Divorce in Catholicism on grounds of adultery

Don't you remember when the disciples saw Moses and Elijah standing with Jesus in a vision- and Jesus was all like "Bruh, what's up with your divorce law, man? Do you even listen to God when you make your laws? and Moses was like, "nah, I thought it would be cool to have faith and just wing it." I don't remember that either.

I don't think people should play around with divorce either, though. If your going to divorce, it better be something serious as the grave... not because your wife burnt your toast, or your husband raised his voice. That's straight garbage- and you have an ulterior motive if you try to pull something like that.

Well said 🤣

The catholic religion and even some protestant denominations have the belief that once a couple get married then they can never divorce.. But Jesus stated that Adultery is a valid grounds for divorce..

You mean the Sanhedrin punish Shammai followers? I don't think Hillel followers would persecute Shammai followers for not divorcing a wife over burnt dinner, so it probably wasn't an issue.

I don't have a feel for Hebrew. I studied a bit when I was young, but never enough to get that a 'speaker's ear' for it. I quoted the NIV earlier. My understanding of it is that the one command there is for the husband not to take a wife back who divorced him, married someone else and he divorced her or didn't want the swapping back of a wife in this scenario.

Compare that to how this interlinear renders it: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/24.htm

The scenario of the man putting away his wife, sending her away, another man marrying her and putting her away or dying is presented as a hypothetical scenario. The command is for the first husband not to take her as his wife.

Granted Hillel, Shammai, and the Pharisees who asked Jesus about this interpreted the passage differently. The Pharisees in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 asked Jesus why Moses _commanded_ that the man give her a writing of divorcement. Jesus said that Moses because of the hardness of their hearts __allowed__ divorce. I will go with the Lord Jesus' interpretation.

I don't see any OT quote there. At least I do not see a direct quote from the LXX of Deuteronomy 24. He may be quoting people's commentary on Deuteronomy 24, then giving His own take on it.

Moses spoke it, whether or not he was the scribe who wrote it down.

Moses was a fallible man who killed an Egyptian and did not circumcise his son in a timely manner. He struck the rock on one occasion when he was supposed to speak to it. Jesus was not opposing the word of God. He said that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts allowed divorce. It makes sense if we see that as the backdrop for the Deuteronomy 24 command.

Since Jesus did not tell the people to marry their wives they divorced and sent away that got remarried in this passage, I would say no.


The tension I see is between the traditional view and the Protestant view. The view you promoted earlier does not fit the context of Matthew 19. Put away women with certificates are put away women (the very put away women in view), so Christ's words apply to them.

If a man gives his wife a certificate of divorce and sends her away, did he send her away? That's the question. It is just an issue of basic logic and reading comprehension.

In 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery'..' if the wife is put away with a certificate, she is put away, so this includes the man who puts away his wife with a certificate. Indeed, this type of scenario is what they were discussing.

And in "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." a woman put away with a certificate has been put away. Indeed, that is the scenario under discussion in the passage.

The bit of sophistry, from your previous posts, you are promoting is not a viable interpretation. It also does not fit the historical context.

I am wondering if you divorced and remarried for some reason that does not fit the Protestant view, and if this is your motivation for accepting this interpretation?

I was on a forum where there was a married couple, both of them, promoting this interpretation of yours. There was a man who knew neither Greek nor Hebrew promoting this view on a 'divorcehope' wesbite. I don't know if these two got it from there. This couple had, husband and wife, been divorced and remarried. i don't recall how many times. Later, the man posts about how his wife wanted to leave him. They were moving toward divorce. I remember thinking he couldn't really complain, since he and his wife both embraced this idea that they could just divorce easily. She was just acting in accordance with his own belief system. It seems like those who embrace this interpretation have some sort of motivation to do so. The strength of the argument just isn't there.

He didn't actually say that. The passage under discussion says porneia, which is translated as fornciation, rather than adultery.

He doesn't actually say you __can__ divorce for fornication. He says that whosoever puts away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery. But He doesn't go on and say but if she committed fornication, divorce and remarriage is A-okay. So that is why there is a debate between those who hold to the traditional view and what became the dominant Protestant view... that and the fact that 'the exception clause' is totally absent in Mark and Luke.

You don't know what they said. But if you actually read Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked why Moses _commanded_ the giving of a divorce certificate and Jesus said that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts _allowed_ divorce. The translation I quoted and the interlinear I linked to both treat the first part of the passage as a hypothetical scenario and the part about not taking the wife again as the command.

Moses was not infallible. He killed an Egyptian, was slow to circumcise Gershom, and struck the rock the second time.

You are imagining contradictions between this translation and the law of Moses. Using 'divorces' there fits with the approach of dynamic equivalence translation, since we do not say 'put away' for divorce in Late Modern English. But be that as it may, divorced women were certainly included in the 'put away' category. The idea that marrying a put away woman without a certificate was adultery would not have been a contra versial point.

But the law of Moses did not command men to divorce their wives and marry another or to marry divorced women, so how would this be a contradiction? Requiring a higher standard is not a contradiction.

My friend, I’m enjoying this conversation, thank you.

“Is it a punishable offense to agree with Shammai?” I asked this question because you mentioned Matthew 19 and Mark 10 were about the debate between Hillel and Shammai.

Follow me now, Matthew 19 and Mark 10 records the Pharisees attempting to trap Jesus because of his teachings leading up to this point. If he truly was teaching fornication only divorce then where is the rub, where’s the trap? Is it a punishable offense to agree with Shammai?

———

“What are the commands given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4?” I asked this because you mentioned there is only one command, not to take back the the original wife. Many, including MacArthur who is my favorite Bible teacher, make this claim but I don’t agree with him either 😅

Here’s why. In the exegetical portion of Matthew 5 Jesus gives us 6 examples of biblical text followed by exegesis. Thou shall not murder… Thou shall not commit adultery… And the third is: Whoever sends away must give a certificate… Jesus then continues with the commands about swearing oaths, eye for an eye etc.

Point is, by Jesus’ own words, the command in question via Deuteronomy 24 is, whoever sends away must give a certificate. Once we see this, we can almost guess what he’s going to address in the following verse (Matthew 5:32), those who were sending away without a certificate.

Also worth nothing at this point, Jesus doesn’t void or create any tension whatsoever with the other 5 biblical texts in this portion. Should come as no surprise really, he does warn the hearer starting in verse 17, essentially stating we aren’t to misunderstand him, that he comes not to destroy one jot or tittle. 🤷‍♂️

———

“Who wrote Deuteronomy, Moses or Jesus?” All scripture is inspired, in other words Deuteronomy is Jesus’ word. Should we expect him to have tension with it, change it or void it, especially after he warned not one jot or tittle will fall away?

Many imply Jesus had some sort of problem with Deuteronomy because of his response to the Pharisees in Matthew 19 & Mark 10: “Moses for the hardness of your heart allowed you this, but from the beginning it was not so…” Again I would ask, who wrote Deuteronomy?
Did Moses sneak Deuteronomy 24:1-4 into inspired cannon against the will of God and somehow it remained for 2000 years until Christ could void it in person, right after he states he won’t void a jot or tittle?

———

“Is Jesus simply righting our view of Deuteronomy to be that of fornication only divorce?” Viewing Deuteronomy 24 as fornication only divorce doesn’t erase the permission to remarry, which still leaves a contradiction.

———

If Jesus was addressing the improper practice of putting away without a divorce certificate, all this goes away, no mental gymnastics required.

It’s really simple, maybe this will help.

P: Is it lawful to put away (without the cert) for any cause? —This is the trap!!!

J: What does Deuteronomy say?

P: To put away with the cert….

J: If you put away (without the cert) for reasons other than fornication and remarry then you are guilty, you cause her and the one she marries to be guilty…

Why?
Because there is no apostasion/keriythuth: cutting of the matrimonial bond, divorce cert.

It’s a shame the western church has made such a mess out of this, one of the most harmful, non-salvific, false doctrines known to Christendom in my opinion

My friend, Deuteronomy gives permission for remarriage. In other words, thus sayeth the Lord, she may become another man’s wife…

Luke 16:18 ESV states everyone who divorces and remarries is guilty.

This is a clear contradiction.

Why would the Pharisees have to tempt Jesus into a 'punishable offense'? There were other scholars in the Mishneh and Talmud who had differing opinions. Why would differing over an interpretation of law or tradition have to be a punishable offense? They may have been trying to get him into trouble with Rome over taxation or execution questions and with the Sanhedrin over other questions, but that seems unlikely with this question.

You left out the traditiona view, the RCCC view.

There is no reason to think this has to be a 'punishable offense.' They could just have just been trying to trip Jesus up or show him up.

Including NIV translators and the translators of the interlinear. But the key factor here is the interchange between the Pharisees in Christ. In both Mark and Matthew his opponents say that Moses COMMANDED giving her a writing of divorce, and Christ says he ALLOWED it. He attributes Moses allowing it because of the hardness of their hearts.

The idea that Moses is describing a hypothetical scenario-- not saying thus saith the Lord to God endorsing divorce and remarriage-- followed by a command not to take the wife back after she remarries.

The key issue here is the words of Christ--His commentary-- allowed divorce v. the Pharisees interpretation that a divorce certificate was commanded.


A few problems-- Jesus does NOT quote the Torah about giving the certificate of divorce. That's not a quote, and it isn't a quote from the LXX either, not from a version I've seen of the LXX. If you have other evidence, please show it. This is 'It hath been said.'

And look at this verse:

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Where does the Old Testament say to hate your enemy? Again, this is clearly not a quote from the Old Testament. The first part is, but Jesus is referring to contemporary teaching on the Old Testament, and He corrects it.

Another problem is your imaginary interpretations here do not match what Jesus said.

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.

It is clear from these verses that a woman who is put away with a certificate in her hand is indeed put away. That is clear from the scenario in Deuteronomy 24, where the man gives her a certificate and then... what? Puts/sends her away.
Clearly the man who gives his wife a certificate and puts her away has indeed put away his wife, and is included in 'whosoever shall put away his wife' in verse 32.


There is lots of tension between Biblical texts, at least in the minds of interpreters when reading them. It happens a lot. Whether kings are good or bad is another issue with tension. Every man did what was right in his own eyes for their was no king makes having a king sound like a good thing, but then Israel rejects God by asking for a king.

But you are assuming destruction of a jot or tittle. The tension decreases if you accept Jesus' interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 instead of the Pharisees. The Pharisees took the scenario Moses set up as a command. Jesus said Moses allowed them to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts.

That is a confusing question because the Word made flesh was called 'Jesus' at His birth at the incarnation. Again, the command is not to marry the wife again. In the situation where a man puts away his wife, gives her a certificate, another man takes her etc. he is not to take her as his wife again. You, like the Pharisees, are interpreting the certificate part as a command, rather than a scenario under which the command was given.

And if you read those opening verses to the sermon on the Mt., the Lord says unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. So he is requiring higher than the status quo morality.. Not putting away your wife for burning the bread... with a certificate, his higher morality than just making sure to give her a piece of paper.

No, again, I am not a big NIV fan, but carefully read that translation and the interlinar.

The Torah says not to put a stumbling block in front of a blind man. Does that mean you have to blind someone so you can keep that command? You also don't have to divorce your wife with a certificate to keep the command not to remarry her if another man remarried her. A man being blind isn't a desirable scenario, and you don't have to make that happen. Divorcing your wife with a certificate isn't a desirable scenario, and you don't have to make tha thappen.

Whose permission to remarry, and where is that? This Deuteronomy 24 passage does not give permission to remarry. It says if a man puts away his wife and she remarries, and is divorced or her next husband dies, the first husbands is not to take her as his wife again. It is withholding permission to remarry.
———

No, such an interpretation contradicts what jesus plainly says. A woman put away with a certificate is a woman put away, and Jesus' words apply. In fact, the Pharisees had just asked him about the scenario of a woman being put away WITH a certificate when he made this statement:

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.


Why would the disciples say this if Jesus were just saying (which He clearly wasn't) 'Make sure you give a woman a piece of paper if you divorce her."

Look at this verse.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Either the traditional or Protestant interpretation work with verse 10. Jesus is restricting freedom to divorce over the views the disciples had had. They probably thought like Shammai Pharisees before they heard Jesus' teaching. But if they pretty much couldn't get a divorce, and this was the first time they contemplated or heard this teaching of Jesus, then they might respond this way.

But it makes no sense they would say that if Jesus was just saying, "Make sure to give your wife a piace of paper before you kick her out of the house." A little piece of parchment, papyrus, might have cost more to them, than to us, but not that much, and they could have written on wood or stone. (That's the way to get back at the ex-, and make sure the stone is heeeaaavy.)

@NOV25

The problem with this is it doesn't match the actual words spoken. How is this more of a 'trap' than what was actually said in the passage? Then by your interpretation of Moses, how could this not be a contradiction of Deuteronomy 24, because you would have Jesus telling people to put away some wives without a certificate of divorce.

And why would the disciples react as they did if Jesus were saying they could kick their wives out without a certificate if they were immoral, but had to give them a piece of paper if they just wanted to get rid of them for any other reason? That doesn't make any sense.

And it doesn't match the actual words that Jesus said or the context. Also, from a historical perspective, the conditions under which a man may divorce his wife was a debate among the Pharisees. Where is there evidence that any of them approved of divorcing a wife WITHOUT a certificate for any cause. That would not have been lawful for the Pharisees.

Your interpretation, if accepted by others, would create a huge mess-- more broken families, etc. But many people are living de facto almost according to your interpretation and it is contaminating churches, even if they give lip service to some other doctrine. We've got plenty of broken families. We don't need more obviously wrong teaching to justify promoting more heartache and more children raised in broken homes.

That's the Pharisee interpretation not the Lord Jesus' interpretation of the passage. Just read the English words in this interlinear if you cannot read the Hebrew.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/24.htm

lol And what is it called when a wife engages in fornication with another man who is not her Husband ??????? ,,,,That's Adultery..

The """except""" MAKES IT AND EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.. How basic this is,,, a Child should understand.. But people who want to follow the dictates of the Papacy and not the actual words of The LORD will Refuse to accept what is plainly written in front of them..

I was explaining the traditional view, considering the topic of this thread.

Mark and Luke do not contain 'the exception clause'.

Mark 10
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
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

If you were a first or second century believer who only had the gospel of Mark or the gospel of Luke and the book of Romans, what would you conclude Christian doctrine was regard to divorce and remarriage?

I have read one interpretation, in line with the traditional interpretation, that 'the phrase 'except it be for fornication' that He was saying He was setting aside the issue of fornication an not addressing it.

If one takes the view that Jesus makes an exception for fornication and that one should interpret the less clear scriptures by adding details of another scripture, then you have a typical Protestant viewpoint. (Protestant views vary.)

And of course if Jesus is not calling divorcing over fornication 'adultery', one may also ask if it is runs contrary to 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I have also read of Protestants disagreeing over whether 'except it be for fornication' modifies what is before or after, resulting in differing views on whether the fornicator who is divorced can remarry.

I'd also point out that the statement relates to one divorcing his wife over fornication and not vice versa. The Torah did not mention women giving men certificates of divorce.

Modern Protestants and evangelicals tend to be a lot more liberal about divorce and remarriage than these historical views. People divorce left and right in some churches, and I suspect there is no pastoral inquiry. I don't hear a lot about pastors or church people telling someone who divorced over irreconcilable differences to remain celibate or reconcile with the previous spouse, either.

The question for me is, what was not so from the beginning? I think he's referring to the hard hearts- and that's what Jesus has a problem with; not Moses, or the law. If mankind wasn't hard hearted and didn't do things that would cause separation and divorce then there would be no need for such a law to be given.

Oh, I see what you're saying now! Hmm... if you click on the Hebrew word though- it's translated as "he shall" in other verses... hmm.

I am not Hebrew expert, but I gather the form can have different meanings in different contexts. The sentence starts with 'ki'.... when such and such happens. So I take it as a conditional situation.

When a man finds something displeasing with his wife, gives her a certificate, sends her away, another man marries her and puts her away with a certificate or dies... then the first husband is not supposed to take her back.

The Pharisees were taking giving the certificate as a command. Jesus said Moses allowed them to do that for the hardness of their hearts. The actual command has to do with taking the first wife back.

It doesn’t really matter, for this argument to work they must not only eliminate the permission, they must create prohibition to ALL remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

It can’t be done. That’s why folks like John Piper conclude Jesus simply raised the standard (which is code for changed his mind). 🤨

You aren't following the argument. Reapond to the specific points in my post

The Pharisees argued that Moses had commanded the giving of a divorce certificate. Jesus countered that Moses had allowed divorce.

But either way if Christ requires some additional things that are not required in the law of Moses it is not a contradiction to the law of Moses.

According to Matthew 19 the man who gives his wife a certificate of divorce and puts her away except to be for fornication and marries another commits adultery.

The man who gives his wife a certificate of divorce and puts her away... puts her away doesn't he?

Clearly whosoever puts away is why includes the one who puts away his wife with a certificate? How can you disagree with that? Your interpretation is clearly nonsensical.

“But either way if Christ requires some additional things that are not required in the law of Moses it is not a contradiction to the law of Moses.”

What are the additional things? These are what I’m commenting on, these additional things you must address for your argument to hold water.

If Jesus added fornication only divorce with no remarriage, then you have a problem with the Deuteronomic permission.

It is possible to stretch the word in a way to eliminate the Deuteronomic permission for remarriage but in no way can it be twisted into 100% prohibition of remarriage.

Since you cannot create 100% prohibition you must accept that Jesus simply changes his mind, that Deuteronomy was for then and this is the new teaching, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is now void (which is a problem).

Or you must conclude Moses allowed this against the will of God and Jesus is here to correct it (which also creates problems)