Koine Greek Expert Regarding Matthew's Exception Clauses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ammi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So what do you think the fathers of the Church interpreted?

That the exception clause referred to infidelity as grounds for separation, or unlawful marriages that were never valid?
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
So what do you think the fathers of the Church interpreted?

That the exception clause referred to infidelity as grounds for separation, or unlawful marriages that were never valid?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am reading it differently than you. I don’t see infidelity being recognized as grounds for divorce.
 
Are you referring to St Clement of Alexandria, or to all the Fathers?

Do you see how the different translation of Clement’s letter could render two meanings?

Did you read St Augustine?
 
EndTimes said:
Anything Else?
Click to expand...
Nope. If you’re so certain of your own conclusions that you can’t see your mistakes, then I think we’re done here. 😉

(And yes, I see the irony, in that you think this applies to me, not you. Hilarious! 🤣)
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
Are you referring to St Clement of Alexandria, or to all the Fathers?
Do you see how the different translation of Clement’s letter could render two meanings?
Did you read St Augustine?
Click to expand...
I read them all. I don’t see it recognizing infidelity as grounds for divorce. Not trying to be obtuse, I just don’t see it.
 
“A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains.”

St Augustine
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
“A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains.”

St Augustine
Click to expand...
“Lawfully dismissed” doesn’t imply “divorced”; the assertion that the bond remains, in fact, indicates that this isn’t a divorce, but rather, a case of what the Church continues to assert, under the name “separation with the bond remaining.”

But, let’s look at your quote in context:
A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains.
Click to expand...
So, unless I’m reading this wrong, you quoted part of the text, while explicitly leaving out the previous sentence which literally says that the marriage ceases only with death, not with fornication (that is, even fornication of the innocent spouse following dismissal of the adulterous spouse). That sure looks like selective quoting to me… 🤔
 
I think the confusion is because divorce is understood theologically in two ways. An absolute divorce (divortium plenum) which means the bonds of marriage are dissolved, OR a limited divorce (divortium imperfectum) which is basically separation (i.e. bed and/board) but the matrimonial bonds still exist.

But I think Gorgias showed above that this lawful dismissal was just separation of bed/board.
 
Yep, so St Augustine did not see the clause as referring to invalidity. He saw it as grounds for civil divorce/Church separation and still binding.

What Church father saw the exception clause as referring to an invalid marriage? Let’s look at one of their explanations.
 
Last edited:
Here is some more evidence of the exception clause referring to adultery justifying separation without remarriage, and NOT referring to an invalid marriage.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm

Christ abolished entirely the permission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause similar to “uncleanness” as reason for putting away the wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond… the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond… Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew 19:9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the Evangelisthad previously given a distinct explanation of the same subject, and exactly laid down what was justified by the reason of fornication: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the causes of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32). Here all excuse for remarriage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is excluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is done unjustly, exposes her to the danger and is thus attributed to the husband who has dismissed her — “he maketh her commit adultery”. It is only in the case of marital infidelity that complete dismissal is justified — “excepting for the cause of fornication”.
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
Yep, so St Augustine did not see the clause as referring to invalidity. He saw it as grounds for civil divorce/Church separation and still binding.
Click to expand...
Umm… I’d disagree with your take-away. If the question is "on what grounds is divorce permissible?’, Augustine agrees with Christ and the Church: none. If the question is otherwise – which seems to be the direction that you’re now twisting the discussion – then a different question (“is invalidity a valid cause for divorce?”) leads to a different answer, which is already provided by the Church: yes, an invalid marriage is not binding unto death.
Ammi said:
This is what St Augustine explained the exception meant. Divorce, with the bond remaining.
Click to expand...
No, although I appreciate that you wish this to be the case. If it were “divorce”, then re-marriage would be valid. Augustine – and other ECFs – agree that subsequent re-marriage is invalid. Therefore… “no” – they’re not talking about divorce.
Ammi said:
Here is some more evidence of the exception clause referring to adultery justifying separation without remarriage, and NOT referring to an invalid marriage.
Click to expand...
Umm… you realize that the very opening paragraph you cite, actually supports our contention and refutes yours… right?
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
Ammi:
Yep, so St Augustine did not see the clause as referring to invalidity. He saw it as grounds for civil divorce/Church separation and still binding.
Click to expand...
Umm… I’d disagree with your take-away. If the question is "on what grounds is divorce permissible?’, Augustine agrees with Christ and the Church: none. If the question is otherwise – which seems to be the direction that you’re now twisting the discussion – then a different question (“is invalidity a valid cause for divorce?”) leads to a different answer, which is already provided by the Church: yes, an invalid marriage is not binding unto death.
Ammi said:
This is what St Augustine explained the exception meant. Divorce, with the bond remaining.
Click to expand...
No, although I appreciate that you wish this to be the case. If it were “divorce”, then re-marriage would be valid. Augustine – and other ECFs – agree that subsequent re-marriage is invalid. Therefore… “no” – they’re not talking about divorce.
Ammi said:
Here is some more evidence of the exception clause referring to adultery justifying separation without remarriage, and NOT referring to an invalid marriage.
Click to expand...
Umm… you realize that the very opening paragraph you cite, actually supports our contention and refutes yours… right?
Click to expand...
You dont seem to either know my “contention” or be able to provide an early Church father explaining invalid marriage. Besides St Jerome’s reference to Deuteronomy 22
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
You dont seem to either know my “contention” or able to provide an early Church father explaining invalid marriage. Besides St Jerome’s reference to Deuteronomy 22
Click to expand...
Fornication in a strict literal sense is illicit sexual intercourse. Situations such as consanguinity, incest, forced marriage, previous marriage, etc, etc all interfere with aspects of the covenantal and unitive nature of the bond for the sacrament. I think Clement of Alexandria gives an example of an invalid marriage in what I posted earlier. It was an example of having a previous and still valid marriage invalidating the new marriage, which actually used to count as fornication and not adultery (because of ancient immunities from polygamy) given the context below.
From Catholic Encyclopedia:
In the Mosaic Law, as in the old Roman Law, adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery, but fornication.
Click to expand...
Of course, Jesus perfected all of this and said it is now adultery for the man also. But I think the context helps.
 
Ammi said:
You dont seem to either know my “contention” or be able to provide an early Church father explaining invalid marriage.
Click to expand...
Moving the goalposts? Didn’t you ask for an explanation of how there was no divorce for any reason? And then provided a quote that you thought said otherwise?

…and then were shown that the fuller context of your quote refutes your position?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top