Koine Greek Expert Regarding Matthew's Exception Clauses

[Hodos]

Just thinking aloud here… If, as you say, the exception clause was part of Jesus’ original teaching on divorce and not, as I first thought, a parenthetical remark inserted when Matthew wrote his gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to harmonize Jesus’ teaching with the gospel’s mention of Joseph’s intention to divorce the Virgin Mary, then why did Mark and Luke not mention such a seemingly important exception?

This goes into the area of speculation. When you are recounting a story to your friends, do you take out a recording and state word for word, what they said? Or do you recount the details that seem necessary to you for the audience you are addressing and for the point you are addressing? The other question is this, do you think Jesus only answered this question once? Or is it possible that this was a running issue of his day and Jesus may have answered this question more than once, and Mark and Luke may be recounting difference instances of when Jesus answered the question?

That point that I was making is that if you actually read the passage in Deuteronomy which speaks of divorce, you can see that Jesus’ answer in Matthew is perfectly in alignment with what the law as was written in Deuteronomy said. So it isn’t just some parenthetical teaching Jesus made up on the spot, or that Matthew added to his gospel. This was the explanation (and in this instance, the most precise recounting of the law) that Jesus gave.

I think the issue you are having here is you assume that each gospel should be a word for word re-telling of Christ’s ministry rather than independent witnesses recounting it from different perspectives, and different points of view, to different audiences. This doesn’t mean the details where they differ are factually incorrect or made up, it means that the authors were selective of the material they included in their accounts for the benefit of their audiences.

Because of his disciples’ adverse reaction to Jesus’ teaching on divorce, I don’t think, as you seem to suggest, Jesus was merely restating the teaching of Moses, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” (Matthew 19:10) And, because of the way Jesus set his teaching in opposition to the teaching of Moses, “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you…” (Matthew 5:31-32a)

Not really, there were actually two schools of thought on this in that day, and Jesus was siding with the more conservative rendering of what Deuteronomy says. Apparently Jesus was not as theologically liberal as many would have you believe (that was an aside, not aimed at you).

 

[Gorgias]

It seems Jesus upheld divorce due to an unconsummated marriage

Hmm. I can’t recall having read an analysis that makes this claim, and I’m a little suspicious of it, on its face.

Are you saying that Jesus was in the business of commenting on / making modifications to the Mosaic law (since you bring up “Joseph’s valid divorce option”)? I’m more of the mind to suggest that Jesus’ “not a jot or tittle” says that He explicitly wasn’t doing this – rather, He was creating the context for His New Covenant!

And, if that’s the context, then I’d assert that we don’t find anything that addresses unconsummated marriages explicitly in the text. Rather, what we find is the Church, acting on the authority that Jesus gave it, making that determination later on.

But again, St Jerome’s interpretation did not lend itself to this analysis. He saw porneia as adultery justifying a divorce, although as in permanent separation with the bond remaining.

St Jerome was a brilliant Scripture scholar. He wasn’t, however, a member of the magisterium, and therefore, we cannot look at his commentary and presume he has carte blanche to speak for the magisterium.

Not really, there were actually two schools of thought on this in that day, and Jesus was siding with the more conservative rendering of what Deuteronomy says.

Actually, that’s not true. He was, very explicitly, rejecting both of those schools of thought. Both said “divorce? yep!” (although they disagreed on what constituted legitimate grounds for divorce. Jesus, on the other hand, literally said “divorce? NO.”

 

[Hodos]

Actually, that’s not true. He was, very explicitly, rejecting both of those schools of thought. Both said “divorce? yep!” (although they disagreed on what constituted legitimate grounds for divorce. Jesus, on the other hand, literally said “divorce? NO .”

I would have to re-look at what I have read on this issue regarding the schools of Shammai and Hillel, but I believe that the school of Shammai agreed with Christ that the only legitimate grounds for divorce was sexual immorality, whereas Hillel said as long as you granted a certificate of divorce, the divorce was legit.

 

[Gorgias]

the school of Shammai agreed with Christ that the only legitimate grounds for divorce was sexual immorality

That’s not what Christ said, though. I get it that Reformation communities broke with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and decided that divorce was a possibility. However, that’s not what Christ said, and that’s not what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

Therefore, the long-standing teaching of the Church is that Christ disagreed with the Shammai interpretation. It’s a revisionist interpretation to suggest that Christ’s response, captured in Scripture, was “yeah… Shammai was right.”

 

[Hodos]

That’s not what Christ said, though. I get it that Reformation communities broke with the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and decided that divorce was a possibility. However, that’s not what Christ said, and that’s not what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

Therefore, the long-standing teaching of the Church is that Christ disagreed with the Shammai interpretation.

It actually is what Christ said. Twice.

“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery…” Matthew 5

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matthew 19

I am not sure what your understanding of what Shammai was teaching, but based on what I have read of what Shammai taught, Jesus did indeed agree with their interpretation of this passage.

 

[Ammi]

Hmm. I can’t recall having read an analysis that makes this claim, and I’m a little suspicious of it, on its face.

Deuteronomy 22 instructs a man who has found his betrothed to not be a virgin to divorce her. If I’m not mistaken, the Septuagint uses a form of “porneia” describing such a woman as fornicating in her father’s house.

Are you saying that Jesus was in the business of commenting on / making modifications to the Mosaic law (since you bring up “Joseph’s valid divorce option”)? I’m more of the mind to suggest that Jesus’ “not a jot or tittle” says that He explicitly wasn’t doing this – rather, He was creating the context for His New Covenant!

Jesus abrogated Moses’ concession for men to divorce their wives on grounds which were debated. Jesus did not agree with either, but abrogated the law altogether.

St Jerome was a brilliant Scripture scholar. He wasn’t, however, a member of the magisterium, and therefore, we cannot look at his commentary and presume he has carte blanche to speak for the magisterium.

I havent seen any magisterial Teaching explaining Matthew’s exception clause. But I’ve read several commentaries from the ECF’s who refer to porneia as unfaithfulness warranting separation without remarriage (including St Jerome). I actually, personally find this to be the only thing from Jerome which I find less accurate than modern Catholic scholarship. But it could be. We just dont know, since the Church has not formally interpreted the passage. Maybe because these Fathers weren’t so accurate, yet they still upheld the principle of indissolubility by forbidding remarriage. At any rate, the United States has lumped a whole lot of situations into constituting “invalidity”.

I think it would be appropriate to formally define Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Instead of saying it could be unfaithfulness, justifying permanent separation but not remarriage, or it could be unlawful marriages (which we are lumping tons of situations into). It cannot be both, since one allows remarriage and the other does not.

 

[Ammi]

I am not sure what your understanding of what Shammai was teaching, but based on what I have read of what Shammai taught, Jesus did indeed agree with their interpretation of this passage.

Perhaps if Jesus used the word “adultery” but He didnt. He used “porneia” according to divine inspiration in Matthew. Porneia, in a legal sense, refers to unlawful, forbidden, or invalid marriages. Or as some Church Fathers have interpreted it, as adultery warranting divorce as in separation but not remarriage. Either way both schools of pharisees expected the ability to remarry.

But it doesnt matter too much these days, in the U.S. since nullity is afforded a very wide range in order to marry again.

 

[Gorgias]

It actually is what Christ said. Twice.

No… it’s your interpretation of a particular translation of what Christ said. Twice.

Let’s look at this from a historical perspective. The Reformation communities didn’t believe in divorce, either, when they separated from the Church. However, they later cleared the way for divorce in all the ways that the culture of the western world has made it available. Nevertheless, that wasn’t the starting point. So, you can very validly claim "that’s where we are now ", but that doesn’t speak to how the Church viewed these statements from the beginning.

I havent seen any magisterial Teaching explaining Matthew’s exception clause.

Fair enough. Let’s look to discipline, then. Canon law would be a good place to look.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Ammi:

I havent seen any magisterial Teaching explaining Matthew’s exception clause.

Fair enough. Let’s look to discipline, then. Canon law would be a good place to look.

No exceptions is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church which was handed down through tradition and scripture. It doesn’t really require an extraordinary statement from the Church. The fornication exception clause basically means the marriage was invalid to begin with, because at least one party was already married and thereby committing fornication/adultery.

“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. … ‘He that taketh a woman that has been put away,’ it is said, ‘committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,’ that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.”
-Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 2:24 (A.D. 202)

 

[Gorgias]

Deuteronomy 22 instructs a man who has found his betrothed to not be a virgin to divorce her. If I’m not mistaken, the Septuagint uses a form of “porneia” describing such a woman as fornicating in her father’s house.

I’m not doubting what’s in Deuteronomy; I’m responding to your claim that Jesus explicitly affirmed it.

ECF’s who refer to porneia as unfaithfulness warranting separation without remarriage (including St Jerome)

OK, so… you realize that this is not what “divorce” means, right? Divorce allows for future remarriage. The Church, too, allows “separation with the bond remaining” – see canon law, beginning at c.1151. This, too, is not “divorce”.

I think it would be appropriate to formally define Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Instead of saying it could be unfaithfulness, justifying permanent separation but not remarriage, or it could be unlawful marriages (which we are lumping tons of situations into). It cannot be both, since one allows remarriage and the other does not.

Yet, it is formally defined in canon law. And yes, there are examples of both: valid marriages – in which there can be separation but not dissolution of the bond – and unlawful (i.e., ‘invalid’) marriages (in which a declaration of the nullity of the marriage renders the two people subsequently free to marry).

 

[otjm]

The fornication exception clause basically means the marriage was invalid to begin with, because at least one party was already married and thereby committing fornication/adultery.

I think we are mixing our terms.

Fornication is sexual congress between two unmarried persons.

Adultery is sexual congress between a married person with someone other than their spouse; and that someone can be either an unmarried person, or a married person married to someone else (Bob and Carol, and Ted and Alice).

There is an impediment of public propriety, which gets way out into the weeds and starts with a couple living together - either fornicating, or one (or both) are married to someone else, but living together; and it has to do with a marriage of a partner only in the direct blood line (Canon 1093).

Adultery in and of itself does not indicate an invalid marriage; but a person o the day of the marriage intends to have an “open marriage”, that my be grounds under consent.

 

[Ammi]

The point, is that St Jerome (and other ECF’s) interpreted “porneia” as adultery in these passages.

The Church (formal magisterium) and Canon Law have NOT defined what porneia refers to in Matthew’s exception clauses.

I’m not doubting what’s in Deuteronomy; I’m responding to your claim that Jesus explicitly affirmed it.

The betrothal view of the exception clauses understands Jesus as affirming it. The betrothal view is one of the acceptable interpretations of the exception clauses.

Catholic Scholars believe it refers to unlawful marriages. This is different than the ECF’s

Yet the ECF’s still acknowledged that remarriage was not permitted for adultery.

I tend to think the interpretation of the scholars makes more sense. That porneia refers to unlawful marriages (marriages against the faith).

So while both interpretations would not violate Christ’s law, they both cant be true. Porneia either refers to infidelity, involving a third party, which justifies separation but no remarriage, or it refers to the actual husband and wife’s marriage being unlawful, which can be divorced because it wasnt valid.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Does not Clement use a broader definition? He is not limiting it to two unmarried persons, but at least one. The example he gives as I understand it is that one is separated with a valid marriage while the spouse livess, and this person marries twice which is invalid causing the new spouse to be a fornicator

 

[Hodos]

I’m not doubting what’s in Deuteronomy; I’m responding to your claim that Jesus explicitly affirmed it.

I am not sure where you are getting the idea that I am saying that Jesus affirms divorce, maybe my verbiage was unclear. I need to check my actual wording. So to be clear, Jesus says that divorce was permitted because of the sinful hearts of men. So in that sense, no one is claiming that Jesus affirmed divorce, he specifically says that the existence of divorce is due to sin. If that is the sense you are talking about, then we are in agreement. What he did was that he agreed with the school of Shammai that infidelity was a basic violation of the covenant of marriage, and that in those cases it was permissible under the law to grant a divorce. And he specifically rejected the notion that it is permissible to expand the definition given in Deuteronomy to include frivolous things like burning your husband’s soup as grounds for divorce.

 

[Gorgias]

The point, is that St Jerome (and other ECF’s) interpreted “porneia” as adultery in these passages.

I would gently point out that they don’t make magisterial assertions on their own initiative, and that the Church’s official declarations assert “unlawful marriage” rather than mere “adultery”. I would assert that this is the relevant point.

Catholic Scholars believe it refers to unlawful marriages. This is different than the ECF’s

It would be interesting to see citations of what you’re asserting from the ECFs. Would you mind sharing them? It’s always interesting to see assertions that the Church and the ECFs are at odds.

In any case, the question isn’t what “Catholic Scholars” or even “ECFs” say – the question is “what standards has the Church herself set?”.

What he did was that he agreed with the school of Shammai that infidelity was a basic violation of the covenant of marriage, and that in those cases it was permissible under the law to grant a divorce.

This is where we disagree. And, in fact, where the Church disagrees with you: it doesn’t interpret porneia as “infidelity”. Later groups (specifically, Reformation communities) make that claim in order to justify divorce in the case of marital infidelity. The Church does not make that claim. Therefore, there’s no way we can say that the Church agrees that Jesus was supporting Shammai’s claim.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Does not Clement use a broader definition? He is not limiting it to two unmarried persons, but at least one. The example he gives as I understand it is that one is separated with a valid marriage while the spouse livess, and this person marries twice which is invalid causing the new spouse to be a fornicator

Just to extend, i wasnt conflating adultery and fornication but enumerating them from the example by clement. One person committed adultery, the other formication because it was not a lawful marriage.

 

[BartholomewB]

Something unexpected in this translation of Matt 5:32:

32 But I tell you that the man who puts away his wife (setting aside the matter of unfaithfulness) makes an adulteress of her, and whoever marries her after she has been put away, commits adultery.[3]

“Unfaithfulness.” That’s how Ronald Knox understood Jesus’ words. See also footnote 3.

http://newadvent.com/bible/mat005.htm

 

[Gorgias]

Something unexpected in this translation of Matt 5:32:

Two thoughts:

• First, what we’re seeing here is a translation of a translation:
  • from the Greek “παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας” to the Latin “excepta fornicationis causa”
  • and from the Latin “excepta fornicationis causa” to the English “setting aside the matter of unfaithfulness”

That’s quite an arc.

Nevertheless, the topic at hand isn’t one word of Latin in a particular text; the question is how the Church has interpreted this statement in its treatment of marriage, throughout time. The treatment has been “no divorce”, and not “no divorce, except for adultery”.

 

[BartholomewB]

Unexpected, because it’s a Catholic Bible.

 

[Ammi]

That’s my point. The Catholic Church does not know if porneia refers to unfaithfulness, or unlawful marriage.

Catholic Teaching opposes remarriage. That is solid. It’s only been a very recent situation of marriages being released with decrees of nulity for wide interpretations of lack of consent. This was unheard of for almost 2000 years.