Is Divorce allowed in the NT?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

The New Testament consistently says that marriage is a lifelong commitment that is not to be broken, or if spouses separate, they are not to remarry. The only exceptive clause is found twice in the same book -- Matthew -- so we have to wonder if we are misunderstanding something and if there is a cultural context to the statement. I have found some evidence to suggest that there is. I am no Greek scholar, so maybe those who are can look into these things further. We do know, however, that the readers in the original language should have known what the words meant.

Note: the purpose of this is to show that it is entirely possible for the Catholic position against divorce to be entirely Scriptural and not contradicting the Matthew passages.

First, let's look at the other Scriptures on the subject, included below in KJV:

SCRIPTURES FORBIDDING DIVORCE

Malachi 2
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

Romans 7
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Mark 10
1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

NOTICE...

...that there are NO exceptive clauses in any of these allowing for divorce and remarriage. In 1 Cor. 7, we see that if the spouses depart, they must remain unmarried or be reconciled. This is something we should think about -- what about for those Christians who had no access to Matthew's gospel? If indeed there was supposed to be such an exception for divorce, why didn't they say so in the other places?

Continued below...

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 26, 2004

Answers

Now for the Matthew passages:

Matthew 19
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Matthew 5
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

A LOOK AT WORD MEANINGS

Careful consideration must be given to the word "fornication" here, since it is the only supposed exception for divorce in the entire New Testament. The Greek word used here is "porneia." Some Bibles translate it "adultery," "unchastity," or "sexual immorality."

In Matthew 15:19, we can see this word used:
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Interestingly, it is listed right next to "adulteries," so the two cannot possibly refer to the same thing. However, in the Matthew 5 & 19 passages, we see "fornication," clearly talking about within a marriage. This does not make sense with the meaning of the word fornication. That is why there are other translations of the word such as "sexual immorality." But that phrase possibly covers a wide range of things.

So why did Matthew use the word "porneia" instead of the normal word for "adultery" used in the rest of the NT, "moicheia"? I am arguing that it is because he was not referring to adultery at all. (See this website for more on porneia v. moicheia: Check the 10th question down, with Matthew 19:9 highlighted). Here we see that the meaning of porneia is "unlawful sexual intercourse."

UNLAWFUL MARRIAGE FORBIDDEN

Another occurence of the word "porneia" can be found in Acts 15, in the letter from the Jerusalem Counsel:
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

These four things are all reflective of OT laws found in Lev. 17 & 18. There we find that God is forbidding incest. Further evidence that the Matthew 5 passage refers to incest when it uses the word "porneia" can be found at this foo tnote to the verse in the New American Bible. Here we see that:

It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev 18:6-18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia) , but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.

Thus, we can conclude that the Catholic position against divorce is indeed a viable Biblical position, and in fact, it makes sense given the Biblical context. Divorce is never permitted, and there are no exceptions, under this interpretation, since the incestual relationship was an unlawful marriage in the first place. This would mean that the New American Bible's rendering of the Mt. 5 & 19 passages as "unlawful marriage" is accurate. It makes sense in the context of divorce being forbidden completely everywhere else.

For more information see:

* (esp. good site) Marriage Exception Matthew 19:9 - Porneia

NAB footnote on Mt. 19

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 26, 2004.


I should note that the Catholic Church permits civil divorce in certain cases, but that would mean that the person with a sacramentally valid marriage is still married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This would be according to 1 Cor. 7 that allows couples to separate if they remain unmarried.

What the Catholic Church does not permit is sacramental divorce. Thus, a person who is divorced and remarried (unless it has been determined that they have an annulment for their unlawful marriage), cannot be in full communion with the Catholic Church or in right standing with God. In fact, the Catholic Church and the Bible both teach that such a person would be living in a continual state of adultery, unless they obstain from marital relations.

Just as a point of clarification, there is a difference between civil and sacramental divorce for Catholics. This allows for people (such as in abusive or unfaithful marriages) to become legally divorced, but they cannot remarry without an annulment or death of the spouse.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 26, 2004.


"I should note that the Catholic Church permits civil divorce in certain cases..."

Emily,

-in my opinion, that insignificant 'note' is a very significant problem analagous to "give us an inch and we will take a mile"...

I suppose there were good intentions involved with removing the stigmatization and associated guilt that was felt by those that had no choice but to civilly divorce under certain conditions ('proper cases') acceptable within the Church according to Church teaching -- WITH the added caveat that when and if the condition ceases to exist that the divorcing spouse is required to pursue reconciliation with the other...

My questions are:

Specifically, what are the proper cases?

Do we simply as a matter of conscience determine the cases for divorce ourselves?

Since the Church does not recognize divorce as 'valid' -is it safe to accept that divorce is not bad -should the Church recognize the bad caused by the invalid act? Further, if civil divorce is truly 'bad' should not the Church by action not simply consider it 'neutral' -- should not the Church recognize this Truth and give divorce the burden it gives marriage validity cases -Divorces presumed invalid until proven valid?

-and if those in our Church do not by action recognize this Truth, is this not just a case of accepted moral relativism?

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 26, 2004.


I read somewhere, after my civl divorce was complete, that anyone seeking a civil divorce must first get permission from their bishop who would determine the rectitude of the action. I was not advised of this by anyone and only happened to find it myself.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), April 27, 2004.

Daniel,

In 1 Cor. 7 there is allowance for separation if the couple remains unmarried to anyone else. This would allow for a civil (but not sacramental) divorce if necessary. I don't know the details on this, and I'm not sure where to find it. But I know I remember reading that there are certain, specified cases where there is an exception.

Just thinking off the top of my head, I would guess that such an exception would exist in the case of an abusive spouse who was stalking the other after they were separated. I don't know the details on this from the Catechism, so perhaps someone who knows can better answer your questions.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.



on this subject it would be very interesting to comment on PAULINE PRIVILEGE.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.


Enrique,

Are you referring to the Paulists, as described in this thread: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00Bz3z? Did I misrepresent Catholic teaching here, or what happened? Please correct me if I am in error.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 28, 2004.


Emily,

You are right on, as always. Enrique is referring to what St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7:12 "To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace."

The Pauline Privilege is when The Catholic Church dissolves a marriage bond, allowing the Catholic party to re-marry, if:

-Both persons were not baptized at the time of their wedding. Marriage originally not sacramental.

-One party has been baptized, but the other remains unbaptized. Marriage remains not sacramental.

-The unbaptized person departs physically by divorce or desertion, or morally by making married life unbearable for the baptized person. Just cause for the dissolution.

-The unbaptized person refuses to be baptized or to live peacefully with the baptized person. Unbaptized person is asked.

-Civil divorce has been granted by the state. Church cannot be responsible for the separation.

I got this info from Second Exodus's Web Site.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), April 28, 2004.


On a side note, Second Exodus is not only a good book (from what I hear) but the web site is chock full of information on the Church and the Jewish roots of Catholicism.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), April 28, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ