Matt 5:32-different in Catholic and Protestant translations...why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4aReasn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic4aReasn

Guest
In the NAB Matt 5:32 is translated:

But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

All Protestant translations seem to translate the parenthetical statement as “unless she commits adultery” or " except for sexual immorality" or something along those lines.

The Protestant translations seem to suggest that divorce is OK if your spouse cheated on you whereas the Catholic translation doesn’t at all. Any idea why the discepency in translations?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
In the NAB Matt 5:32 is translated:

But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

All Protestant translations seem to translate the parenthetical statement as “unless she commits adultery” or " except for sexual immorality" or something along those lines.

The Protestant translations seem to suggest that divorce is OK if your spouse cheated on you whereas the Catholic translation doesn’t at all. Any idea why the discepency in translations?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...

II. The Negative Inference Fallacy of Matthew 19:9 should give some idea of the problems of translation of a similar passage.​

As should this. The problem is, in part, with the scope of meaning of the underlying Greek words porneia & moicheia (which appear in the verse in that order); and so, with working out what Jesus is including or excluding as grounds for divorce - if He is excluding anything. The first link mentions another. ##
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
The Protestant translations seem to suggest that divorce is OK if your spouse cheated on you whereas the Catholic translation doesn’t at all. Any idea why the discepency in translations?
Click to expand...
The short answer is that translation is an art, not a science. Translation has to try to convey both the literal meaning of the words, and their connotations within the culture of the source material. This task is practically impossible, and so most translators opt for a bias towards either ‘faithfulness’ (literality) or ‘freedom’ (connotation).

Having said that, the object of the preposition in is “porneias”, from “porneia”, which is normally used for prostitution, or, metaphorically, for idolatry. Also used in John 8:41 and 1 Corinthians 5:1, where the meaning is clearly adultery, and six times in Revelation (2:21, 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3, 19:2), where the meaning is unfaithfulness towards God, i.e., spiritual adultery.

The Protestant translations seem to be better in this case, being closer to the original in both respects. At a complete guess, the ‘unlawful’ one could be out of coyness.
 
That clause that gives reason for unlawful marriage, cheating, etc. is often referred to as an “exceptive clause,” which you will only find in Matthew. In none of the other gospels do you find an “exceptive clause.”

Check out Mk 10 11-12; Lk 16, 18; 1 Cor 7, 10.11b)

They are all very specific. Simply that if someone remarries they are commiting adultry, period.
 
There are a couple of articles on this in Catholic Answers’ This Rock magazine:

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

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705clas.asp

Also, from Strong’s Greek Lexicon:porneia
  1. illicit sexual intercouse
    a. adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
    b. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18.
    c. sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11.
    [*]metaph. the worship of idols
    a. of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols
    ​

KJV Word Usage and Count: fornication 26

​
Personally, I favor the idea that Matthew stuck the exception clause in there to justify Joseph’s decision to divorce Mary when he found out she was pregnant before they started living together.
 
40.png
Catholic4aReasn:
In the NAB Matt 5:32 is translated:

But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

All Protestant translations seem to translate the parenthetical statement as “unless she commits adultery” or " except for sexual immorality" or something along those lines.

The Protestant translations seem to suggest that divorce is OK if your spouse cheated on you whereas the Catholic translation doesn’t at all. Any idea why the discepency in translations?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Nancy! :tiphat:

The Catholic claim is that the Protestant translation is inaccurate.
You should check the September 2005 issue of this Rock when it is available online - it has an article on divorce which addresses this issue.

Phil
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
The short answer is that translation is an art, not a science. Translation has to try to convey both the literal meaning of the words, and their connotations within the culture of the source material. This task is practically impossible, and so most translators opt for a bias towards either ‘faithfulness’ (literality) or ‘freedom’ (connotation).

Having said that, the object of the preposition in is “porneias”, from “porneia”, which is normally used for prostitution, or, metaphorically, for idolatry. Also used in John 8:41 and 1 Corinthians 5:1, where the meaning is clearly adultery, and six times in Revelation (2:21, 14:8, 17:2, 17:4, 18:3, 19:2), where the meaning is unfaithfulness towards God, i.e., spiritual adultery.

The Protestant translations seem to be better in this case, being closer to the original in both respects. At a complete guess, the ‘unlawful’ one could be out of coyness.
Click to expand...
Good Post. I recommend you read Jimmy Akins This Rock article from
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp
Translation is an art and a science when you are separated from the culture and time of the writing. This was not the case for the earliest Christians and ECF’s and they are quoted as believing in the Catholic position. In addition, we have to deal with the totality of Scripture, and this is the only verse that has an exception - the others do not: how do we reconcile that with the Protestant interpretation? Lastly (I got this from the article) there is the issue of 2 people who wish to be divorced. Does it really make sense to say that all they need to do is commit adultery and they can divorce but if they don’t commit adultery they can’t? That makes no sense…

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
…there is the issue of 2 people who wish to be divorced. Does it really make sense to say that all they need to do is commit adultery and they can divorce but if they don’t commit adultery they can’t? That makes no sense…
Click to expand...
In a certain way, I think that it might. When someone commits adultery, the exclusivity of the marriage relationship (which is, I would suggest, the raison d’etre of the institution of marriage) has been violated. Adultery ends the marriage, and the divorce is merely the official recognition of that fact. If a couple agree that one of them should sleep with someone else, then that exclusivity is clearly long gone, and the marriage is already over in all but name.

On a similar note, I have always felt sorry for the abandoned spouse who is expected to remain faithful to someone who has been unfaithful to him/her, and is thus forced into celibacy.
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
In a certain way, I think that it might. When someone commits adultery, the exclusivity of the marriage relationship (which is, I would suggest, the raison d’etre of the institution of marriage) has been violated. Adultery ends the marriage, and the divorce is merely the official recognition of that fact. If a couple agree that one of them should sleep with someone else, then that exclusivity is clearly long gone, and the marriage is already over in all but name.

On a similar note, I have always felt sorry for the abandoned spouse who is expected to remain faithful to someone who has been unfaithful to him/her, and is thus forced into celibacy.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the most point:
If neither of the two people above had had an extramarital relationship then their divorce would be viewed as a sin;
however if, prior to getting divorced - and realizing this - they both agreed to have an extramarital affair, then their divorce becomes OK. That makes no sense. Then the statement is Matt would be better represented by:
If anyone wishes to divorce his wife he must first commit adultery and then its ok…
As far as being “forced” into celibacy, I agree it is difficult. But on the other hand, we are all “forced” into celibacy until marriage, right?

Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
I think you missed the most point:
If neither of the two people above had had an extramarital relationship then their divorce would be viewed as a sin;
however if, prior to getting divorced - and realizing this - they both agreed to have an extramarital affair, then their divorce becomes OK. That makes no sense. Then the statement is Matt would be better represented by:
If anyone wishes to divorce his wife he must first commit adultery and then its ok…
As far as being “forced” into celibacy, I agree it is difficult. But on the other hand, we are all “forced” into celibacy until marriage, right?

Phil
Click to expand...
This is the point made on one of the links given in another post. If a couple simply wants a divorce they can’t, so the solution, therefore, is for one of them to go and commit adultery to dissolve the union, then they are both free to re-marry. One would be committing the sin of adultery in order to avoid committing the sin of aultery. That makes absolutely no sense. I completely agree with you.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
In a certain way, I think that it might. When someone commits adultery, the exclusivity of the marriage relationship (which is, I would suggest, the raison d’etre of the institution of marriage) has been violated. Adultery ends the marriage, and the divorce is merely the official recognition of that fact. If a couple agree that one of them should sleep with someone else, then that exclusivity is clearly long gone, and the marriage is already over in all but name.

On a similar note, I have always felt sorry for the abandoned spouse who is expected to remain faithful to someone who has been unfaithful to him/her, and is thus forced into celibacy.
Click to expand...
***Hi, Phil!

I think that you are missing the point on both counts:
  1. The suggestiong was that Matthew’s clause might be interpreted as an easy way out of a marriage (as abortion is used as means to contracept); avoiding the responsibility of the binding contract between the spouses and God is not as simple as jumping into extramarital affairs! Acting irresponsible in order to get our way is not sanctioned by Scripture, no matter how we twist the Word!
  2. Exactly for the reason that you mentioned, adultery, this clause is in effect when one of the spouses decides that he/she can have sexual relations with other than their spouse; the person commiting adultery has made void his/her marriage in the eyes of God–breaking his/hew vows with both God and the other spouse.
Culture has it that a man can go around town/city/state/world and do as he pleases and the “little Christian woman” has to suffer it quietly… NOT SO!

The faithful spouse has the obligation only as far as the other spouse stays faithful… she/he can choose to forgive the trespass against both the bond of the mariage and the emotional/phisical pain caused… but once forgiven he/she cannot suit for divorce on grounds of that past adultery (Mark 12:11-12; Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11); and while the Jewish people misrepresented the Law by demanding unequal yolk on the wife, the Commandment from God is that both spouses remain faithful in their bond which is made in Christ!

God Bless!

Angel***
 
40.png
Philthy:
I think you missed the most point:
If neither of the two people above had had an extramarital relationship then their divorce would be viewed as a sin;
however if, prior to getting divorced - and realizing this - they both agreed to have an extramarital affair, then their divorce becomes OK. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
You’re right; it doesn’t make sense if we approach the text from a literalist, legalistic viewpoint. Of course, to do so would mean contravening one of the text’s major themes, which is that God is not a legalist.
As far as being “forced” into celibacy, I agree it is difficult. But on the other hand, we are all “forced” into celibacy until marriage, right?
Click to expand...
True, and it is that very limitation - “until marriage” - which reduces the harshness of the situation. For the abandoned spouse, however, s/he is condemned for life as a result of another person’s actions. How is that just?

“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
Justice, mercy, and walking humbly with a God who forgives the unworthy. I forgive them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top