Need help with Matthew 5:32

[TravisandJill]

I have just realized that the protestant bible and catholic bibles have different interpretations of this verse. The protestant bible has adultury as an acceptable cause for divorce and the NAB bible doesn’t. Can anybody please explain the original greek translations to me so I can see which translation is correct?

I am getting so frustrated that the same bible between protestants and catholics can have 2 different meanings. Did the protestants add this in or did catholics take this clause out??

Help

 

[Luke65]

This is heavily debated, but one thing is sure: it is not referring to adultery or the inspired author would’ve used the Greek word for adultery. Not to mention how absurd it would be that if you wanted to divorce all you would have to do is commit adultery! I linked the following article a few days ago on a related thread, I still think it’s the best explanation:

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

 

[thistle]

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary.

Ver. 32. Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matthew xix. 9. (Witham) — The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. (St. Augustine, de bon. conjug. chap. vii.) (Bristow)

 

[TravisandJill]

Thank you both

The info was very helpful. I am converting from being a protestant and I am still learnig so much, I wanted to be sure of everything I believe so that I could make an informed decision.

Jill

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi!

The word has both meanings, fornication and adultery – it also includes pedophilia and other unchaste sexual activity.

Jesus makes his remark in the territory of King Herod when he says this. John the baptist was indirectly executed for directly railing at Herod that his “marriage” to Herodias was sinful.

Jesus, here, states the same thing as John B.-- but in a way which prevents his adversaries from using his words against himself. Jesus does not explain why the exception exists.
But, take a clue, Herodias was NOT Herod’s first wife. Therefore he CAN divorce Herodias since she is not lawfully his wife in truth but an adulteress – some putative marriages really are NOT marriages. However, the opponents of Jesus would have to first admit she was not Herod’s wife before they could accuse Jesus of saying anything against the king.

To take it the other way, would be to say – if one wants a divorce, just commit adultery – then you may have a divorce and remarry. But this second way of interpreting is false, as Jesus’ statement does not allow for re-marriage even if divorce is permitted.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I find it more than just a coincidence that the only gospel that includes an exception clause for divorce also mentions that a just man, St. Joseph, was contemplating divorcing his espoused wife, the Virgin Mary, before they had come to live together because she was found to be with child. (Matthew 1:18-20)

I think the exception clause refers only to those special cases where a spouse is discovered to have been unfaithful between the time of the exchange of marriage vows and the time when the marriage is consummated. It is the consummation that makes a valid marriage an indissoluble union.

 

[tobinatorstark]

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary.

Ver. 32. Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matthew xix. 9. (Witham) — The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. (St. Augustine, de bon. conjug. chap. vii.) (Bristow)

I found that this passage from the Haydock Commentary quite helpful. I don’t think it could have been explained much clearer. This is one reason why I love the Haydock Commentary so much