Mat 19:9 for divorce?

[SavedbyHisBlood]

Hello all
I have a quick question (or I hope so lol) does Mat 19:6 allow divorce in the case of adultry (the translation I use uses the word fornification)? As in if your wife or husband cheated on you would you, according to this verse be allowed to remarry and not be an adulter? Any clarification would be great! Thanks

9: 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.*

 

[diggerdomer]

Hello all
I have a quick question (or I hope so lol) does Mat 19:6 allow divorce in the case of adultry (the translation I use uses the word fornification)? As in if your wife or husband cheated on you would you, according to this verse be allowed to remarry and not be an adulter? Any clarification would be great! Thanks

9: 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.*

According to the Bible passage you cite, yes. According to Catholic Church teaching the issue would be much more complex.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Hello all
I have a quick question (or I hope so lol) does Mat 19:6 allow divorce in the case of adultry (the translation I use uses the word fornification)? As in if your wife or husband cheated on you would you, according to this verse be allowed to remarry and not be an adulter? Any clarification would be great! Thanks

9: 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.*

No, it doesn’t. Read the parallel verses of this discourse, which make it clear that there are no exceptions (see Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18). What Jesus makes clear in Matthew’s Gospel is that this ban on divorce is related to *Divine *law, not civil law, so civil marriages which are still fornication in God’s eyes aren’t binding. So if Adam and Steve get “married” in Massachusetts, the ban on divorce doesn’t prevent those two from ending their sham marriage if they realize the error of their ways. Fornication and adultery are very different things. Here, there’s no third party - it’s not that Adam and Steve can divorce only if one of them cheats on the other (they can civilly divorce anytime); nor would it be okay for a legitimately married couple to divorce just because one of them cheats. In the context of Matthew 19, this is pretty clear, because He says that this is a union done by God, and that He’s abolishing the Mosaic exceptions.

For more in-depth coverage on it:
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/05/does-bible-permit-divorce-in-case-of.html
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/07/divorce-and-remarriage-in-matthews.html

And just to clarify, the Church never contradicts the Bible, so the last commentator’s answer can’t be right, by definition.

 

[diggerdomer]

No, it doesn’t. Read the parallel verses of this discourse, which make it clear that there are no exceptions (see Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18). What Jesus makes clear in Matthew’s Gospel is that this ban on divorce is related to *Divine *law, not civil law, so civil marriages which are still fornication in God’s eyes aren’t binding. So if Adam and Steve get “married” in Massachusetts, the ban on divorce doesn’t prevent those two from ending their sham marriage if they realize the error of their ways. Fornication and adultery are very different things. Here, there’s no third party - it’s not that Adam and Steve can divorce only if one of them cheats on the other (they can civilly divorce anytime); nor would it be okay for a legitimately married couple to divorce just because one of them cheats. In the context of Matthew 19, this is pretty clear, because He says that this is a union done by God, and that He’s abolishing the Mosaic exceptions.

For more in-depth coverage on it:
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/05/does-bible-permit-divorce-in-case-of.html
catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2009/07/divorce-and-remarriage-in-matthews.html

And just to clarify, the Church never contradicts the Bible, so the last commentator’s answer can’t be right, by definition.

What Jesus “makes clear” in Matthew seems to differ from what Jesus “makes clear” in Mark and Luke. Paul in 1 Corinthians seems to also acknowledge there are acceptable situations of divorce.

As does the Catholic Church.

 

[srferdave]

What Jesus “makes clear” in Matthew seems to differ from what Jesus “makes clear” in Mark and Luke. Paul in 1 Corinthians seems to also acknowledge there are acceptable situations of divorce.

As does the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church will never ever allow a divorce. What the Catholic Church may do - is grant an anullement. Which means that the couple was never married in the first place. If the couple was never married in the first place how can they ever get a divorce.

If the couple gets an anullement than the couple will probably get a civil divorce. But this is not a divorce in the eyes of God because the couple was never married in the eyes of God.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

What Jesus “makes clear” in Matthew seems to differ from what Jesus “makes clear” in Mark and Luke. Paul in 1 Corinthians seems to also acknowledge there are acceptable situations of divorce.

As does the Catholic Church.

The Church allows for civil divorce where there was no valid (religious) marriage. Hence the term annulment. You’re factually wrong on this issue.

And Jesus isn’t contradicting Himself: His point in all three Gospels is that what God has joined together, no man must separate. In the case of fornication, the two parties are not joined together by God (via a valid marriage). So two people in a non-existent (null) marriage can part, b/c they were never spouses, just fornicators. No contradiction there.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church allows for civil divorce where there was no valid (religious) marriage. Hence the term annulment. You’re factually wrong on this issue.

And Jesus isn’t contradicting Himself: His point in all three Gospels is that what God has joined together, no man must separate. In the case of fornication, the two parties are not joined together by God (via a valid marriage). So two people in a non-existent (null) marriage can part, b/c they were never spouses, just fornicators. No contradiction there.

I never said anything about annulments. The OP didn’t ask about annulments. I am not factually wrong. The OP asked about the Bible and divorce. The Bible does not mention annulments. Please be more careful in your accusations.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I never said anything about annulments. The OP didn’t ask about annulments. I am not factually wrong. The OP asked about the Bible and divorce. The Bible does not mention annulments. Please be more careful in your accusations.

The Bible does mention the possibility of null “marriages,” in the verse that the OP asked about. The Catholic Church is really clear on this issue. In your initial response, you said:

According to the Bible passage you cite, yes. According to Catholic Church teaching the issue would be much more complex.

It’s your first sentence which is factually wrong. Jesus does not say that a valid marriage can be ended by divorce due to fornication (or adultery, which isn’t a plausible translation of the Greek term in question, porneia). Rather, He acknowledges that certain “marriages” can be dissolved when they are, in fact, merely fornication. The modern process for doing this is obtaining a civil divorce and a religious Decree of Nullity, or annulment.

I understand and appreciate that you’re trying to help. But suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew’s Gospel, contradicts Himself in Luke and Mark’s Gospels, or contradicts the Church’s teachings isn’t helpful. I wasn’t, and am not, looking to start a fight or anything, but your statement was in need of correction, because it made it seem that the Church and Our Lord were making mistakes which you needed to correct.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Bible does mention the possibility of null “marriages,” in the verse that the OP asked about. The Catholic Church is really clear on this issue. In your initial response, you said:

It’s your first sentence which is factually wrong. Jesus does not say that a valid marriage can be ended by divorce due to fornication (or adultery, which isn’t a plausible translation of the Greek term in question, porneia). Rather, He acknowledges that certain “marriages” can be dissolved when they are, in fact, merely fornication. The modern process for doing this is obtaining a civil divorce and a religious Decree of Nullity, or annulment.

I understand and appreciate that you’re trying to help. But suggesting that Jesus, in Matthew’s Gospel, contradicts Himself in Luke and Mark’s Gospels, or contradicts the Church’s teachings isn’t helpful. I wasn’t, and am not, looking to start a fight or anything, but your statement was in need of correction, because it made it seem that the Church and Our Lord were making mistakes which you needed to correct.

Jesus doesn’t talk about “valid” marriages in the Bible. Just marriage. I never said nor suggested that Jesus contradicted Himself.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Jesus doesn’t talk about “valid” marriages in the Bible. Just marriage. I never said nor suggested that Jesus contradicted Himself.

The invalid marriages are the ones He’s calling fornication. This is part of the basis for the Catholic teaching on annulments. And as for whether or not you said that Jesus contradicted Himself, you said:

What Jesus “makes clear” in Matthew seems to differ from what Jesus “makes clear” in Mark and Luke.

I’m saying that there’s no tension between what Jesus is recorded as saying in both of those places, as fornication isn’t validly marriage, even if it is sometimes marriage in the eyes of the state.

 

[dcrowmik]

From New Advent:

I believe the Bible when it says he who divorces and marries another commits adultery, as we see in Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18. But isn’t Jesus leaving a loophole when he says in Matthew 19:9 “except for unchastity”?

What may appear as a loophole is a consequence of misinterpretation or mistranslation. The King James Version and others translate the passage into English words that appear to say fornication, unchastity, or adultery are exceptions that allow a divorce.

The constant teaching of the Church has been that a valid sacramental marriage can not be broken, even if one party sins. As Matthews 19:6 says, “Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Biblical scholars, such as J. Bonsirven, have pointed out that the Greek word that is pivotal here is “porneia,” which means unlawful sexual intercourse. The Gospel does not use the Greek word “moicheia,” which is the ordinary Greek word for adultery.
The intent appears to be to distinguish a true marriage from concubinage. What is being said is that if a man and a woman are in fact married, the bond is inseparable. But if they are not married, just “living together,” then there is no lawful marriage and there can be a separation or annulment. The wording of the New American Bible for Matthew 19:9 is a translation that gives us this sense.

More info on this here and here and here.

 

[SavedbyHisBlood]

Ok so let me sum up what i’ve gathered,

I looked up fornification in the dictionary, it is defined as sex outside of marrage, (which i thought meant someone that is married, haveing sexual relationships with someone that isnt, leading me to think except for someone cheating) but the term fornification used in the verse i quoted means that two people that ‘think’ they are married but are in fact not really married in the eyes of God. So ‘thinking’ they are married they would most likely have a sexual relationship, which would explain the use of the word fornification. So this couple would be allowed to be divorced civilly because they were never in fact married.

If this is right, then this verse does not in fact allow for divorce if one party of the marrage is a cheater, but only if the marrage is not valid. Which is pretty much exactly what the Church teaches today.

Correct?

Also: I apologize for the OP, i meant Mat 19:9 not 19:6…

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Ok so let me sum up what i’ve gathered,

I looked up fornification in the dictionary, it is defined as sex outside of marrage, (which i thought meant someone that is married, haveing sexual relationships with someone that isnt, leading me to think except for someone cheating) but the term fornification used in the verse i quoted means that two people that ‘think’ they are married but are in fact not really married in the eyes of God. So ‘thinking’ they are married they would most likely have a sexual relationship, which would explain the use of the word fornification. So this couple would be allowed to be divorced civilly because they were never in fact married.

If this is right, then this verse does not in fact allow for divorce if one party of the marrage is a cheater, but only if the marrage is not valid. Which is pretty much exactly what the Church teaches today.

Correct?

Exactly.

 

[diggerdomer]

If this is right, then this verse does not in fact allow for divorce if one party of the marrage is a cheater, but only if the marrage is not valid. Which is pretty much exactly what the Church teaches today.

Correct?

Also: I apologize for the OP, i meant Mat 19:9 not 19:6…

Pretty much. There are exceptions, though, where a valid marriage could be dissolved.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Hello all
I have a quick question (or I hope so lol) does Mat 19:6 allow divorce in the case of adultry (the translation I use uses the word fornification)? As in if your wife or husband cheated on you would you, according to this verse be allowed to remarry and not be an adulter? Any clarification would be great! Thanks

9: 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.*

No, The Greek word translates into incest, if one marries a close relative unknowingly, one may legally dissolve the invalid marriage and enter into another.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Pretty much. There are exceptions, though, where a valid marriage could be dissolved.

Where does the Catholic Church say this? The Pauline and Petrine exceptions aren’t considered to include valid marriages.

 

[diggerdomer]

Where does the Catholic Church say this? The Pauline and Petrine exceptions aren’t considered to include valid marriages.

Yes, they could be valid marriages.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Yes, they could be valid marriages.

**Canon 1141 **A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.

That’s what the Catholic Church says on the issue. Cannot be dissolved by any human power. This includes the power of the Church militant, as canon 1142 makes clear. Canon 1143 deals with the Pauline privilege, and Canon 1148.1 deals with what to do with polygamists who convert to Catholicism. Both cases deal only with cases where both parties contracted marriage while still unbaptized. These are not understood to be valid marriages which has been ratified and consummated. Canon 1142, the so-called Petrine privilege, only applies to non-consummated marriages, which aren’t considered indissoluble.

So all of canon law is premised on the notion that a valid, consummated marriage cannot be dissolved, except by God and death.

 

[diggerdomer]

**Canon 1141 **A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.

That’s what the Catholic Church says on the issue. Cannot be dissolved by any human power. This includes the power of the Church militant, as canon 1142 makes clear. Canon 1143 deals with the Pauline privilege, and Canon 1148.1 deals with what to do with polygamists who convert to Catholicism. Both cases deal only with cases where both parties contracted marriage while still unbaptized. These are not understood to be valid marriages which has been ratified and consummated. Canon 1142, the so-called Petrine privilege, only applies to non-consummated marriages, which aren’t considered indissoluble.

So all of canon law is premised on the notion that a valid, consummated marriage cannot be dissolved, except by God and death.

Marriages between non-baptized persons are considered valid unless there is a reason (impediment) that would invalidate them. Marriages can be valid regardless of being consummated.

Canon 1141 is the principle. Canons 1142-1143 are exceptions to the principle.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Marriages between non-baptized persons are considered valid unless there is a reason (impediment) that would invalidate them. Marriages can be valid regardless of being consummated.

Canon 1141 is the principle. Canons 1142-1143 are exceptions to the principle.

If there are exceptions to Canon 1141, then Canon 1141 isn’t true, because its text admits no exceptions. It’s pretty simple: when you’ve sworn a marriage before God, and consummated that marriage, you cannot void that covenant. Ever. For any reason.

Canon 1142 can’t be an exception since, it **explicitly **doesn’t apply to valid, consummated marriages. Canon 1143 isn’t an exception, either. The reason it’s limited to non-baptized persons is that there marriages are, under certain circumstances, capable of being dissolved, because they never intended to contract a covenant before God. Besides that, where an exception is intended, the text signals it (see Canon 1080.1, for example).

The Catechism agrees with this.

**1614 **In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

See also CCC 1650, 1664, and 1665.

The Church is really clear on this, and I’m not sure why you continue to argue this point through bald, unsourced assertions. Do you remain genuinely confused on the issue, or are you just unwilling to admit that your initial guess was wrong?