Matthew 19: 9 -- Divorce

[Jerry-Jet]

I think that Porneia used in the context of Matthew 19:9 means Incestual realtions–or marriages that were between kinfolk–in other words UNLAWFUL marriages that were not LAWFUL marriages in the first place.

In other words Jesus does not allow Divorce of sacrementally married people.

 

[Slowlearner]

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)

[text omitted to comply with post length rule]

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-

Tim, thank you for that. It was beautiful (the Truth is beautiful). The Rock article referenced by Samuel63, is a bit more technical, but your points answer without resort to the Greek technical discussion. Maybe best presentation is your words (I hope I am I free to copy and use), then the Rock article.

I too am a divorced (well almost – waiting for Court order) Catholic in deep south. Personally, I feel in my heart that Catholic teaching is correct (I mean that vow I took means something to me), so Catholic teaching was not hard news to me. Indeed, toward the end of a long and at times difficult relationship (but with many blessings along the way – I am thankful to the Lord for my marriage and wife), I joined Church, knowing the Church’s teaching, and then four months later the marriage crumbled (took a while to get to divorce though).

What is difficult for me is dealing with Protestant and Evangelical friends here in Alabama who constantly say things like, “well soon you’ll find another wife.” I say, “no you don’t understand, I am Catholic.” I get strange looks, like I am from another planet. Just today, I had Matthew 19:9 put before me by a Baptist friend. I told him my position and he seemed incredulous. He is a good man and friend, but he clearly does not understand the Catholic faith.

Now I am prepared for them. I will print and carry in my briefcase copies of you post and the Rock article. They should cause some consternation for folks down here. Maybe, Lord willing, some will have cause to look more closely at Catholic faith, which as you know is not even considered a Christian faith by many down here in deep south.

Now to go further and support some points in other posts above, my case (and probably many others), shows the silliness of believing in an “adultery exception.” What if neither spouse has committed adultery (as, I believe, in my case)? Are both then to separate, and wait for the other to remarry, then freeing chaste spouse to remarry? Should I hope for my wife to sin, so I can be sinless, or should I sin, so she can remain sinless? Silly. Makes no sense. God Bless the Catholic Church.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The difference in translation is because there is no one word in English that fits there. Jesus is speaking about Jewish law, for he is answering the scribes and pharisees on a question of THEIR law. So, if the translators of the bible are consistent – in the old testament one would find a passage which permits divorce for “fornication” or “adultery” or “invalid marriage” and which does not clash with the Law in Genesis;

The very reason that Jesus quotes Genesis is because that is a book of Law. It isn’t a book of precepts, but of law by examples and choices of the Fathers. The law of this household (economy) which was handed down to the children.

In the passage, the word “adultery” is not part of the exception clause; rather a different word is used in the original – and since the OP asks about which is the better translation; it must be one that doesn’t say “except for adultery”. Fornication is better, for it is impossible for a married person to fornicate – married people commit adultery by breaking their promise to another spouse; this passage does not really permit divorce for the reason of adultery – but rather, it permits divorce for the reason of “prostitution” or “perversion” or “disobeying the Law”.

The book of Genesis does not contain a divorce of Eve by Adam; and it is this book which Jesus is talking about. The reason the Pharisee’s wanted an answer to this question is to get Jesus to Condemn king Herod, just as John the Baptist had – so that He could be beheaded like John at Herodias’ indirect and indiscreet request.

Look at Matthew 18:7, for Jesus is speaking on the theme of public scandals; 18:18 on the binding up and loosing of Laws; and at the end of this discourse Jesus leaves Capernum and journeys to “Judea beyond the Jordan”. Matth 19:1; Take note, historically this is the exact place where John the baptist had preached against Herod taking Herodias as his wife; and it is here that the Pharisees ask Jesus a malicious question; is it “lawful” to put away a “wife” for any reason.

The nature of the trap is simple; They want him to agree with John the baptist directly so Herodias will hate Jesus – and he have Herod for an enemy. OR they hope, equally well, that Jesus will not sanction divorce at all – at which point they can make a fool of him because Herod the LAWMAKER king MARRIED herodias.
Either way – they win – and Jesus is made an enemy of the state.

But Jesus reverses it on them, by referring to any “perversion” of the law (porneia) and does not single ONLY Herodias Out. Nor does Jesus say a man MUST divorce his wife…

He doesn’t spell the perversion out – for the simple reason that so long as he doesn’t explicitly say it – the Pharisees themselves have to find a way to put those words on Jesus lips – while NOT saying it themselves; for Herodias will hate them for doing it too…

But Jesus saw through the trap, and stated that It is Lawful to put away a woman for breaking the some law or another (unspecified). Even in the Catholic Church, Canon law allows divorce in the case of Adultery – it doesn’t thereby permit another marriage; But it does, like Moses, Permit divorce because of hardness of hearts. An innocent spouse may ask the adulterer to leave; so long as they are innocent to prevent violence.

But think again about time Jesus spoke those words,
The marriage of Herod and Herodias existed, but Herod could have divorced her should he choose to do so.

Marriages are a product of LAW. One swears an oath at the altar never to commit adultery – so clearly the validity of any SECOND marriage is what is in question – not the divorce; an ipso facto marriage is defined as ADULTERY if it breaks the law; and Moses referred to the reason for divorcing a woman as being that the man finds the woman unclean.

Jesus goes a step stronger – for he defines both the husband AND the wife as adulterers if they marry a second time; He does not spell out the reasoning – but clearly, in the case of Herod, it is because Herod’s brother is still alive.

At death, the journey of spouses together ends, and one or the other walks away alone. Death is a natural divorce and the end of child bearing, which is the first purpose of marriage. In heaven, sexual relationships in Marriage will not exist any more; the oath itself no longer has meaning.

The one statement that Jesus inserts that everyone need pay attention to is: “What GOD has joined.”; In the Latin Church’s wisdom, they view that the spouses marry each other – and there are marriages that Jesus will refuse to Join, for the spouses disobey the law of his Church and marry illegally with respect to Church law. That is what constitutes grounds for an annulment – an annulment does not mean a marriage never existed; it means it was never joined by God as it was entered against the binding power of the Church.

It is good in the Church’s view that man remain married to their wife; in completion of their vow – and Christ gave no teaching that a man could make a vow for only a number of Years; but rather, once Joined by God – they are to remain for the duration of their journey. What God has journeyed together, let man not send away.

 

[InDefense]

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!

The King James Version. In this instance, it is closer to the original greek.