Matthew's Exception Clause

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

So what do you take Matthew’s exception clause as referring to?

Do you have your own opinion?

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, that seems to make sense, but I need to speak to a friend whose Greek is much better than mine.

Were you able to talk to your friend?

 

[Cathoholic]

rcwitness

(On my opinion of “pornea” in the exception clause of Matthew 19.)

.

MATTHEW 19:8-10 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed 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 unchastity (Greek = pornea), and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”

.

(In my opinion . . .
Is the “marriage” invalidated in the first place like it would be with incest?
Is it valid but under extreme circumstances can divorce in the sense of “separate” not “remarry”?
Or both?
Or neither?) . . .
.

Do you have your own opinion?

I am not knowledgeable enough or confident enough in my own opinion to share it anyway.

I know under certain circumstances, the Church affirms a spouse can “separate” etc. (You know that too. But I know that is NOT what you are asking my opinion on. You are asking specifically about Matthew 19:9)

Sorry rcwitness. Your question is too deep for me but if I come across something relevant I’ll post it.

I’m bailing out (but I will watch the thread with interest).

Thanks for bringing it up though. (Try emailing Dr. Brant Pitre.)

 

[BartholomewB]

Were you able to talk to your friend?

Yes, he has sent me a very long and closely-reasoned reply, ranging over everything Jesus says about marriage and divorce in all four Gospels. It’ll take me a little while to boil it down to a sentence or two about the porneia business.

 

[rose321]

Among the Jews the laws of marriage were observed far more religiously, and it cannot be doubted that their unions were endowed with more holiness. As they had received from God the promise that in the seed of Abraham all nations should be blessed," it was justly considered by them to be a very pious duty to bring forth children, and thus contribute to the propagation of the chosen people from whom Christ the Lord and Saviour was to derive His birth in His human nature. Still their unions also fell short of the real nature of a Sacrament.

Respectfully. Thank you kindly. Interested in what this all means only searching understanding. Noting Jesus a Hebrew Israelite born, raised by Jewish Parents fully lived by, observed, etc Scriptures of Torah OT… Marriage Laws, adultery, divorce etc all over time has evolved in modern times, not to offend no one, but seeking being curious in understanding.

Curious
Jewish sources one being> “Wedding Traditions in Ancient Israel” simple read differences about marriage customs, divorce, are different from modern marriage Laws etc today.
Torah Law in Marriage,
Girls had to be virgins when they got married.
Men are allowed to marry multiply times, woman no.
Men were older, girls married around puberty >.makes sense here told our Blessed Mother was around 14 yrs old when giving birth to Jesus
Marriage was a contract like a Covenant, very Sacred bond Genesis 2:23-25 as one flesh. Human Marriage Covenant between a man/woman they make to each other

Many Covenants God made in OT and there is the Covenant given to his chosen Prophet Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Jeremiah 31:31-32 " they broke all though I was a husband to them"
In search found look up if interested> Did God Divorce Israel? What does Jeremiah mean by the Promise of a New Covenant?
Might explain where I am going to attain knowledge, understanding and why divorce couples cannot receive Holy Communion. Sad to me not to be able to do so.
Right or wrong pondering on this is all. Free Will given gives us the Right to Question and Examine, and because >>>Jesus heavily quotes from OT refers to the Prophets Isaiah Jeremiah and many others.
Human Marriage bond, contract, Sacrament, One in the Flesh?
Oneness in the Spiritual?

Other between God and His Creation> Spiritual Oneness?

God Will :heartpulse:and Man will not?
2 separate Covenant one being Spiritual between God and His Creation?
The other being made with Human flesh>>agreement made, contract between a man/woman?

Return to Me and I will return to you! Applies to all for we have all fallen short right?
So how can divorce couples be denied to return to God Spiritual Covenant He offers under His terms, which is separate from Man/Woman agreement they make with each other> Marriage Sacrament?

God Will, but Man will not?

Seems to flow in content with Jesus calling himself our Bridegroom and we are his Bride Spiritual meaning and understanding is needed here? Metaphor?
He is Love, Mercy Unconditional Love, Forgiveness, is he not for better or for worst> if he were not were would we all be?

Greatest Love story ever told?
Peace

 

[BartholomewB]

I’ve read carefully through ATN’s unexpectedly long (3,000 words) answer to my question, and he doesn’t even consider the possibility that porneia might mean what you say it means. His whole analysis is based on the assumption that the wife has been unfaithful, either before marriage or subsequently. If you like, I can send you the whole thing as a PM (broken up into suitable lengths) but it’s much too long and too irrelevant to post here on the thread. I have now asked someone else the same question. Let’s see how it works out this time.

On the choice of words, moicheia and porneia, ATN says only, “the Jewish mind was given to synonyms (Proverbs is full of parallelisms).”

 

[BartholomewB]

Here are two brief snippets about porneia:

Pornē was the Greek for a prostitute (as in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16), and the best translation of porneia is ‘illicit sex;’ that is, sexual relations between a couple who are not married to each other, regardless of whether either of them is married to anybody else. …

Jesus is clear in Matthew 19:9 that if you divorce for a reason other than spousal porneia then you should not remarry – it would involve adultery. Formally, these words say nothing about whether people who divorce for porneia are free to remarry; but 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?

 

[rcwitness]

This doesnt address my issue.

My issue is whether Jesus was referring to the unlawful relationship, or the Christian marriage.

If adultery can dissolve a marriage, then Jesus was referring to adultery. If adultery cannot dissolve a marriage, then Jesus was NOT referring to adultery.

Catholic Teaching is very clear; adultery cannot dissolve a marriage.

 

[stpurl]

Question here. The Christian faith has been around for 2000 years. While the East and West ‘split’ in 1054, the majority of the Western world, the cradle of the Renaissance, was firmly Catholic Christian until the 1500s.

So the question is, in this Christian world, as far as we know both through oral and written records, from the time we have such, was the Christian position that divorce could be permitted based on the wife being unfaithful?

We have records of kings petitioning for divorce (not simply Henry VIII). . .but the curious thing is that even when wives WERE accused of adultery, the marriage itself was not in question.

Isn’t it curious that IF the understood and accepted interpretation of Jesus’ words were what you claim, that the Pope, the kings, the nobles, etc. never utilized that interpretation?

That rather, when a wife was ‘guilty’ (husbands, apparently, could have as many mistresses as they chose) of adultery the ‘way’ in which the marriage was brought to an end was either through her EXECUTION (on the charge of treason, in the case of a king), or that there was an exploration of her having a ‘precontract’ of being unable to marry in the first place, in which case the current marriage, like a case for decree of nullity today, was the Catholic understanding that the marriage had been ‘unlawful’ NOT for adultery, but because of a precontract or an inability to marry validly?

See, I look for evidence, and the evidence does not support that the Catholic Church EVER believed in the interpretation of Matthew as a marriage being able to end with the husband’s ‘remarriage’ in the case of a wife’s adultery. It just isn’t there.

 

[rose321]

Why did He go to the trouble of saying that marriage was for KEEPS, that MOSES had kowtowed to people but GOD did not do so. . .oh but wait, now Jesus is going to confirm Moses’ mistake in the teeth of just saying this was not how GOD had ordained things???

Respectfully opinion only: Do not believe Moses made a mistake, but allowed it because as written they were stiff neck people.
Moses knowing all > a shadow of things to come. Other reasons why also

Moses allows animals sacrifices which the Great Prophet Isaiah, clearly states was never commanded by God also? Never commanded such?
A shadow of things to come?

Prophecies yet to be fulfilled, written about by the Great Prophets?.
Seems God slowly moves us along to a higher self within, does he not, generations upon generations to accomplish His great plan of salvation for all?

With God marriage was always for keeps, Moses allowed as Jesus stated because it is written > they are stiff neck people, but divorce was not so with God.
Jeremiah 2:1 " I remember the devotion of your youth how you loved Me as a Bride…

Jeremiah 3:1 " If a man sends away his wife and after leaving him, she marries another man. Does the first husband come back to her? Would not the land be wholly defiled? But you have sinned with many lovers and yet you would return to me! says the Lord." Yet they want God not to divorce them, but they divorce their spouses for their adultery or for what ever reasons etc?

Jeremiah 4:4 " For the sake of the Lord, be circumcised, remove the foreskins of your heart" They have harden hearts of stone? Jesus tells us we have harden hearts of stone? No Love, Mercy, Forgiveness stiff neck people etc?

Jeremiah 2: 14-18 " Return O backsliding children says the Lord “for I am your master”. I Will take you, one from a city and 3 from a family and I Will bring you to Zion" God will not divorce them?

God continues In Jeremiah chapter 3 : Saying he will place Shepherds over them after my own heart, shepherd them wisely etc.

Jeremiah 3: 16 " When you multiply and become fruitful in the land says the Lord, They will in those days no longer say " The ark of the Covenant of the Lord!" They will no longer think of it, or remember it , or miss it, or make another"
.
Isaiah is titled within our Bible >Jerusalem the Lord Bride> Jeremiah Chapter 62 1:5

But they broke their Covenant >Marriage contract?

Jesus comes to fulfill what is Spoken of Him by the Prophets >Jesus calls Himself our Bridegroom and we are His Bride does he not?

Prophecy of Jeremiah >Titled in the Bible as >>New Covenant or others stating >>calling it a > Renewed Covenant?

Isaiah Chapter 55: 3 " I Will renew with you the everlasting Covenant, the benefits assured to David"

Jeremiah prophecy>New Covenant>31:31, 32, 33, 34>>
Jem. 31:32 reads >32>>" My Covenant which they broke all thou I was a Husband to them"

He divorces not? Jeremiah Prophecy been fulfilled yet?

God will not, but man/woman will?

Why is it written calling out> Return to your first Love? Return to Me and I Will return to you >>why is it repeated throughout the whole bible?

Peace

 

[Gorgias]

No. This doesn’t make sense. Listen to what you’re saying:

Yes. When a spouse gives themselves over to another they have already enacted a breaking of bond and become 1 with another.

So, when Jesus said, “what God has joined, let no man tear asunder,” He wasn’t telling the truth? That is, a person actually can tear asunder the marriage? And worse yet, the way to do it is through sinning?!? The remedy for sin, as Jesus said over and over again, is forgiveness, not acceptance of the sinful state! So, for a couple to say “well, you had sex one time with someone else… I guess we’re no longer husband and wife” runs counter to Jesus’ teachings!

The divorce, loosing from, has already occurred

Christ says that there is no divorce, though. Look how silly you make Christ’s argument:
“Guys, there is no such thing as divorce. Unless there’s extramarital sex. OK… there is such a thing as divorce, but only for cheating.”

See what I mean? However, in the Catholic interpretation, it boils down to “there is no such thing as divorce”, and the ‘exception clause’ only is in effect if there had never been a valid marriage to begin with. Therefore, Christ’s message remains consistent: there is no such thing as divorce in valid marriages.

 

[Darryl_B]

I entirely agree with you and not sure why we are arguing. Though I doubt Jesus Christ was talking about invalid marriages, so we might disagree on that one point.

It is perhaps the definition of terms that is the problem. Divorce is the legal act only. Breaking the bond is the physical act.

 

[Darryl_B]

How about the fact that a person in adultery was not divorced under Jewish law. But was instead stoned.

 

[rose321]

“Guys, there is no such thing as divorce. Unless there’s extramarital sex. OK… there is such a thing as divorce, but only for cheating.”

Respectfully opinion and asking what does God say about divorce and reasons why?

Jeremiah 3 :6-10 > Judah and Israel " The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: See now what rebellious Israel has done! She has gone up every high mountain, and under every green tree she has played the harlot. And I thought, after she has done all this she will return to me. But she did not return. then, even though her traitor sister Judah saw that for all the adulteries rebellious Israel had committed, I put her away and gave her a bill of divorce, nevertheless her traitor sister Judah was not frightened, she too went off and played the harlot. Eager to sin, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and wood. With all this the traitor sister Judah did not return to me wholeheartedly, but insincerely says the Lord".

Turned to idolatry ( stone, wood?) committed adultery in unfaithfulness, following, worshiping other gods? Broke their Spiritual Marriage Covenant with God? No longer One?

In Jesus time being a Jew under their Marriage Laws asking>> could a man remarry his first love>> if he put her away for adultery, which was allowed by their Jewish Laws of Marriage >>is it not written also? Believe not, is this correct?

Mystery of the Marriage Physical marriage man/woman> Human Marriage?>Two shall become One?

Mystery of the Marriage>>Ephesians 5:21-32 is now about Christ and his church>.is he not?

Not about a Human physical marriage between a man/woman, but speaking about a Spiritual Marriage Oneness with God, is he not? A Family, we call Him our Father>>Lords Prayer begins with Our Father?

Jesus calls himself our Bridegroom and we are His Bride?
What is the New Covenant all about in the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34? >>Days are coming when I gather the House of Israel and House of Judea…does He accept back His Spouse= Nation?

Why does Jesus tell us? I have come, been sent only to the lost Sheep of Israel?

God will >> man will not?
Greatest Love story ever told, maybe?
Peace

 

[rose321]

How about the fact that a person in adultery was not divorced under Jewish law. But was instead stoned.

Respectfully what one said was true, but Jesus seems to go after the Priestly Laws, Torah Laws of Marriage or maybe not pleased with his own Temple Elders within their teachings of Laws?

For surely Jesus when walking the earth, with crowds gathering around him, to hear Him preach, teach, must of came across or heard of women committing adultery, did he not?

Yet Jesus did not call out to have such women stone to death did He, according to the Priestly Law?
Or if a woman wore 2 different cloths, also they were to be stone to death, is this not written?
Nor did Jesus preach such, but Jesus taught, the total opposite in his own teaching when it came to this woman who committed adultery, did he not? >Thou shall not??

Just seeking understanding is all. Question when examining in what is written.

For when the woman was caught in adultery the community wanted to stone her to death, Jesus comes to her defense, stating those without sin throw the first stone, did he not?Are all sins equal?

For surely those in the crowd must of not committed adultery, because they called to have her stone to death or did they?
Or did Jesus know, that those who were present, themselves transgressed the Law >Commandments in other areas, maybe?
Why Jesus states those who are without sin throw the first stone?

Notice Jesus stating the word without sin>.other sins?
Jesus was not just speaking to those who committed adultery was he?
First when examining, all must of committed adultery or other sins for no one could pick up a stone to through at her, did they? If not, then why?

Yet, Jesus simply bent down and wrote something in the sand, no one knows?
Was Jesus breaking the Torah law himself by not following it or giving the full measure, teaching of the Law? Correcting them?

Next question, why were woman only stone to death for committing adultery and not men?

Ten Commandments provide> Equality Rights, Freedom and Protection for all equally, whether man or woman is this true?
For there is no Commandment that says Thou shall not commit adultery >> only applies to woman and not men does it?
So confused need help in understanding, this is all.
Why one comes to a Catholic Forum for understanding in such teachings. Thanks

Peace

 

[Gorgias]

I doubt Jesus Christ was talking about invalid marriages, so we might disagree on that one point.

Yeah, we do disagree. That’s what the Church teaches… you know that, right?

It is perhaps the definition of terms that is the problem. Divorce is the legal act only. Breaking the bond is the physical act.

Interesting!

However, that’s not what the Church means by “the bond”. The bond is sacramental (when between two baptized persons in a valid marriage), and therefore, cannot be broken by anyone…!

 

[Darryl_B]

Yeah, we do disagree. That’s what the Church teaches… you know that, right?

However, that’s not what the Church means by “the bond”. The bond is sacramental (when between two baptized persons in a valid marriage), and therefore, cannot be broken by anyone…!

I know that that is one of the ways the theologians have interpreted that verse, as far as I am aware it is one of a few, all with the same motive, origin, bench-mark, basis of official Church teaching.

I have no problem with it, other than the fact that Jesus Christ is talking about divorce, and divorce by nature pertains to valid marriages, annulment on the other hand pertains to invalid marriages. Invalid marriages go without saying. Jesus Christ is tackling the law of Moses.

The exception clause is only found in Matthew, Matthew was writing to his target audience Jews, Jews were fairly good lawyers. Find one loop-hole destroys the entire argument. Jesus Christ closed some loop-hole.

The way I see it is to paraphrase “whoever divorces his wife except for the situation of whoring (I use that word beyond our present day meaning to incorporate many things), makes her an adulteress, for it is impossible to make someone something that they already are”.

The exception belongs to the next clause, if the exception were not there, the Jewish lawyers would be able to reason among themselves and say “How can I possibly make a woman an adulteress if she already is one”, there is the loop-hole.

Let me explain a little about broken bond. It is different than dissolve. Imagine having a TV set and it doesn’t work. It is broken, but it is still a TV set, it has not been dissolved, it is just broken, it is not operating the way it was designed to, it has no life in it, but it can be repaired. The bond is sacramental and therefore cannot be dissolved, but it can be broken and lifeless.

 

[Darryl_B]

I understand what you are saying, I am first and foremost curious about whether you have a plight.

 

[rose321]

I understand what you are saying, I am first and foremost curious about whether you have a plight.

Thank you for your kind reply, but I have no plight what ever that means to you.

Curious in wanting to seek out Truth, understanding is all and giving opinions like so many on different topics, right or wrong and learning much from others which also then leads me to so many more questions in search of answers on .

Did Jesus not come to teach the finite visible about the infinite invisible?
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
1 Corinthians 2:14
Romans 8:5
Romans 14:17

Curious to attain better understanding, asking>> What does God say about divorce? Just out to discuss and hoping to learn from others here and expressing when pondering on what is written to the topics at hand, questions asked etc.

Noting in the time of Jesus when he walked the earth, there was no NT, it did not exist, for decades later, is this true? So what Holy Scriptures was Jesus reading from, preaching and teaching on, where Jesus continually and heavily quoting from? >OT? Books of the Prophets? etc

Jesus heavily quotes from OT continually refers back to OT and the Prophets, why being a Jew born and raised in? Jesus refers back to His Great Prophets, prophecies spoken of>>>shadow of things to come does he not?

Through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Kings, Samuel, Hosea, Elijah, Job, Job, King David, etc.

So to understand what God means about divorce or what Matthew is stating about divorce, do we not have to go back to where>>> Jesus heavily quotes from, the Scriptures Matthew must of referred to and read from being a Jew also>what it says about divorce in OT? What is the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31:34 all about really?

When it comes to divorce written within Scripture and Jesus teaching, God Will not>>> but man will?

Like one said NT did not exist till decades after Jesus, Apostles death, would this be true, for Jesus read from Isaiah in the synagogue did he not?

Peace

 

[rcwitness]

Apparently, some Rabbi’s were contracting illicit marriages. That might be an incestual one, where the couple were married and then became Christian. Or a person was married, but really were not free to marry, because they already were married in the Lord to someone else.