Matthew's Exception Clause

[ericc]

And since adultery was punishable by death, i think Moses was allowing a divorce for things other than adultery.

Proving adultery is rather difficult as they require two eyewitnesses. A case of I know you are sleeping around but I can’t prove it? Or other non-adulterous sexual misbehavior? Deu 24:1 says “find some indecency in her” which could amount to anything. But women in those days are like chattel. An unproductive wife can be an economic burden to the man. A wife who bears no sons or children may be scorned.

Nevertheless, requiring a written bill of divorce in those days does require the intervention of a priest or magistrate since literacy rate was low. A certain delay and opportunity for reconsideration to reconcile the spouses are availed to the priest/magistrate so that false and frivolous, impromptu or emotional reactions can be acted upon and counseled.

 

[rcwitness]

Perhaps. And still, this was criticized (condemned) by Jesus.

 

[BartholomewB]

Moreover the Mosaic law pertaining to divorce applies only to valid marriages and not to mere cohabitants. Deuteronomy links the bill of divorce to proper marriages and I can not find any evidence to link a bill of divorce to unmarried couples… . One simply could not divorce someone who is not one’s spouse. A certificate of divorce is not needed if an unmarried couple is just breaking up.

On this point, I fully agree with you. There’s no such thing as a divorce unless there has first been a marriage. The passage in Deuteronomy that has been quoted on this thread lays down rules about the correct procedure to be followed in the case of divorce, but that’s all. There is no suggestion that divorce is wrong in itself or ought to be avoided. As far as I’m aware, that basic stance remains unchanged throughout the OT, though I’m not claiming to have made a study of the subject and I’m open to correction, as always.

In the NT, we find a change. In the two passages from Matthew that @rcwitness is examining on this thread, Jesus is explicitly enacting an amendment to the Law of Moses: “It has been said … but I am telling you …” in the first passage, with its echo in the later passage, “Moses allowed you … but I say …”

Jesus is proclaiming the indissolubility of marriage, though allowing an exemption from his new law in the case of porneia. What exactly he means by this term is the question we are focussing on here, under the label “Matthew’s exception clause”. The point I wished to make about the translation issues is that it cannot be conclusively proved that Jesus can only be referring to legally married couples, since the Greek words translated as “wife” and “divorce” do not have such a narrow range of meanings in the original Greek as they do in English. He may be referring to legally married couples, in which case he is exempting cases of porneia meaning adultery, or he may be referring to couples whose marriage is invalid for whatever reason, such as incest, in which case the English word “divorce” would be inappropriate, as you point out. “Separation” would perhaps be a better word to use in this case.

 

[Gorgias]

The point I wished to make about the translation issues is that it cannot be conclusively proved that Jesus can only be referring to legally married couples

I’m not seeing your point, either. Although you might claim that the words themselves might have other meanings in other contexts, the context here clearly pertains to married couples.

The narrative here is another example of a trap laid for Jesus. There were two schools of thought on the Mosaic prescriptions for divorce. One was that a divorce could be had “for any reason whatever” (which is what we literally find in Mt 19:3…!), and the other was that divorce had to be for a serious reason. The very context of the discussion are the Mosaic prescriptions allowing a husband to divorce his wife!

You might make a successful argument for alternate usages for these words, but as they’re found in this context, that argument cannot succeed. This is the question of divorce by a married man against his wife.

 

[rcwitness]

Bit what defined a married couple???

Jesus refers to the Genesis account where a man and woman are joined together. He refers to the intention God made sex to mean.

Just like St Paul uses the same Genesis passage to tell us a man and prostitute become one flesh when they have sex.

 

[rcwitness]

Maybe Matthew was distinguishing a valid marriage from a carnal, unlawful joining of the flesh? Porneia can be divorced from (e.g. prostitution, incest, homosexual, marriage to someone already married with a living spouse, etc.)

 

[Gorgias]

Bit what defined a married couple???

It was well-defined in society (both Gentile and Jewish) !

Jesus refers to the Genesis account where a man and woman are joined together. He refers to the intention God made sex to mean.

Prior to an ‘official’ standard of marriage, it’s reasonable to say that Adam and Eve were ‘joined together’, although we wouldn’t want to be anachronistic and call them ‘married’ in the sense that Mary & Joseph were or couples are today.

Just like St Paul uses the same Genesis passage to tell us a man and prostitute become one flesh when they have sex.

He’s not claiming ‘marriage’, however. He’s just pointing out the magnitude of the sin – that it attempts to create the kind of relationship that real marriage actually creates.

 

[rcwitness]

I think Paul wasnt merely claiming it as an attempt at marriage, but relating a true union. That union was porneia. Pornaia can be dissolved, since it is not calling on God to be binding.

Jesus was saying this about Porneia. That those kind of relationships can be dissolved.

 

[BartholomewB]

Although you might claim that the words themselves might have other meanings in other contexts, the context here clearly pertains to married couples. …
You might make a successful argument for alternate usages for these words, but as they’re found in this context, that argument cannot succeed. This is the question of divorce by a married man against his wife.

Yes, that was what I thought until I began this discussion with @rcwitness. He has not convinced me that his interpretation of porneia as an invalid marriage, typically for reasons of incest, is the only one that stands up to scrutiny, but he has convinced me that it is a possibility, alongside the usual interpretation of porneia, outside the Catholic Church, as marital infidelity by a legitimately married woman.

You yourself pointed out earlier (in your post No. 29 on this thread) that,

“Even if, as the NAB editors suggest, there was a particular situation in Matthew’s target audience, the Church has interpreted these passages as pointing out the only exception to Jesus’ “no divorce” statements: if the marriage was unlawful to begin with, then the couple may separate (since this does not create a situation of divorce).

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, that was what I thought until I began this discussion with @rcwitness. He has not convinced me that his interpretation of porneia as an invalid marriage, typically for reasons of incest, is the only one that stands up to scrutiny, but he has convinced me that it is a possibility, alongside the usual interpretation of porneia, outside the Catholic Church, as marital infidelity by a legitimately married woman.

Do you believe those two different interpretations are compatible?

I believe its one or the other. It cant be both.

 

[BartholomewB]

I believe its one or the other. It cant be both.

No, I wasn’t suggesting that it could be both. Like you, I think it must be one or the other. But I don’t know which.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

I believe its one or the other. It cant be both.

No, I wasn’t suggesting that it could be both. Like you, I think it must be one or the other. But I don’t know which.

Ok. If it was infidelity within a marriage, then why not use the word for adultery, instead of Porneia?

 

[BartholomewB]

If it was infidelity within a marriage, then why not use the word for adultery, instead of Porneia?

Here’s one possible explanation. There may be others.

Either in Jesus’ original Aramaic or in Matthew’s Greek or in both, it would be considered inelegant, shoddy writing to use the same word twice over in the same short sentence. Where there is a suitable synonym, it’s better to use that instead.

Of course, I’m not claiming to have the knowledge of Biblical languages to assess the merits of that argument. But it’s a possibility to be borne in mind, at least for the time being, until someone comes along who has a thorough knowledge of stylistics in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

 

[rcwitness]

Then u still have to answer why the other Gospels leave it out. And Paul doesnt acknowledge it either

 

[BartholomewB]

Then u still have to answer why the other Gospels leave it out. And Paul doesnt acknowledge it either

I feel I’ve reached the limit of my pay grade here. Those are questions for academics, people who earn their living by teaching New Testament studies and writing books about it. They’re not even able to agree among themselves on which is the right answer. Who am I to judge?, as some guy said on an airplane once, in a different context…

 

[rcwitness]

This is where im disappointed with the Church clergy. They should be able to interpret this.

However, keeping in line with Church Teaching that even adultery cannot dissolve a marriage, I believe its accurate to interpret this passage as meaning a relationship which rejects the Holy Spirit’s involvment in the union as porneia.

 

[ericc]

The point I wished to make about the translation issues is that it cannot be conclusively proved that Jesus can only be referring to legally married couples, since the Greek words translated as “wife” and “divorce” do not have such a narrow range of meanings in the original Greek as they do in English.

That stance unfortunately is contradicted in both Matthew verses because the certificate of divorce was explicitly brought up.

Mat 5:31
Mt 19:7

And we all accept that divorce papers are specifically for valid marriages only. I don’t see a way out of that. Sorry…I really think the variety of possible meanings of wife , husband etc is a moot point here.

 

[ericc]

Then u still have to answer why the other Gospels leave it out. And Paul doesnt acknowledge it either

Mark covers it in Mk 10 and Luke in 16:18. if you are referring to divorce. But there is no mandatory requirement that Gospels must replicate verses in each other for it to be the Word of God. Or in Paul epistles.

 

[BartholomewB]

That stance unfortunately is contradicted in both Matthew verses because the certificate of divorce was explicitly brought up.

Mat 5:31

Mt 19:7

In Matt 15 Jesus is asked a question about his disciples not washing their hands before meals, which he answers with a remark about filial duty, “honor thy father and thy mother”. He doesn’t always stick closely to the subject when he answers the Pharisees’ questions.

 

[rcwitness]

ericc:

That stance unfortunately is contradicted in both Matthew verses because the certificate of divorce was explicitly brought up.

Mat 5:31

Mt 19:7

In Matt 15 Jesus is asked a question about his disciples not washing their hands before meals, which he answers with a remark about filial duty, “honor thy father and thy mother”. He doesn’t always stick closely to the subject when he answers the Pharisees’ questions.

Yes, I agree Jesus could have been addressing a more general “divorce” than certificated divorces.

But even so, the NAB comments seem to suggest there were instances where marriages were being officially recognized which were unlawful. Maybe incestual relations which were unknown at the time of the ceremony?

Also, the early Christian Church apparently did not have a liturgy for Marriage! Im surprised at this, but what does that mean in all of this? How did the Christian Church recognize valid marriages? If by State, then im sure many situations of porneia would come about. State marriages of couples who were not free to marry according to the Christian faith.