Protestant Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter theconways
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theconways

Guest
why does the protestant Bible say in Mathew 5:31, that the only reason for divorce would be adultery? I trust that my Catholic Bible is correct, my question is why and when did this change occur. Do they claim a translation or transliteration discrepancy?
 
Well, not all Protestant Bibles say that. The translation is acceptable I guess. RSV-Catholic Edition says this (it’s actually verse 32 I think you’re referring to): “But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

I don’t think their translation is wrong, just their interpretation. The Greek word here translated unchastity is “porneia”. There are three acceptable interpretations of this verse.
  1. Jesus allowed for separation but not remarriage, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.
  2. Levitical view whereby porneia refers to an invalid marriage where the spouses are close relatives, as the word is used in 1 Cor 5:1-2
  3. Jesus says the debates about proper grounds for divorce are meaningless. In this case “except for unchastity” means “regardless of the OT grounds for divorce”.
In my opinion 1 is the best explanation, but all three are acceptable.
 
Actually this is something that has caught my eye since I’ve delved deeper into scriptures. There are actually 2 things to consider here.
  1. Only in Matthew’s gospel does it say that divorce on grounds of adultery is permissible. He says it in Mt5:31-32 and also in Mt19:9 as follows:
‘And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery’ (NRSV)

But in Mk10:11-12
'He said to them ‘whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’ (NRSV)

Also in Lk16:18:
‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.’ (NRSV)

As above, only in Matthew’s gospel does it mention divorce is permissible on reasons like unchastity. The other 2 gospel writers makes no mention of this. I believe this was so because Matthew’s gospel was directed towards the Jews so he had to address more on Jewish issues like divorce where the laws were lax. A man could put away his wife for any cause (Mt19:8). Also see Deu24:1-3, it shows very lax divorce laws under Moses which Matthew tries to address in his gospel.
  1. My second point is MOST catholic bibles use the phrase ‘illicit marriage’ or ‘unlawful marriage’ instead of ‘unchastity’ or ‘fornication’. I managed to check NJB, NAB which uses illicit or unlawful.
Firstly ‘unlawful marriage’ and ‘unchastity’ are different categories of reasons for grounds of divorce. My verses above are all NRSV which is an approved catholic and protestant bible. That’s why I see unchastity used. Douay-Rheims uses ‘fornication’. So i’m confused.

Secondly, i’m unable to check to check the much earlier version of bibles like latin vulgate and above so I don’t know what the original text is like.

Anyone can help in this?

Finally because of this conflicting statements and stands on reasons for divorce, some protestant pastors I know would agree to annul a marriage on the grounds of unchastity whilst some wouldn’t. Because the bible isn’t definite and 100% clear on this issue.

Cheers.
 
Here’s the definition of the Greek word porneia and how it is used in Scripture:
  1. (general) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. (#1)

b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18, 1Cor 5:1,2 (So you can see how #2 works)

c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12 (You can see how #1 works)

That’s why “unchastity” seems to be the general translation used, since it encompasses all these things. So we have a few ways we can interpret this passage, but we must interpret it within the authority of the Church. Passages like this are perfect examples of why we need to have the Church, lest we be amongst the “ignorant who interpret the Scriptures to their own destruction” by interpreting this as saying divorce is okay.
 
=theconways;6903202]why does the protestant Bible say in Mathew 5:31, that the only reason for divorce would be adultery? I trust that my Catholic Bible is correct, my question is why and when did this change occur. Do they claim a translation or transliteration discrepancy?
Click to expand...
Douay Rheims Bible Mt. 5:31 It hath also been said: *Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. 32 But I [Jesus] say to you: *that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery

Matt.19: 6 “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

The answer to your question is that in order to be an effective alternative to the CC they HAD TO and most certainly DID make everything EASIER! Divorice, forgiveness of sin, the process of Salvation are all examples of this SAD FACT!
 
I think some things are being missed in this (and I have mentioned them some time ago on a similar thread). First, marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. Second, adultery (fornication) is a breaking of that covenant. The guilty party bears the sin (in the OT, they would have been stoned to death, which would relieve the innocent spouse from the marriage vows; also, there was no sin offering for adultery). (Let’s not forget that the offending spouse is also endangering the innocent by increasing the possibility of contracting some disease.)

Of course, we should forgive the offending spouse, and keep the covenant going forward. But what if the offending spouse continues in this behavior? What example do we have from Scripture? I would point to Isaiah 50:1 (‘Thus says the Lord: "Where is your mother’s bill of divorce, with which I put her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was put away.’ RSV) and Jeremiah 3:8 (‘She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the harlot.’ RSV). Notice that God divorced Israel because of spiritual adultery. We can see that this was a continuous occurance in the history of Israel (and Judah).

Having said all that, I would simply ask - is divorce OK on grounds of adultery, or did God sin when He divorced Israel?
 
From: Nuevo Testamento Trilingue
Jose M. Bover
Jose O’Callaghan
Bibliotecas de Autores Cristianos [BAC]
**
Neo-Vulgate**

Mt.5:31-32:
31.Dictum est autem: Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det illi libellum repudii. 32.Ego autem dico vobis: Omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam, excepta fornicationis causa, facit eam moechari, et qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat.
 
The question is actually two questions. One involves divorce and the other remarriage. It is clear that, without exception, the scriptures treat remarriage of a divorced person as adultery. So it would therefore seem logical that remarriage of divorced people can never be permitted. But is divorce permitted? In the Matthew 5 verse it seems that Jesus is saying that a divorce is only permitted for adulterous behavior, a change in the Mosaic Law to be sure. Besides death, adultery is the only act that can break the covenant relationship of marriage. So the Mosaic Law was actually more liberal than what Jesus taught and Jesus states as such. But Jesus also adds that it wasn’t always that way. In Mt 19:3 we find the following:

"3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 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, and marries another, commits adultery.” [Mt 19:3-9]

That passage creates a problem though. When is the adultery committed? Is it committed in divorcing one’s spouse or is it committed in remarrying? Fortunately Mark’s gospel clarifies the matter. Mark 10:2-12 records the event as follows:

"2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” [Mr 10:2-12]

Luke 16:18 is in agreement with Mark as is Romans 7:3. Romans 7:3 in fact stresses the point that the adultery is committed in the remarriage or cohabitation:

“Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.” [Romans 7:3]
 
inkaneer said:
The question is actually two questions. One involves divorce and the other remarriage. It is clear that, without exception, the scriptures treat remarriage of a divorced person as adultery. So it would therefore seem logical that remarriage of divorced people can never be permitted. But is divorce permitted? In the Matthew 5 verse it seems that Jesus is saying that a divorce is only permitted for adulterous behavior, a change in the Mosaic Law to be sure. Besides death, adultery is the only act that can break the covenant relationship of marriage. So the Mosaic Law was actually more liberal than what Jesus taught and Jesus states as such. But Jesus also adds that it wasn’t always that way. In Mt 19:3 we find the following:

"3And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 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, and marries another, commits adultery.” [Mt 19:3-9]

That passage creates a problem though. When is the adultery committed? Is it committed in divorcing one’s spouse or is it committed in remarrying? Fortunately Mark’s gospel clarifies the matter. Mark 10:2-12 records the event as follows:

"2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away.” 5 But Jesus said to them, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” [Mr 10:2-12]

Luke 16:18 is in agreement with Mark as is Romans 7:3. Romans 7:3 in fact stresses the point that the adultery is committed in the remarriage or cohabitation:

“Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.” [Romans 7:3]
Click to expand...
 
Interesting discussion. However, is there not a condition in which one may be washed clean even of the sin of adultery? If a married man looks upon a beautiful woman and in his heart feels lust, has that man not committed adultery? Scripturally, yes.

What biologically normal man has not sinned spiritually in this regard? In my opinion, we need to focus on salvation, forgiveness and redemption. I have sinned and still do, but nothing like what I experienced before receiving Christ and becoming part of his body.

I recognize my imperfections and realize that only with the help of the Holy Spirit will I be able ascend into the hill of the Lord and avoid temptation. We have no excuses now for sins that we may fall into. But we can depend on the mercy our Creator. We must sin no more, but in our weakness realize that it’s an ongoing battle. That’s the order and condition for His forgiveness.
 
Going back to the original question. I heard in an audio lecture on textual criticism that there are some greek mss of Matthew that contain the clause and some that do not. So that the reason one bible may contain the clause and another not would not be an interpretation issue of the greek word therein but rather a choice of which manuscripts will be used in the translation. Another example of this would be the end of Mark 16:9-20. Most bibles put this in brackets and mention that many mss do not contain these passages.
 
I don’t see how a sin can be the basis for dissolving the marriage bond - after all, we all sin, and if it was that easy, why would the teaching be “hard?”

I’ve always understood “porneia” to be somewhat unclear of rendering in English (hence all our different translations).

However, one way to approach this is to say that the practice of the Church can shed light on this. The Catholic Church has only ever granted “divorce” (actually, annulment) for marriages that were never valid to start with or if they had not been consummated (which would not be annulment but another procedure which name escapes me requiring permission from the pope).

Assuming the second would not be the applicable case, we should be looking for the *porneia * clause to apply to cases where a marriage would be determined to be invalid. One such case (and this was apparently somewhat common in the day) of marriages where consanguinity (ie too close a relative, such a mother or father-in-law) was an impediment.

While it is not proven that Matthew was written for the Jewish Christians, it would be consistent with the rest of the Gospel to view it this way. Such unlawful marriages are described in the Old Testament, and some of those prohibitions are carried in the Church today as well.

T2
 
Wayne_Andrew said:
Interesting discussion. However, is there not a condition in which one may be washed clean even of the sin of adultery? If a married man looks upon a beautiful woman and in his heart feels lust, has that man not committed adultery? Scripturally, yes.

What biologically normal man has not sinned spiritually in this regard? In my opinion, we need to focus on salvation, forgiveness and redemption. I have sinned and still do, but nothing like what I experienced before receiving Christ and becoming part of his body.

I recognize my imperfections and realize that only with the help of the Holy Spirit will I be able ascend into the hill of the Lord and avoid temptation. We have no excuses now for sins that we may fall into. But we can depend on the mercy our Creator. We must sin no more, but in our weakness realize that it’s an ongoing battle. That’s the order and condition for His forgiveness.
Click to expand...
Can a man be clean if, after wallowing in mud, he takes a shower but returns to wallow in mud again? Similarly can a man commit adultery by marrying a divorced woman and expect to be forgiven of that sin if he continues to live with her? Isn’t repentance required for forgiveness and doesn’t repentance require the man to cease his sinful activity?
 
inkaneer said:
Can a man be clean if, after wallowing in mud, he takes a shower but returns to wallow in mud again? Similarly can a man commit adultery by marrying a divorced woman and expect to be forgiven of that sin if he continues to live with her? Isn’t repentance required for forgiveness and doesn’t repentance require the man to cease his sinful activity?
Click to expand...
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands. Mark 9:43

If you are commiting adultery in this way, it very hard, but the relationship must end.
 
Any bible translation that says “except for adultery” uses that to push forward an agenda. The Greek word there is “porneia” not “moichao” which is adultery.

You can see this distincition in Matthew "Whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, and marries another, commits moichao…

We know that porneia means unlawful marriage because Paul uses the word porneia here for an illegal “marriage”.
1 Cor. 5:9 “It is actually reported that there is immorality (porneia) among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife”

Matthew 14:1-4 tells us about Herod who was living in porneia. John the Baptist was beheaded because he told Herod “It is not lawful for you to have her.” Herod was “married” to his niece which was porneia and therefore an unlawful marriage.
 
Look, the fact of the matter is that Saint Paul gives us two options in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Be reconciled, or separate but remain single. According to him, this is from the Lord. Not optional. And the fact is that we must reconcile this with the passages in Matthew. The only way to do this is by the Catholic interpretation. Thus the translations, especially if there is doubt in regards to the manuscripts, should reflect this.
 
=macaronte;6919270]From: Nuevo Testamento Trilingue
Jose M. Bover
Jose O’Callaghan
Bibliotecas de Autores Cristianos [BAC]
**
Neo-Vulgate**
Click to expand...
Mt.5:31-32:
31.Dictum est autem: Quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det illi libellum repudii. 32.Ego autem dico vobis: Omnis qui dimiserit uxorem suam, excepta fornicationis causa, facit eam moechari, et qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat.
Click to expand...
**For that one or two like myself who don’t understand Latin [duh!]

Matt.5 Verses 31 to 32**

[31] "It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
[32] But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The Catholic Catechism

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

**2383 **The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
Okay, the debate goes on…endlessly. There are many confrontations between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. Several of which were concerning the LAWS of marriage and divorce. It is easy to miss the point related to the real messages that Jesus was trying to convey during the exchanges we read about between himself and the scribes and Pharisees. We, of course, know that Jesus was a Jew. In my opinion, Jesus was trying to tell his bretheren to lighten up. There is a 50% divorce rate in this country. Many of these are good people - probably more qualified to be saved than those of us writing in this thread. One thing I’m pretty sure of: passing judgement on a neighbor who may be re married is not the proper Christian attitude and not what Jesus taught.

“They said unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultry, in the very act.” St. John 8,vs 4. “When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.” St. John 8, vs 10, 11. If remarring after a divorce is adultry, there are a lot of us poor sinners in big trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top