Matthew 19: 9 -- Divorce

[KarrollKid04]

I have a question about Matthew 19, verse 9. How come this verse is translated differently in a Catholic Bible than it is in a Protestant Bible? For example,

NAB (Catholic):

I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.

KJV:

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.

Life Application Bible:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Why does the Catholic Bible state that the exception is for unlawful marriages, while the Protestant translations state the exception is for adultery/fornication? Which is the better translation? Thanks!

 

[john81]

I have a question about Matthew 19, verse 9. How come this verse is translated differently in a Catholic Bible than it is in a Protestant Bible? For example,

NAB (Catholic):

KJV:

Life Application Bible:

Why does the Catholic Bible state that the exception is for unlawful marriages, while the Protestant translations state the exception is for adultery/fornication? Which is the better translation? Thanks!

Always go to the douay rheims bible translation. That is the best translation. I think it’s from St. Jerome’s translation into Latin, but I am not positive on that.

Also, there are two exceptions to a lawful separation. The Petrine privelege (St. Peter), and the Pauline privilege (St. Paul). If you look those up, they are the only exceptions in which two people that are lawfully married can end their marriage. These are NOT annulments!

God bless.

 

[ddarko]

Always go to the douay rheims bible translation. That is the best translation. I think it’s from St. Jerome’s translation into Latin, but I am not positive on that.

Also, there are two exceptions to a lawful separation. The Petrine privelege (St. Peter), and the Pauline privilege (St. Paul). If you look those up, they are the only exceptions in which two people that are lawfully married can separate. These are NOT annulments!

God bless.

I think it is also important to note that both Pauline and Petrine privelges apply in cases where the marriage is not sacramental i.e. one or both spouses are unbaptized.

A sacramental marriage can never be dissolved.

As for the OP question, the correct one in this case would be the NAB one. The other translations stem from possible interpretations. But the interpretations they are based on are incorrect and hence the NAB one, by virtue of being consistent with the truth (Catholic Teaching) is correct.

God Bless

 

[Samuel63]

The Douay-Rheims states the following.

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.

It looks like the NAB has been corrupted. I never liked this version really. The Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition is great.

 

[dcrowmik]

I have a question about Matthew 19, verse 9. How come this verse is translated differently in a Catholic Bible than it is in a Protestant Bible? Why does the Catholic Bible state that the exception is for unlawful marriages, while the Protestant translations state the exception is for adultery/fornication? Which is the better translation? Thanks!

Search for the Greek word “porneia” as that is the word in question that is being translated. It was a word used to describe marriage between two people of close relation (brother to sister, etc.) that was, naturally, unlawful. Your NAB translation gets closest to the sense of what that verse and that word is talking about. The other translations, though perhaps somewhat accurate due to the invalid nature of those “porneia marriages”, do not give the full sense of the nature of what Jesus was talking about regarding marriage (see the other Gospel passages where Jesus outright states divorce is not allowed – period). Because marriages with porneia involved are unnatural and, thus, unlawful, the marriage itself was thus null, invalid and non-existent.

 

[Samuel63]

I disagree. Check this explanation. catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Here are some simple searches also.
studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202
biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

The NAB is not as good as many believe.

 

[dcrowmik]

I disagree. Check this explanation. catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Here are some simple searches also.
studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202
biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

The NAB is not as good as many believe.

Look at the differences between porneia and mocheia. Porneia refers to illicit unions as I described. Mocheia describes adultery. The Church is correct (and the NAB gets closest in the translation) when it states Christ forbids divorce even in the case where, sadly, a spouse commits adultery.

 

[ddarko]

I disagree. Check this explanation. catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

Here are some simple searches also.
studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4202
biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

The NAB is not as good as many believe.

The point was not whether NAB is the best translation overall. All of them have bits and pieces missing probably which is why it gets even more insane when people try to privately interpret things.

But the point here is that the NAB is accurate in this case. As the person above pointed out, the correct meaning that matches the original is the NAB translation’s “Unlawful”.

Hence in this case NAB wins even over “The Douay-Rheims” translation.

In the end, as long as you approach Scripture within the umbrella of Catholic teaching, you will be fine with any translation

God Bless

 

[PJM]

I have a question about Matthew 19, verse 9. How come this verse is translated differently in a Catholic Bible than it is in a Protestant Bible? For example,

Here back in context are the New KJ Bible [top] and the Catholic Douay Rheims on the bottom.Mt. 19:3-11

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ . 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’. 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. . ***9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” ***10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:

3 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 7 They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? 8 He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. B]9 And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, commits adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.

But friend I hasten to point out that THEE Message is that God desires NO DIVORICE.

BOTH teach the same. The DR is the CC primary English Translation Bible.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[TimothyH]

I want to point out the parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:18)

We need to consider this verse carefully as we consider valid reasons for divorce in light of the discussions above. Luke’s rendering of Jesus words do not qualify the conditions where divorce would be permissable at all. The prohibition is absolute here.

Catholics who endeavor to interpret the Bible must do so the Catholic way, never taking a single passage and trying to understand it in a vacuum. We must therefor consider Matthew 9:19 in the context of the whole Bible and in light of two thousand years of Church Tradition and teaching - which says that divorce is never permitted.

Jesus was asked point-blank about divorce.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?" He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:3-8)

Jesus’ words “From the beginning” would have been crystal clear to the Pharisees, who were scholars of the Old Testament. There was almost a 100% literacy rate in Jesus’ time and ordinary Jews were highy knowledgeable about scripture having been instructed in “The law and the prophets” from a very early age. Everyone present would have clearly understood Jesus’ words “From the beginning” as a reference to the first three words of the Bible.

Divorce was not present “In the beginning.” And Jesus came to take us back there, back to a world with no sin, a world with no self love, a world of self-sacrificing love where husbands and wives were willing to die for each other, a world where marriages were formed and lived with the Trinity as it’s model. This is sacramental marriage. Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He came to take us back to the way it was “From the beginning” before sin and self love entered the world, when unions between men and women were perfect, because they modeled the Trinity.

Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. …” God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; (Genesis 1:26-28)

Male and female, in the image of the Trinity.

I’m not trying to accuse anyone here of looking for marriage loopholes. But it is a fact that most non-Catholic Christian denominations teach that it is OK to divorce when one of the spouses commits adultery. When Matthew 19:9 is intepreted the correct way - the Catholic way - we see that this is clearly not so and those who teach that divorce is ever permissible are in error. For anyone who has gone through it, myself included, it is not an easy thing to hear. But it is so because marriage is sacramental, modeled after the trinity, and the union of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit never ends. Neither do sacramental covenant family bonds - they never end.

That is the way God made it “From the beginning.”

-Tim-

 

[thistle]

I think it is also important to note that both Pauline and Petrine privelges apply in cases where the marriage is not sacramental i.e. one or both spouses are unbaptized.

A sacramental marriage can never be dissolved.

As for the OP question, the correct one in this case would be the NAB one. The other translations stem from possible interpretations. But the interpretations they are based on are incorrect and hence the NAB one, by virtue of being consistent with the truth (Catholic Teaching) is correct.

God Bless

It can if it has not been consummated.

 

[ddarko]

It can if it has not been consummated.

If it has not been consummated, is it not considered non-sacramental?

God Bless

 

[inkaneer]

Wait a minute. So far the emphasis has been on divorce and when or if it is lawful. But the Church has always said that divorce was a secular civil procedure that had no bearing in the Church’s eyes on the validity of a marriage. So I think that in the passage the emphasis should be on the inability to re-marry rather than the actual divorcing. This is what the Church currently says, you can be divorced but you can’t remarry. The sin is not in the divorce. It is in the remarriage or the adulterous relationship of cohabitation.

 

[rainbow1]

Wait a minute. So far the emphasis has been on divorce and when or if it is lawful. But the Church has always said that divorce was a secular civil procedure that had no bearing in the Church’s eyes on the validity of a marriage. So I think that in the passage the emphasis should be on the inability to re-marry rather than the actual divorcing. This is what the Church currently says, you can be divorced but you can’t remarry. The sin is not in the divorce. It is in the remarriage or the adulterous relationship of cohabitation.

Unless the Church grants an annulment, based on there having NEVER been a valid marriage. The sticky part to me seems to be that the annulment is based on what the married couple and witnesses report…and having been through a longterm difficult marriage and divorce myself, I , at times question even my own interpretation of my marriage…much less witnesses who really weren’t there…
I do respect the tribunal’s ideas, but that is based on the information they get, which seems to possibly be skewed…even with the best intentions…is this being too scrupulous on my part? What do you folks think? Have been struggling over this and have postponed getting the annulment for now…ideas would be very welcome…

 

[ddarko]

Unless the Church grants an annulment, based on there having NEVER been a valid marriage. The sticky part to me seems to be that the annulment is based on what the married couple and witnesses report…and having been through a longterm difficult marriage and divorce myself, I , at times question even my own interpretation of my marriage…much less witnesses who really weren’t there…
I do respect the tribunal’s ideas, but that is based on the information they get, which seems to possibly be skewed…even with the best intentions…is this being too scrupulous on my part? What do you folks think? Have been struggling over this and have postponed getting the annulment for now…ideas would be very welcome…

Well, the Annulment process has been abused a lot in North America and Europe. One just finds a good lawyer, who knows a good Psychologist that can make it look like the couple was psychologically impaired during the marriage vow exchange and voilla, you get an annulment. Or one can fabricate witnesses etc.

Unfortunately the tribunals can’t do much about this. They have to assume the couple is being honest and truly concerned about doing what is moral. As a result, many cheat the system to get an annulment at the price of their own salvation. For many, they just want to marry in Church again etc.

So in the end, this is why it comes down to the person to do the honest thing. The tribunals also have to be strict and not give out annulments just based on sympathy when there really are no grounds to think the marriage is invalid.

God Bless

 

[rainbow1]

Well, the Annulment process has been abused a lot in North America and Europe. One just finds a good lawyer, who knows a good Psychologist that can make it look like the couple was psychologically impaired during the marriage vow exchange and voilla, you get an annulment. Or one can fabricate witnesses etc.

Unfortunately the tribunals can’t do much about this. They have to assume the couple is being honest and truly concerned about doing what is moral. As a result, many cheat the system to get an annulment at the price of their own salvation. For many, they just want to marry in Church again etc.

So in the end, this is why it comes down to the person to do the honest thing. The tribunals also have to be strict and not give out annulments just based on sympathy when there really are no grounds to think the marriage is invalid.

God Bless

Yes, I see what you are saying, but I also feel that there are lots (if not the majority) of couples who are quite puzzled about the circumstances of the marriage themselves…who want to be honest, but can’t perceive the “truth” themselves. If they have never been in a valid marriage, then it stands to reason it could be quite true that they would not know comparatively what the difference is…
Also, if they believe they are called to the vocation of marriage, then they are in quite a fix, especially if their “spouse” has left and remarried. Lots of marriages are very “isolated” and there are no witnesses if any. So the person is left to try to figure things out themselves, or with a priest who wasn’t part of the marriage to begin with.
I am still struggling as to your comment about “many cheat the system to get an annulment at the price of their salvation”. I am not so sure that a large percent of annulments are due to people trying to cheat the system. I think that alot of people married who should never have married in the first place. That in fact, their “marriage” was a far cry from what the Lord would want them to be involved with. And I am hoping that their salvation is not compromised, due to a remarriage. I think alot of people just try the best they can to survive. Especially young women with young children who live on the edge of complete poverty, and yet who still have hope for a happy marriage and who want to have a partner to raise their children with. I am fortunate enough to be “older” , but I do have compassion for the young people who can’t imagine living a life by themselves. I am sort of surprised that the Church doesn’t offer annulment assessments before the civil divorce is granted. My own situation is complicated in that there were at least some "good’ periods in a 27 year marriage…the only part considered though is the beginning…I am so puzzled…
At any rate, my “annulment” is on hold until I figure things out better… please send all the ideas you have!
Blessings…

 

[inkaneer]

Getting an annulment is a legal process in an ecclesiastical court. Witnesses testify under oath just as they do in a civil or criminal court. What you seem to be saying is that people can lie so they can obtain an annulment. But are they really free? If one obtains an annulment by deception then remarries they are no better off than if they just got a civil divorce. They are still validly married. There is, built into the process, an assumption that the parties will be truthful. There must be evidence to support the allegations. You cannot just claim something without proving it. Truth will usually prevail. But, in the event it doesn’t, if people lie under oath to get the desired result, what happens? In civil courts lying under oath is potentially punishable by a fine or jail term or both. In a marriage tribunal the potential penalty of an eternity in hell is much more severe.

 

[rainbow1]

Getting an annulment is a legal process in an ecclesiastical court. Witnesses testify under oath just as they do in a civil or criminal court. What you seem to be saying is that people can lie so they can obtain an annulment. But are they really free? If one obtains an annulment by deception then remarries they are no better off than if they just got a civil divorce. They are still validly married. There is, built into the process, an assumption that the parties will be truthful. There must be evidence to support the allegations. You cannot just claim something without proving it. Truth will usually prevail. But, in the event it doesn’t, if people lie under oath to get the desired result, what happens? In civil courts lying under oath is potentially punishable by a fine or jail term or both. In a marriage tribunal the potential penalty of an eternity in hell is much more severe.

No, I was saying that oftentimes people don’t “know” the truth about their own marriage. I suspect that they provide information to the tribunal based on what they perceive to be the truth. But as I have grown older, my understanding about even my own actions change over time. Yes, there are some clear cut pieces of information that can be presented, but I suppose the bulk of the information does have some part of personal “perception” involved. In the past, I professionally provided marriage counseling to couples, and it was amazing how two people in the same marriage could in total “truth” present two totally different perceptions about the same relationship. In the annulment process, oftentimes only one person presents information to the tribunal. Also, as a social worker, a statement about a psychosocial issue is merely an attempt to describe a situation so as to provide a way to provide treatment…a diagnosis isn’t a permanent label or definition of a person…so providing criteria, etc just is an attempt…it isn’t the person or the relationship. So going back 30 years to try to provide a diagnosis or estimate of a relationship is sort of sketchy stuff, even for a professional. I get concerned over the process, but then I haven’t done it yet, so I may not understand the annulment process yet.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Getting an annulment is a legal process in an ecclesiastical court. Witnesses testify under oath just as they do in a civil or criminal court. What you seem to be saying is that people can lie so they can obtain an annulment. But are they really free? If one obtains an annulment by deception then remarries they are no better off than if they just got a civil divorce. They are still validly married. There is, built into the process, an assumption that the parties will be truthful. There must be evidence to support the allegations. You cannot just claim something without proving it. Truth will usually prevail. But, in the event it doesn’t, if people lie under oath to get the desired result, what happens? In civil courts lying under oath is potentially punishable by a fine or jail term or both. In a marriage tribunal the potential penalty of an eternity in hell is much more severe.

No, I was saying that oftentimes people don’t “know” the truth about their own marriage. I suspect that they provide information to the tribunal based on what they perceive to be the truth. But as I have grown older, my understanding about even my own actions change over time. Yes, there are some clear cut pieces of information that can be presented, but I suppose the bulk of the information does have some part of personal “perception” involved. In the past, I professionally provided marriage counseling to couples, and it was amazing how two people in the same marriage could in total “truth” present two totally different perceptions about the same relationship. In the annulment process, oftentimes only one person presents information to the tribunal. Also, as a social worker, a statement about a psychosocial issue is merely an attempt to describe a situation so as to provide a way to provide treatment…a diagnosis isn’t a permanent label or definition of a person…so providing criteria, etc just is an attempt…it isn’t the person or the relationship. So going back 30 years to try to provide a diagnosis or estimate of a relationship is sort of sketchy stuff, even for a professional. I get concerned over the process, but then I haven’t done it yet, so I may not understand the annulment process yet.

Well I do think that much, much more is required to obtain an annulment than just a different change in understanding of our actions. One has to prove that there were valid impediments in existence at the time of the marriage that negated the marriage contract. That is not always easy to do especially with the passage of time and failure to prove such impediments results in no annulment being granted. In essence getting an annulment is no different than trying to have a legal contract declared invalid. In fact our contractual law statutes [USA] generally follow the Church’s legal requirements for annulments.

 

[Ignatius]

I have a question about Matthew 19, verse 9. How come this verse is translated differently in a Catholic Bible than it is in a Protestant Bible?

The word in question is pornea, it does not mean unfaithfulness, unchastity or adultery. The best understanding is probably that He meant unlawful sexual conduct, which would indicate that the marriage was not legitimate in the first place.