Unlawful Marriage? Matthew 5:32

[Jerry-Jet]

Precisely–what is the exception in Matthew 5:32? Does the Catholic church teach that there is ANY exception?

I ask because I always thought that remarriage while the divorced spouse was living was always wrong.

It would make sense that an incestuous marriage would never be a marriage in the first place.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jerry-Jet you asked:

Precisely–what is the exception in Matthew 5:32?

The exception is for the divorce aspect. Not the “re-marriage” aspect.

The exception is for “pornea”.

If a husband divorces his wife because she committed pornea, he is NOT free to “re-marry” (assuming he had a Sacramental marriage in the first place).

CCC 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

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.

CCC 2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

CCC 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.179

Jerry-Jet you also asked:

I ask because I always thought that remarriage while the divorced spouse was living was always wrong.

You are absolutely correct.

CCC 2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176

CCC 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178​

Jerry-Jet you also said:

It would make sense that an incestuous marriage would never be a marriage in the first place.

That is correct too.

2388a Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense . . .

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Duane1966]

Forced marriages (like a shotgun wedding) would also be unlawful.

 

[Ignatius]

Hi quick question;
Trying to explain Matthew 5:32 to a Protestant. The verse states:
“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Protestant Bibles tent to render the words “unlawful marriage” as “adultery”.

Now I have done a little research and I see that the word in greek is “porneia” which does appear to have many meanings, but one of those* is* adultery. It seems to mean general sexual sin though.
But one explanation I have read states that an unlawful marriage or “porneia” was when two close relatives married, or when the woman was not a virgin before the marriage.

How should I understand this verse as a Catholic?

Unlawful marriage is just that, an unlawful marriage, such as those mentioned by Paul, one marrying his own fathers wife mother or his sister or in other other unlawful conditions.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hello Civil War,

How did I get here?

Trying to figure out the difference between how Mathew 5:32 is translated.

I have a small bible study at my home and in one bible it said** Except for cause of unchastity. ** In another it said For cause of an illicit marriage.

So I pulled out all my bibles and each one had a different translation, one even said **For whoredom. **But only the catholic versions had Illicit marriage.

So, what to make of it?

As some posters on this thread have stated, the greek word pornea can be translated differently. Young’s Literal Translation (from the Greek) uses the word Whoredom.

So it would seem that Jesus is saying that you cannot divorce your wife EXCEPT in the case of infidelity, but in other places He says you cannot divorce - excluding this exception.

So which is it?

At first I kind of thought that the catholic bible was adjusting the wording so as to make it agree with catholic marriage doctrine. This would be so disappointing!

I read up on it a bit and it seems that greater minds than mine are debating this question.
If you’re still interested you should do your own study on this.

It’s not that important to me in the end, but it would seem that the majority of theologians and scriptural scholars think that the exception should not be there, and that it might have referred to something else - like maybe the actual divorce, as one poster said - although it is difficult to read this into it.

I still feel that the catholic bible should have left the wording as was in the original. We criticize other bibles for adjusting translations and then we do the same?? Who knows, I might start using th KJV! But that has its problems too.

How did your debate turn out? I hate debating… Where does it ever get you? But if it’s friendly it could be okay.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Jerry-Jet you asked:

The exception is for the divorce aspect. Not the “re-marriage” aspect.

The exception is for “pornea”.

If a husband divorces his wife because she committed pornea, he is NOT free to “re-marry” (assuming he had a Sacramental marriage in the first place).

CCC 2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

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.

CCC 2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

CCC 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.179

Jerry-Jet you also asked:

You are absolutely correct.

CCC 2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176

CCC 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178​

Jerry-Jet you also said:

That is correct too.

2388a Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense . . .

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Hello Cathoholic

Boy, would I love to understand this “divorce aspect” side of this.

I’ve been reading up on it and I just don’t get it. It sounds like maybe you do.

If you’d care to explain how you undersand it, it would be nice.

Please don’t start from the beginning and do the CCC thing and the OT quotes and the NT quotes and canon law all that - all known. If you could just make it simple… I don’t see it and there is, of course a conflict which might just be in the original translation of Mathew 5.32.

Young’s Literal Translation uses the word: Whoredom, for the exception.

How could 32 possibly be referring to divorce?

As I said to Civil War, I do find it disturbing that we changed the entire meaning of the wording.

Thanks.
Fran

 

[ericc]

So was God wrong to divorce Israel for her spiritual adulteries (see Isaiah 50:1 and Jeremiah 3:8), or could it be that if one spouse continually commits adultery, the other spouse, even though he/she forgives the offending partner, has a right before God to divorce the unfaithful spouse? And what version reads, “(unless the marriage is unlawful)”? Even the DR reads, “except for the cause of fornication”.

And yet God continually is ready to forgive if one repents Jer 3:12-13 for He is merciful. He is willing to accept a returning faithless partner.

If a marriage is unlawful, it can be annulled. The verse quoted allegedly permitting divorce, does not permit remarriage in any case. “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”

 

[MrSnaith]

Hello Cathoholic

Boy, would I love to understand this “divorce aspect” side of this.

I’ve been reading up on it and I just don’t get it. It sounds like maybe you do.

If you’d care to explain how you undersand it, it would be nice.

Please don’t start from the beginning and do the CCC thing and the OT quotes and the NT quotes and canon law all that - all known. If you could just make it simple… I don’t see it and there is, of course a conflict which might just be in the original translation of Mathew 5.32.

Young’s Literal Translation uses the word: Whoredom, for the exception.

How could 32 possibly be referring to divorce?

As I said to Civil War, I do find it disturbing that we changed the entire meaning of the wording.

Thanks.
Fran

He can correct me if I have it wrong, but I understand him to be saying that divorce is only permitted in the case of porneia, otherwise divorce may never occur. However, his position is also that even should divorce occur, remarriage may never occur (until either of the spouses dies).

I don’t think that’s a correct reading, because the underlying assumption of the text, which is in reference to Deuteronomical divorce law, is that the woman remarries, and as such Jesus is speaking here about “divorce and remarriage” together, and that this exception applies to the whole package.

It’s really a matter of sentence structure. You could recast the sentence, legitimately, in the following way:

“But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife makes her an adulteress, except on the ground of porneia; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The question, ultimately, is about the term porneia, and how it should properly be understood in this context, as a legitimate ground for divorce.

 

[ericc]

c

He can correct me if I have it wrong, but I understand him to be saying that divorce is only permitted in the case of porneia, otherwise divorce may never occur. However, his position is also that even should divorce occur, remarriage may never occur (until either of the spouses dies).

I don’t think that’s a correct reading, because the underlying assumption of the text, which is in reference to Deuteronomical divorce law, is that the woman remarries, and as such Jesus is speaking here about “divorce and remarriage” together, and that this exception applies to the whole package.

It’s really a matter of sentence structure. You could recast the sentence, legitimately, in the following way:

“But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife makes her an adulteress, except on the ground of porneia; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The question, ultimately, is about the term porneia, and how it should properly be understood in this context, as a legitimate ground for divorce.

I side with Cathoholic. Jesus was criticising the Deuteronomic arrangement where a bill of divorce could be given if the man didn’t like the wife. Deu 24:1 and Jesus didn’t like that arrangement at all. He permits divorce only if the woman commits “sexual irregularity”. Nowhere did he allow remarriage. Let no man put asunder what God has joined he said plainly. In Luke 16:18 he said it so clearly “one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”. This is regardless of whether who is at fault. Hence, even if the husband were to divorce the wife for sexual irregularity, he still cannot remarry. This is a tough one indeed. Because man/woman was joined by God as one and only God can dissolute the marriage i.e. death. Even if both parties agree to part willingly, eagerly, can’t stand the sight of each other etc, it does not get divine approval. Marriage vows used to carry language “for better or worse till death do us part”. A vow in the presence of God does comes with the expectation that God does expect to see the couple stick it through. The Catholic marriage is sacramental and holy with few loopholes( I know of Pauline and Petrine privileges so far)

1 Cor 7:11 gives clear explanation by Paul. NO remarriage.

 

[MrSnaith]

c

I side with Cathoholic. Jesus was criticising the Deuteronomic arrangement where a bill of divorce could be given if the man didn’t like the wife. Deu 24:1 and Jesus didn’t like that arrangement at all. He permits divorce only if the woman commits “sexual irregularity”. Nowhere did he allow remarriage. Let no man put asunder what God has joined he said plainly. In Luke 16:18 he said it so clearly “one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”. This is regardless of whether who is at fault. Hence, even if the husband were to divorce the wife for sexual irregularity, he still cannot remarry. This is a tough one indeed. Because man/woman was joined by God as one and only God can dissolute the marriage i.e. death. Even if both parties agree to part willingly, eagerly, can’t stand the sight of each other etc, it does not get divine approval. Marriage vows used to carry language “for better or worse till death do us part”. A vow in the presence of God does comes with the expectation that God does expect to see the couple stick it through. The Catholic marriage is sacramental and holy with few loopholes( I know of Pauline and Petrine privileges so far)

1 Cor 7:11 gives clear explanation by Paul. NO remarriage.

Ah, ah, ah, I see where I went wrong. Yes, you guys are correct.

The key is in this one word: makes.

In other words, what Jesus is saying here is:

If a man divorces his wife, who must out of necessity find a new husband, he makes her an adulteress, because they are really still married. If, however, a man divorces his wife because of porneia, then she makes of herself an adulteress by her infidelity, both before the divorce and afterward.

The exception is meant to free the husband of the guilt of her adultery, while in all other cases of divorce, it is actually the husband who is guilty of her adultery, because he forces it upon her by the very act of divorce, out of the social necessities of the time.

But in all circumstances, in the eyes of God, the divorced couple are still married to each other, and the remarried are committing adultery (whether that be the husband or wife who remarries).

Bingo!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Ah, ah, ah, I see where I went wrong. Yes, you guys are correct.

The key is in this one word: makes.

In other words, what Jesus is saying here is:

If a man divorces his wife, who must out of necessity find a new husband, he makes her an adulteress, because they are really still married. If, however, a man divorces his wife because of porneia, then she makes of herself an adulteress by her infidelity, both before the divorce and afterward.

The exception is meant to free the husband of the guilt of her adultery, while in all other cases of divorce, it is actually the husband who is guilty of her adultery, because he forces it upon her by the very act of divorce, out of the social necessities of the time.

But in all circumstances, in the eyes of God, the divorced couple are still married to each other, and the remarried are committing adultery (whether that be the husband or wife who remarries).

Bingo!

Wait a minute on the Bingo!

I was hoping Catholoholic would explain how Mathew 5:32 is concerning divorce, but, alas, he won’t do it. I guess I could study up on it myself.

Your pp re the guilt aspect of the adultery/divorce is interesting but that’s not what’s in question here.

Read Mathew 5;32 “BUT I SAY TO YOU whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery…” This is repeated in Mathew 19;9

Now read Mark 10;11-12 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery…”

Let’s put some ideas together:

Mathew was written for Jewish converts who knew the old Law well.
Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies.
Whenever He says “but I say to you”, He’s, in effect, making the old law more perfect, gives it more meaning, explains the principles in a deeper way, and in an internal understanding instead of external signs. Jesus’ new law brings the old law back to what God had intentionally intended in the first place.
The Greek word for the highlighte is ‘porneia’ which is not easily translated because it’s used in different way. Young’s Literal Translation uses te word Whoredom for this verse in Mathew (unchastity).

So which is it? Is divorce allowed or not? It’s obvious that remarriage is not allowed.

I mean, if He’s giving an exception to divorce that would sound like divorce is allowed. This is the question.

How could we know for sure what Jesus meant? It seems important. Most theologians agree that Mark is correct. There is NO exception. Divorce is not allowed.

Your saying that divorce is allowed but the guilt is taken away if it’s due to porneia.

Maybe Mathew remembers differently. Some believe he copied much from Mark - then why the difference. It’s the conflict between Mathew and Mark that creates the problem.

This really requires some studying - or we could just accept what the CCC says. I am bothred, however, by the clear conflict and how the word porneia is changed in some catholic bibles to make it be “illitgitimate” marriage so it could agree more with catholic doctrine on divorce - which would make the marriage null.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

I don’t get it? Unlike Luke 16:18 which mentions remarriage Matthew 5:32 only talks about divorce causing a wife to be and adulteress. How does divorce only make her an adulteress?

I guess we’re a bit beyond your question,
but I do believe that Jesus is saying that DIVORCE is not allowed.

And is not taking it for granted that the wife will remarry and thus become an adultress, and ditto for the husband.

Jesus is saying that divorce is not allowed.

But there is a conflict as stated in my post just before this one.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Precisely–what is the exception in Matthew 5:32? Does the Catholic church teach that there is ANY exception?

I ask because I always thought that remarriage while the divorced spouse was living was always wrong.

It would make sense that an incestuous marriage would never be a marriage in the first place.

I don’t think anyone has answered your questions.

The Catholic church does not teach any exception for divorce except in the case of a null marriage which means that the marriage was never valid to begin with. The church does not declare a marriage null, it only declares that it never was a valid marriage, thus making it null.

For instance, it could be null if one of the two never intended to have children. or was forced into the marriage against his will. I’m not well versed in canon law and will stop here.

So if the marriage is null, one could remarry.
Otherwise, you’re correct and remarriage is not allowed and divorce is not allowed.

If you do divorce, you confess it but then must remain chaste. Quite a task for a young person who was abandoned by the spouse, but that’s a different thread.

But let’s see if this remains the same after 2016…

 

[frangiuliano115]

c

I side with Cathoholic. Jesus was criticising the Deuteronomic arrangement where a bill of divorce could be given if the man didn’t like the wife. Deu 24:1 and Jesus didn’t like that arrangement at all. He permits divorce only if the woman commits “sexual irregularity”. Nowhere did he allow remarriage. Let no man put asunder what God has joined he said plainly. In Luke 16:18 he said it so clearly “one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery”. This is regardless of whether who is at fault. Hence, even if the husband were to divorce the wife for sexual irregularity, he still cannot remarry. This is a tough one indeed. Because man/woman was joined by God as one and only God can dissolute the marriage i.e. death. Even if both parties agree to part willingly, eagerly, can’t stand the sight of each other etc, it does not get divine approval. Marriage vows used to carry language “for better or worse till death do us part”. A vow in the presence of God does comes with the expectation that God does expect to see the couple stick it through. The Catholic marriage is sacramental and holy with few loopholes( I know of Pauline and Petrine privileges so far)

1 Cor 7:11 gives clear explanation by Paul. NO remarriage.

Jesus did not permit divorce.

That’s why the church does not teach divorce. That’s why you’re still ALWAYS married to your wife even IF you get a civil divorce. That’s why you can’t remarry - because your WIFE is still alive.

Then you go on to explain how marriage is a “vow” and God expects us to “stick it out”, so you confuse me a bit.

Just wanted to clarify - I think you agree that divorce is not allowed.

Fran

 

[MrSnaith]

Wait a minute on the Bingo!

I was hoping Catholoholic would explain how Mathew 5:32 is concerning divorce, but, alas, he won’t do it. I guess I could study up on it myself.

Your pp re the guilt aspect of the adultery/divorce is interesting but that’s not what’s in question here.

Read Mathew 5;32 “BUT I SAY TO YOU whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery…” This is repeated in Mathew 19;9

Now read Mark 10;11-12 “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery…”

Let’s put some ideas together:

Mathew was written for Jewish converts who knew the old Law well.
Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies.
Whenever He says “but I say to you”, He’s, in effect, making the old law more perfect, gives it more meaning, explains the principles in a deeper way, and in an internal understanding instead of external signs. Jesus’ new law brings the old law back to what God had intentionally intended in the first place.
The Greek word for the highlighte is ‘porneia’ which is not easily translated because it’s used in different way. Young’s Literal Translation uses te word Whoredom for this verse in Mathew (unchastity).

So which is it? Is divorce allowed or not? It’s obvious that remarriage is not allowed.

I mean, if He’s giving an exception to divorce that would sound like divorce is allowed. This is the question.

How could we know for sure what Jesus meant? It seems important. Most theologians agree that Mark is correct. There is NO exception. Divorce is not allowed.

Your saying that divorce is allowed but the guilt is taken away if it’s due to porneia.

Maybe Mathew remembers differently. Some believe he copied much from Mark - then why the difference. It’s the conflict between Mathew and Mark that creates the problem.

This really requires some studying - or we could just accept what the CCC says. I am bothred, however, by the clear conflict and how the word porneia is changed in some catholic bibles to make it be “illitgitimate” marriage so it could agree more with catholic doctrine on divorce - which would make the marriage null.

Fran

What you say here about Jesus perfecting the old Law is true. And it is usually concerned with the spiritual, or inner disposition of the person. Jesus is revealing a deeper truth, a Sacramental reality, which is that God has joined two people in marriage in a way that human law cannot undo. It isn’t just about the inability to remarry. That’s certainly part of it. The point here, really, is that “divorce” doesn’t actually do away with the Sacramental marriage, hence the adultery.

But the proviso isn’t necessarily in there to say “except divorce is okay in this instance.” Rather, it is there to say “except in this case, the man isn’t making her adulterate.” Whereas in all other instances he does cause her to adulterate… because the original marriage is still valid, despite the divorce.

 

[ericc]

Jesus did not permit divorce.

That’s why the church does not teach divorce. That’s why you’re still ALWAYS married to your wife even IF you get a civil divorce. That’s why you can’t remarry - because your WIFE is still alive.

Then you go on to explain how marriage is a “vow” and God expects us to “stick it out”, so you confuse me a bit.

Just wanted to clarify - I think you agree that divorce is not allowed.

Fran

I apologise for being sloppy. Divorce is not allowed. In fact I don’t see any discrepancies between Matthew, Mark and Luke verses. Let me summarise what I thought each verse did say and didn’t.

Mat 5:32. Qualifies the fault maker. If the wife commits porneia, the husband is NOT guilty of causing her to be an adulteress. If the husband divorces his wife for non-porneia reasons, he commits the sin of causing the wife to commit adultery (as it is implicit that she would need to remarry in order to survive in those days. ) . If he remarries, he is guilty of adultery as well. This verse does not say it is permitted to divorce. This verse does not say 2 wrongs make it right. If the wife has gone bad, the husband must not go the same way. What you have committed to the Lord remained valid individually and jointly.

Mat 19:9 Similar to Mat 5:32 but abbreviated.

Mk 10:11-12 is very explicit. Whosoever divorce and remarries commits adultery.

Luk 16:18 Same as Mk 10:11-12

From these verses we can see that divorce was never approved by Jesus. His overriding command is that what has been joined by God must remain.

1Cor 7:10-11 The Lord is mandating that the wife be not separated from her husband. And even if caused to be so, to remain single or be reconciled. This ties in with Mosaic rule that the former husband is barred from taking the ex-wife back if she remarries. Deu 24:4. But by remaining single, she is still “eligible” to be reconciled back with her ex-husband.

Civil divorce is a different animal altogether. That’s more for legal protection of spouse and kids and property. Church marriage is a sacrament and divinely sealed till death. I was just saying that there is a sacred vow involved that couples are expected to last it through, despite future “challenges”. It is not a vow conditional upon future circumstances.

Except for those special conditions where divorce may be granted in “favor of the faith”. I don’t have specifics but what I gathered is if a spouse subsequently turned apostate, the other spouse to protect his/her faith and children may be able to seek a Church divorce in order to protect their faith. Probable examples : a spouse became a satanist or pagan etc. Don’t quote me on this though.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I apologise for being sloppy. Divorce is not allowed. In fact I don’t see any discrepancies between Matthew, Mark and Luke verses. Let me summarise what I thought each verse did say and didn’t.

Mat 5:32. Qualifies the fault maker. If the wife commits porneia, the husband is NOT guilty of causing her to be an adulteress. If the husband divorces his wife for non-porneia reasons, he commits the sin of causing the wife to commit adultery (as it is implicit that she would need to remarry in order to survive in those days. ) . If he remarries, he is guilty of adultery as well. This verse does not say it is permitted to divorce. This verse does not say 2 wrongs make it right. If the wife has gone bad, the husband must not go the same way. What you have committed to the Lord remained valid individually and jointly.

Mat 19:9 Similar to Mat 5:32 but abbreviated.

Mk 10:11-12 is very explicit. Whosoever divorce and remarries commits adultery.

Luk 16:18 Same as Mk 10:11-12

From these verses we can see that divorce was never approved by Jesus. His overriding command is that what has been joined by God must remain.

1Cor 7:10-11 The Lord is mandating that the wife be not separated from her husband. And even if caused to be so, to remain single or be reconciled. This ties in with Mosaic rule that the former husband is barred from taking the ex-wife back if she remarries. Deu 24:4. But by remaining single, she is still “eligible” to be reconciled back with her ex-husband.

Civil divorce is a different animal altogether. That’s more for legal protection of spouse and kids and property. Church marriage is a sacrament and divinely sealed till death. I was just saying that there is a sacred vow involved that couples are expected to last it through, despite future “challenges”. It is not a vow conditional upon future circumstances.

Except for those special conditions where divorce may be granted in “favor of the faith”. I don’t have specifics but what I gathered is if a spouse subsequently turned apostate, the other spouse to protect his/her faith and children may be able to seek a Church divorce in order to protect their faith. Probable examples : a spouse became a satanist or pagan etc. Don’t quote me on this though.

Yes. I see. You and Mr. Snaith have latched onto something I’ve never heard explained this way before. In Mathew 5:32 she’s already an adultress - it’s not her husband causing her to become one by remarrying in the future - she is already one by her own doing, thus removing the husband’s fault or guilt. Very interesting.

Okay. Could we just take the marriage vow idea one step higher?
Marriage is more than a vow. It’s a covenant between the two persons and God.
Promise is to Vow
Contract is to Covenant
Man’s way to God’s way

A contract is between two people for things. I give you money, you give me a house. I pay you, you cut my grass. I do this, you do that.

A covenant is between God and a person, or in the case of marriage, persons.
I am yours, you are mine. - Ex 6:7 Lev 26:12 Jer 30:32
I will be your God, you will be my people, etc.

A contract creates customers, employees.
A covenant creates spouses, parents, children. It forms a family tie.

Whenever God is present, everything is more. A vow is more than a promise because God is a witness to a vow. Just as God is a witness to a marriage since it is a covenant: that’s why it cannot be broken - God is a part of it and has witnessed it as a participant.

Fran

 

[ericc]

Okay. Could we just take the marriage vow idea one step higher?
Marriage is more than a vow. It’s a covenant between the two persons and God.
Promise is to Vow
Contract is to Covenant
Man’s way to God’s way

A contract is between two people for things. I give you money, you give me a house. I pay you, you cut my grass. I do this, you do that.

A covenant is between God and a person, or in the case of marriage, persons.
I am yours, you are mine. - Ex 6:7 Lev 26:12 Jer 30:32
I will be your God, you will be my people, etc.

A contract creates customers, employees.
A covenant creates spouses, parents, children. It forms a family tie.

Whenever God is present, everything is more. A vow is more than a promise because God is a witness to a vow. Just as God is a witness to a marriage since it is a covenant: that’s why it cannot be broken - God is a part of it and has witnessed it as a participant.

Fran

A sacramental marriage is not a contract. A contract can be voidable if the participants didn’t perform their end of the deal i.e. material contractual breach. A sacramental marriage is an irrevocable undertaking between the couple “for better or worse till death” and the couple has seek and obtained the blessings from God. Divinely sealed. It is such a significant undertaking that it can not be taken lightly. It is not merely a contract of duties for companionship. It can be a very one-sided deal where one party can be very sick or incapable of giving reciprocal response. Once we get the approval from God, we can not bargain our way out of it by quoting “unforeseen circumstances” or “change of mind”. Unfortunately, we see many try to justify divorce because they are no longer in love, why force a relationship that has been irreparably damage, why is God so cruel to deprive the new “us” of happiness whereas to remain with the old “us” is to wallow in misery, God is Love and wants me to be happy and I will only be happy with the new companion etc. All these may be very true but does nothing to change the fact that the couple has entered into an irrevocable arrangement with God (presumably not under duress or coercion, false pretense which makes it invalid) which is not conditional upon all those unfortunate situations. One is not forced to marry sacramentally, but once you do, be prepared to see it through because God says what he means and means what he say. God doesn’t change his mind. You want my approval? You got it. And that’s that.

 

[frangiuliano115]

A sacramental marriage is not a contract. A contract can be voidable if the participants didn’t perform their end of the deal i.e. material contractual breach. A sacramental marriage is an irrevocable undertaking between the couple “for better or worse till death” and the couple has seek and obtained the blessings from God. Divinely sealed. It is such a significant undertaking that it can not be taken lightly. It is not merely a contract of duties for companionship. It can be a very one-sided deal where one party can be very sick or incapable of giving reciprocal response. Once we get the approval from God, we can not bargain our way out of it by quoting “unforeseen circumstances” or “change of mind”. Unfortunately, we see many try to justify divorce because they are no longer in love, why force a relationship that has been irreparably damage, why is God so cruel to deprive the new “us” of happiness whereas to remain with the old “us” is to wallow in misery, God is Love and wants me to be happy and I will only be happy with the new companion etc. All these may be very true but does nothing to change the fact that the couple has entered into an irrevocable arrangement with God (presumably not under duress or coercion, false pretense which makes it invalid) which is not conditional upon all those unfortunate situations. One is not forced to marry sacramentally, but once you do, be prepared to see it through because God says what he means and means what he say. God doesn’t change his mind. You want my approval? You got it. And that’s that.

Great!