of porneia when it is used in the Bible.

This is the direction taken by the NAB, and their undertaking has resulted in translating the porneia of Matthew 19:9 as “unlawful”. Its footnote for Matthew 19:9 directs the reader to its footnote for 5:31-32, wherein we read:

“It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judiasm who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s ‘exceptive clause’ is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; c.f. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.”

In light of all this, Joandarc, I agree with you (and the NAB) that when Matthew used the word porneia in 19:9, he meant, “unlawful”.

For those reading this thread and interested ina short but very informative essay on this whole subject, I direct them to Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch’s *Ignatius Study Bible: The Gospel of Matthew *(in particular, the essay on page 19 titled, “Jesus on Marriage and Divorce”).

OK, it seems like we are both saying the same thing. The issue then comes down to Magisterial interpretation. This is where Protestants deviate from Catholics (yes I am oversimplifying)

When the Canons were chosen for the Bible it was obviously by the Catholic Church in order to counter heresy. Then as we got further in the future (say a millenium or so) the Bible was mis-interpreted to create heresy. Hence Protestantism. Yes, there may be a bit of room there in the translations (I am no Greek scholar either - I know some of the basics and I thank you for sharing all that) we are called to trust the Magesterium who has been guided by the Holy Spirit through the Apostolic Succession Of Peter. We are after all Christs Church against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Whereas some of the other Churchs hanging on to other interpretations do not have that Grace.

 

[EricFilmer]

OK, it seems like we are both saying the same thing. The issue then comes down to Magisterial interpretation. This is where Protestants deviate from Catholics (yes I am oversimplifying)

When the Canons were chosen for the Bible it was obviously by the Catholic Church in order to counter heresy. Then as we got further in the future (say a millenium or so) the Bible was mis-interpreted to create heresy. Hence Protestantism. Yes, there may be a bit of room there in the translations (I am no Greek scholar either - I know some of the basics and I thank you for sharing all that) we are called to trust the Magesterium who has been guided by the Holy Spirit through the Apostolic Succession Of Peter. We are after all Christs Church against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Whereas some of the other Churchs hanging on to other interpretations do not have that Grace.

Indeed, Joandarc, you have brought up another good point to add to the topic at hand. Some Protestants have a vested interest in keeping divorce a viable option. King Henry VIII comes to mind. Although his life predated the KJV, I am sure he would have been very pleased with its translation of Matthew 19:9, and obviously there have been other like-minded Protestants down through the ages. The husband I described in my first post is certainly one.

 

[Cactus]

if your wife fornicates.

Adultery is the term for married people.

 

[EricFilmer]

I don’t see the word “unlawful” in any of the translations provided below. Where does one find the word unlawful marriage in this scripture? Thank you

Hey George,

The word in Greek being translated is “porneia.” It is the New American Bible which translates this word, as it appears in Matthew 19:9, as “unlawful”.
Please see my earlier explanation as to why in Post #14 ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7317209&postcount=14 )