Matthew's Exception Clause

[ericc]

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

Mosaic law Deu 24:1 states some “indecency” or “uncleaness” the reason for seeking a divorce. This is rather generic and wide-base and not merely adulterous in nature. According to “The Jewish Law Of Marriage And Divorce In Ancient And Modern Times” by Dr. M. Mielziner The Jewish law of marriage and divorce in ancient and modern times, and its relation to the law of the state : Mielziner, M. (Moses), 1828-1903 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive, the “uncleaness”

is a point on which the schools of Shammai and Hillel, flourishing in the last and century of the Jewish Second Commonwealth, widely differed. The former school took that expression in an ethical sense, and consequently limited the husband’s right of divorce to the case of a moral delinquency or unchaste demeanor in the woman; while the school of Hillel, understanding the expression to relate to anything offensive and displeasing, permitted divorce for any cause that might disturb domestic peace.

Jesus stance appears to follow that of the school of Shammai. However, porneia need not limit the coverage to adultery only. There are other non-adulterous sexual misconduct that can apply such as SSA or bestial sex. Lev 18:23 or other kinky stuff.

 

[rcwitness]

But Jesus condemned the concession of Moses. He referred back to what God binds.

You are mixing aspects here. The examples you are giving (bestiality, same sex, incest) were not binding by God.

Why would God bind such unions???

But a man and woman couple, who are free to legally marry, and do get married in Christian consent, are bound by God. For this, Jesus says nothing can dissolve.

But if the couple are commiting porneia by being together, then their “release” is proper.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Maybe I’m reading this discussion wrong, but it seems that we’re conflating two distinct ideas: Scriptural exegesis and Church teaching.

On one hand, we look at Scripture and attempt to glean the meanings within. Especially when Jesus’ own words are in play, we want to understand what He was saying and what it meant to Him and to the audience to whom He was speaking.

On the other hand, Jesus’ grant of proxy to the apostles (and most directly, to Peter) in Mt 16 informs us that the Church has both the authority and the responsibility to govern the Body of Christ. Using Scripture as its guide, it nevertheless creates positive law that is binding among Catholics.

Are we conflating “what Jesus meant” with “what the Church has laid down as doctrine”? At the moment, that’s how it appears to me. (Or, then again, I might be way off…)

 

[rcwitness]

Im trying to understand the exception clause in light of Church Teaching that even adultery cannot dissolve a marriage.

 

[Gorgias]

Im trying to understand the exception clause in light of Church Teaching that even adultery cannot dissolve a marriage.

Right. But, the Church doesn’t say that its laws are bullet-point-by-bullet-point verbatim copies of what Jesus literally said.

So, if we look at the exception clause in isolation, I think we won’t end up with every Church teaching that proceeds from it. After all, we’re called to look at the Bible in its entirety if we wish to understand what Jesus intends.

The analogy in my mind is the question of jurisprudence, vis-a-vis the story of the woman caught in adultery. If we took that story merely at face value, we might improperly conclude that Jesus was only teaching us that we should never prosecute crimes (or, to fall into the ditch on the other side, that adultery should never be punished). However, that would be a somewhat myopic view of things, since we’re focusing in on only one passage of Scripture.

I think the same danger exists with the exception clause. There is the narrative as told in the Bible, and there is the teaching of the Church, and I don’t think we should expect that there must be literal one-to-one equivalence.

So, Jesus speaks of ‘porneia’. The Church speaks of the indissolubility of valid marriage. I’m not certain you’ll find each and every talking point of the teaching in that one passage in Matthew…

 

[BartholomewB]

Are we conflating “what Jesus meant” with “what the Church has laid down as doctrine”? At the moment, that’s how it appears to me. (Or, then again, I might be way off…)

I am trying not to make that conflation. I know what the Church teaching is. I am approaching the question from the other angle, scriptural exegesis or, more broadly, New Testament studies…

 

[rcwitness]

I strongly dissagree. What Jesus Taught, and what the Church Teaches are not opposed to one another.

Just because we dont gather all knowledge of Jesus’ Teaching from Scripture alone, doesnt mean what He said could mean something different that what we believe.

The two are in harmony.

Porneia, does not refer to infidelity in a Christian marriage, but a marriage relationship which opposes the Christian faith.

 

[Gorgias]

I strongly dissagree. What Jesus Taught, and what the Church Teaches are not opposed to one another.

I’m not saying that they’re opposed to one another! However, I am asserting that one shouldn’t expect to find the entirety of Church teaching on a subject in one single passage of Scripture. What you’d expect to find in the passage will be in line with the teaching of the Church, but might not be completely explicative of it. I think that this is what we find in the present context.

If you search for the entirety of the Church teaching on the indissolubility of valid marriage in the definition of the word ‘porneia’, as spoken by Christ in Mt 19, then you’ll find yourself in big trouble.

That’s all I’m pointing out.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

I strongly dissagree. What Jesus Taught, and what the Church Teaches are not opposed to one another.

I’m not saying that they’re opposed to one another! However, I am asserting that one shouldn’t expect to find the entirety of Church teaching on a subject in one single passage of Scripture. What you’d expect to find in the passage will be in line with the teaching of the Church, but might not be completely explicative of it. I think that this is what we find in the present context.

If you search for the entirety of the Church teaching on the indissolubility of valid marriage in the definition of the word ‘porneia’, as spoken by Christ in Mt 19, then you’ll find yourself in big trouble.

That’s all I’m pointing out.

Im not doing what you are implying. Actually, im doing the opposite.

Im trying to understand what Jesus was saying (or rather how Matthew translated what Jesus was saying) with the sentance which included the term “porneia”.

If you look to my original questions, its not just about the term “porneia” but the surrounding Greek language. Matthew also phrases them different in both his accounts. What i was asking, is if the Koine Greek makes sense to be expressing an infidelity of a spouse, or the actual relationship of husband and wife itself!

 

[Gorgias]

if the Koine Greek makes sense to be expressing an infidelity of a spouse, or the actual relationship of husband and wife itself!

Neither/nor, as the Church interprets it.

Infidelity isn’t sufficient to warrant a nullity, per se, so we wouldn’t say that this was Jesus’ intent (since if it were, then it would mean that there is a conflict between His words and Church teachings!).

And, if by “husband and wife”, you mean valid marriage, then we would say that this isn’t the meaning either, since the Church has interpreted it to mean “unlawful marriage”.

Now, the only place for discussion is the question, “does the Koine Greek say something different than what the Church teaches?” Which, as it were, is what you say is the opposite of what you’re asking…

 

[rcwitness]

This is from my OP:

**First, in Chapter 5 vs 32, the greek translation says “… outside” “of case” “of prostitution…”
(RSV-CE except on the ground of unchastity)

This makes more sense if we see that Jesus didnt mean adultery in a marriage is grounds for divorce, but a carnal relationship itself which can be divorced!

And in Matthew 19:9 the greek is slightly different, but also is better understood in the same way.

“… if no… on prostitution…”
(RSV-CE except for unchastity)**

Do you see where im going? The Greek seems to be more accurately referring to porneia relations than a husband and wife where one commits adultery.

 

[Gorgias]

This makes more sense if we see that Jesus didnt mean adultery in a marriage is grounds for divorce, but a carnal relationship itself which can be divorced!

You mean “a carnal relationship that is outside of marriage”? That doesn’t make sense. The context is the permission for a husband to divorce his wife in the Mosaic law. Very literally, we’re talking about a marital relationship here.

Do you see where im going? The Greek seems to be more accurately referring to porneia relations than a husband and wife where one commits adultery.

If you’re taking this in the direction of a non-marital relationship (as distinct from the notion of an invalid attempt at marriage), then no, I think your take on it doesn’t work.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

This makes more sense if we see that Jesus didnt mean adultery in a marriage is grounds for divorce, but a carnal relationship itself which can be divorced!

You mean “a carnal relationship that is outside of marriage”? That doesn’t make sense. The context is the permission for a husband to divorce his wife in the Mosaic law. Very literally, we’re talking about a marital relationship here.

Do you see where im going? The Greek seems to be more accurately referring to porneia relations than a husband and wife where one commits adultery.

If you’re taking this in the direction of a non-marital relationship (as distinct from the notion of an invalid attempt at marriage), then no, I think your take on it doesn’t work.

But does a lawful Mosaic marriage gaurantee God has bound them?

The NAB commentary says otherwise…

 

[Gorgias]

But does a lawful Mosaic marriage gaurantee God has bound them?

The NAB commentary says otherwise…

I think it doesn’t say otherwise. Instead, isn’t it really giving a nod to the Catholic understanding (namely, that an attempt at marriage that seems valid at first glance may, in fact, not be valid at all)?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

But does a lawful Mosaic marriage gaurantee God has bound them?

The NAB commentary says otherwise…

I think it doesn’t say otherwise. Instead, isn’t it really giving a nod to the Catholic understanding (namely, that an attempt at marriage that seems valid at first glance may, in fact, not be valid at all)?

Ok, thats fair… yet its suggested that Gentile converts happened to be in marriages which were in violation to Mosaic laws.

 

[Gorgias]

yet its suggested that Gentile converts happened to be in marriages which were in violation to Mosaic laws.

Yeah. That’s a new one by me. I’d always read that it referred to situations within the Jewish community.

I’m chalking it up to the “comments in the NAB are sometimes outside the scope of Catholic teaching” meme…

 

[rcwitness]

Not sure why you think that…

 

[Gorgias]

Not sure why you think that…

Think what? That the comments in the NAB are the thoughts of scholars (including non-Catholics), rather than the teachings of the Church?

Umm… because they are…

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

Not sure why you think that…

Think what? That the comments in the NAB are the thoughts of scholars (including non-Catholics), rather than the teachings of the Church?

Umm… because they are…

No, why would you think Matthew was talking about something outside a Christian community?

I realize the NAB comments are not necessarily magisterial Teaching. But this comment is very logical.

 

[Gorgias]

No, why would you think Matthew was talking about something outside a Christian community?

Because he’s narrating a story that occurred within the Jewish community during Jesus’ earthly ministry…