Philosophy of Marriage Part II: On Divorce and Remarriage in the Event of Adultery

Desiring God Ministries ^

[Quester]

>>A divorce at the time Jesus said this, if valid, always included the right of remarriage. The divorce decree declared that the divorced party was free to remarry. This is how Jesus' original audience would have understood his words.

What you say sounds reasonable -- but remember what Jesus said -- Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus put an end to it! (Which is why he referenced Moses and then basically said it's ove!!)

He basically put end to the Mosaic practice of divorce and remarriage.

And later in this dialogue, Jesus provided the exception for divorce on the basis of the occurence of porneia within the marriage.

This is according to Matthew, the only one of the gospel writers who is likely to have witnessed the actual interchange with Jesus.

Both the Mark and the Luke account are, at best, second-hand.

The Matthew account is the most reliable, by virtue of the fact that only Matthew, of all the the gospel writers on the subject, would have actually witnessed this particular episode.

Note that the writer of the piece implicitly accuses Matthew of slanting his testimony, so that his gospel (testimony) would appear to be more consistent.

If one were to take such an approach to the whole of scripture, there would be little grounds for believing any of it.

As to the use of the Greek word 'porneia' in the exception clause stated by Jesus (per the testimony of Matthew ... do you actually accuse Matthew of placing words in Jesus' mouth ?), ... this actually widens the exception clause, rather than restricts it.

As the writer has clearly stated, adultery is but one form of 'porneia' (or sexual immorality), ... other forms would include pre-marital sex (thus covering Mary & Jospeh's situation), homesexuality, bestiality, etc.

There is, therefore, absolutely, no argument for excluding adultery from what is covered in Jesus' statement.

[1stFreedom]

Ok, you keep "naggin me" to respond -- geeze, it's not like I haven't been working my tail off in these postings!"

>>There is, therefore, absolutely, no argument for exluding adultery from what is covered in Jesus' statement.

If you really really want to find out why, read this:

---

(a) Its Foundation in Scripture -- The complete exclusion of absolute divorce (divortium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark, x; Luke, xvi; I Cor., vii). The words in St. Matthew's Gospel (xix, 9), "except it be for fornication", have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery.

The Catholic Church and Catholic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. Matthew would be made to contradict Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine in Christ.

As this is inconsistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the innerancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond.

Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in mark and Luke, while Paul (I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: "And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband".

Grammatically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one member of the sentence (that which refers to the putting-away of the wife) without applying to the following member (the remarriage of the other), though we must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If it means, "Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery", then, in case of marital infidelity, the wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery is not committed by a new marriage cannot be concluded from these words.

The following words, "And he that shall marry her that is put away" -- therefore also the woman who is dismissed for adultery -- "committeth adultery", say the contrary, since they suppose the permanence of the first marriage.

Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew, xix, 9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the Evangelist had previously given a distinct explanation of the same subject, and exactly laid down what was justified by the reason of fornication: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the causes of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt., v, 32).

Here all excuse for remarriage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is excluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is done unjustly, exposes her to the danger of adultery and is thus attributed to the husband who has dismissed her -- "he maketh her commit adultery".

It is only in the case of marital infidelity that complete dismissal is justified -- "excepting for the cause of fornication". In this case not he, but the wife who has been lawfully dismissed, is the occasion, and she will therefore be responsible should she commit further sin.

It must also be remarked that even for Matthew, xix, 9, there is a variant reading supported by important codices, which has "maketh her to commit adultery" instead of the expression "comitteth adultery". This reading answers the difficulty more clearly. (Cf. Knabenbauer, "Comment, in Matt.", II, 144).

Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the permissibility of absolute divorce from Matthew 19, but the exact explanation of the expressions, "except it be for fornication" and "excepting for the cause of fornication", has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital infidelity, or a crime committed before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, "De matrim. Christ.", 178 sqq.; Sasse, "De sacramentis", II, 418 sqq.)

Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authenticity of the entire phrase of Matthew 19, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the more reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have "committeth adultery". (See Knabenbauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, "Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth.", 191, 409.)

That absolute divorce is never allowable therefore clear from Scripture, but the argument is cogent only for a consummated marriage. For Christ found His law on the words: "They two shall be in one flesh", which are verified only in consummated marriage.

How far divorce is excluded, or can be allowed, before the consummation of the marriage must be derived from other source.

(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice -- The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt.

In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes.