G
Gorgias
Guest
Catholic theologians?
Catholic theologians who are teaching what the Church teaches? Or who are teaching something different than what the Church teaches?
- Status
Catholic theologians who are teaching what the Church teaches? Or who are teaching something different than what the Church teaches?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Jesus refers constantly to the books of the OT, sometimes in support of his own teaching, and sometimes – as here – to contrast the old law of Moses with the new and stricter law that is now to prevail. In Matt 5:31, Jesus is referring back to Deut 24:1-4:
When a man, after marrying a woman, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, if on leaving his house she goes and becomes the wife of another man, and the second husband, too, comes to dislike her and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, or if this second man who has married her dies, then her former husband, who dismissed her, may not again take her as his wife after she has become defiled. That would be an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage.
Jesus then goes on to teach that the old law is overly permissive where divorce is concerned. “It has been said …” (i.e. by Moses), “but I tell you …”
When a man, after marrying a woman, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, if on leaving his house she goes and becomes the wife of another man, and the second husband, too, comes to dislike her and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, or if this second man who has married her dies, then her former husband, who dismissed her, may not again take her as his wife after she has become defiled. That would be an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage.
Jesus then goes on to teach that the old law is overly permissive where divorce is concerned. “It has been said …” (i.e. by Moses), “but I tell you …”
Last edited:
R
rose321
Guest
Respectfully>>Tthank you BartholomewB for the info, greatly appreciate the time taken in doing so!! Peace and have a great day!
D
Darryl_B
Guest
A plight is a situation where we agree with Church teaching on paper, but in the world we live, the position can be slightly challenging to our faith. I have found the most common two are divorce and contraception. We hear of cases presented where divorce seems to be the lesser of two evils, or cases where contraception seems to be the lesser of two evils, and in our sense of compassion for people, we make exceptions in our hearts and in our minds.
Do you agree that the law of divorce was an exception made in the law of Moses, that it was never meant to be that way, that that law was done away with through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
You could oblige me by stating the name of the document.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Incest was forbidden under the law of Moses.
R
rcwitness
Guest
It was actually Gods law. The divorce toleration was not from God. Thats what Jesus criticized.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
My point was that I would find it hard to believe that incestuous marriages would be permitted and therefore would find it hard to accept that Jesus Christ was referring to this scenario.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Thats what the NAB footnote claims.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
My A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture begins with the Hillel vs Shammai debate, … it is still less likely that Jesus is reversing his uncompromising attitude with a casual parenthesis thrown out en passant. Its positive explanation is, however, a matter of dispute. The ‘classical’ explanation … etc. An alternative Catholic explanation (recently revived, and amended and given rabbinic background by J Bonsirven, SJ Le Divorce dans le Nouveau Testament 1948) … maintains that porneia here means concubinage - incestuous marriage within the degree forbidden by the Mosaic Law.
Do I go classic or alternate?
Do I go classic or alternate?
R
rcwitness
Guest
It doesnt have to mean an incestuous union. But it seems to be a valid possibility, since Gentile converts could naturally be in a marriage to a relative.
Here is the NAB footnote for Matt. 5:32
5:31–32 See Dt 24:1–5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.
Here is the NAB footnote for Matt. 5:32
5:31–32 See Dt 24:1–5. The Old Testament commandment that a bill of divorce be given to the woman assumes the legitimacy of divorce itself. It is this that Jesus denies. (Unless the marriage is unlawful): this “exceptive clause,” as it is often called, occurs also in Mt 19:9, where the Greek is slightly different. There are other sayings of Jesus about divorce that prohibit it absolutely (see Mk 10:11–12; Lk 16:18; cf. 1 Cor 7:10, 11b), and most scholars agree that they represent the stand of Jesus. Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.
R
rose321
Guest
Respectfully toward and opinion only
When pondering on, in prayer also and reading within the Books>> writings of God’s chosen >Great Prophets > Isaiah and Jeremiah, which makes it clear divorce was not so with God, but Moses made exception for a reason they were stiff neck people (mentioned in Scripture also) maybe?
Moses being divinely enlighten and chosen by God, known also has the Law Giver>>by Jesus meeting also with Moses on the mount>>> might of known, all things come in God’s Time? Moses accomplished the task given to Him by God>.Ten Commandments His Royal Moral Laws for all to live by. Moses might of been aware which is later spoken by God’s Great Prophets who followed after Moses that a>>>shadow of things were to come, but in God’s Time, maybe?. Prophecies yet to be fulfilled, maybe?
Your last question
Ten Commandments were given to teach to know, right from wrong. Like any Loving Parent, Father or Mother can tell you,
Children can be rebellious?
Hard headed?
Stubborn?
Children do not always listen or do what a Loving Parent, ask them not to do, for their own good?
We do not know what hunger pain feels like, until we go hungry?
We do not know when to give compassion, until we are in need of compassion for ourselves?
We have suffered for our own failed choices, have we not?
Until we experience it for ourselves, is when we learn hopefully, not to repeat again, right?
Why does He give us Free Will? There is a Divine reason and purpose in doing so, right?
“For we learn nothing from our success, but what brings us to Success is our Failures” unquote.
Return to Me and I Will return to you> Jesus tells us and future generation to Hear>>We have harden hearts of stone, does He not? Written>asking us all to calling out >Return to your First Love?
God loves Faithfully, upholds > His Marriage Covenant, for Better or for Worst? True Pure Love, is unconditional > forgives, mercifully, is it not?
Forced Love is not Love>have we learned this, through our own personal experiences yet?
Jeremiah 31:31-34 God Will not divorce us or abandon us, but man will?
Peace
Last edited:
R
rose321
Guest
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
A couple of questions about Jesus’ ruling on these incestuous marriages that some rabbis allowed but Jesus doesn’t.
(1) Is he saying that the couple are allowed to separate or are required to separate?
(2) Following their separation, are the man and woman both free to contract licit marriages with other partners, or would they then be committing adultery?
R
rcwitness
Guest
1.) He did not specify. Those in those prohibited marriages would have to seek that answer by the Church.
2.) They are free to marry into a Christian marriage.
2.) They are free to marry into a Christian marriage.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Thank you. Taking your answer No. 2 first, I agree that it’s the only possibility that fits the logic of the saying. As ATN points out, Jesus’ inclusion of the words “not for porneia” is commonly held to mean that remarriage is acceptable in that case. Otherwise, why should he include that phrase?
My question No. 1 is less important, but the answer “required” is more likely, I think. If the answer is “allowed,” then Jesus is not changing what those controversial rabbis were teaching about an iincestuous marriage (under Jewish law) between converts to Judaism whose marriage was not deemed incestuous under the laws of their original religion. (Permissible degrees of kinship varied from one nation to another within the Roman Empire. For example, uncle-niece marriages might be banned as “incestuous” in one culture but permitted in another.) Those rabbis evidently allowed such couples to remain married after their conversion, but they would have had no reason to outlaw a divorce, if that was what the couple wanted, provided the divorce complied with the relevant requirements under rabbinical law.
My question No. 1 is less important, but the answer “required” is more likely, I think. If the answer is “allowed,” then Jesus is not changing what those controversial rabbis were teaching about an iincestuous marriage (under Jewish law) between converts to Judaism whose marriage was not deemed incestuous under the laws of their original religion. (Permissible degrees of kinship varied from one nation to another within the Roman Empire. For example, uncle-niece marriages might be banned as “incestuous” in one culture but permitted in another.) Those rabbis evidently allowed such couples to remain married after their conversion, but they would have had no reason to outlaw a divorce, if that was what the couple wanted, provided the divorce complied with the relevant requirements under rabbinical law.
Last edited:
D
Darryl_B
Guest
I could agree with the concubinage, but I disagree with the incestuous.
The definition of porneia is sex in exchange for something. It is purely transactional. It is not based on mutual love, sex for sex, but rather sex in exchange for something other than sex.
So there can be situations in those days where a female in hard times could receive lodging and board within a home, in exchange for sex. This is concubinage. An incestuous relationship is not necessarily porneia, and concubinage is not necessarily incestuous.
Hence the man taking in his father’s wife, not the man’s mother, would be a transactional arrangement. A concubinage.
But in those days concubinage was not regarded as marriage and therefore not subject to divorce.
D
Darryl_B
Guest
My friend, it is very hard to follow what you are saying as I have no idea what your punctuation terms “>>” “>>>” “>” represent.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Are you sure about that? It’s not what most sources say that I’ve looked at. It’s what the KJV usually calls “fornication,” i.e. illicit sex.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm
Last edited:
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Yes. I am sure. In Greek language adultery miochao also applied to pre-marital sex. That was not regarded as porneia.
- Status