Hey, truth is truth and we need not disagree on truth.All good points. Also. Mighty big of you to respond in such a way, seeing how we’ve had no shortage of disagreements over the years.
Divorce in Catholicism on grounds of adultery
- Thread starter MaryM
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
There are a few more biblical principles which can be applied but which rarely get a hearing.
1. The Bible says that God hates divorce, but Christ said that God allowed the Jews to divorce "because of the hardness of your hearts". An abusive spouse fits into this category, therefore God would allow divorce today on the same basis.
2. Christ said that some of the aspects of His ministry were "to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised" (Luke 4:18) All this could also apply in an abusive relation.
3. However if spousal abuse in not the issue, and the only issue is adultery/fornication then the offended spouse may divorce and remarry. On the other hand God says He will judge the offending spouse (Heb 13:4): Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
4. Paul also gave this instruction in 1 Cor 7:15: 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. This would mean that if an unbelieving spouse walks away from the marriage, the one who has been abandoned is free to remarry. That is what "not under bondage" means. Also as Paul said, a widow or widower is also free to remarry. Indeed Paul urged Timothy to encourage the younger widows to remarry so that they would not go into sin.
1. The Bible says that God hates divorce, but Christ said that God allowed the Jews to divorce "because of the hardness of your hearts". An abusive spouse fits into this category, therefore God would allow divorce today on the same basis.
2. Christ said that some of the aspects of His ministry were "to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised" (Luke 4:18) All this could also apply in an abusive relation.
3. However if spousal abuse in not the issue, and the only issue is adultery/fornication then the offended spouse may divorce and remarry. On the other hand God says He will judge the offending spouse (Heb 13:4): Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
4. Paul also gave this instruction in 1 Cor 7:15: 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. This would mean that if an unbelieving spouse walks away from the marriage, the one who has been abandoned is free to remarry. That is what "not under bondage" means. Also as Paul said, a widow or widower is also free to remarry. Indeed Paul urged Timothy to encourage the younger widows to remarry so that they would not go into sin.
You misquoted the words of Christ. He said that __Moses__ because of the hardness of your hearts allowed divorce but from the beginning it was not so, and then went on to give his teaching about divorce remarriage and adultery.
Clearly, abuse could be a sign of hard heartedness, but that is not what Christ said.
I misquoted nothing. So now you are going to quibble about whether the Law originated with Moses or with God? Yes Christ did use the word "Moses" to emphasize the fact that these Jews had elevated Moses above God. Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. (Mt 22:24) And that is also why Christ said this: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Mt 23:1-3)
But who really gave that law? And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them; (Deut 1:3) "All" includes what is in chapter 24.
Deuteronomy chapter 24 simply continues with all the commandments given from chapter 4 onwards: Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. (Deut 4:1)
So Moses gave them what God gave to Moses. Nothing originated with Moses. Therefore it is God who permitted divorce in the Torah, even though Christ explained that it was only because of the hardness of the hearts of men.
Agreed!
But let me play devils advocate for a moment
Luke 16:18 ESV
Divorce and Remarriage
[18] “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Clearly Jesus taught all remarriage is adultery.
Now we are looking aa totally different scenario. The issue is no longer adultery/fornication. It is simply divorce in order to marry someone else! That is unacceptable to God.
But here is the exception (Mt 19:9): 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.
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
According to Thayer's Lexicon πορνείᾳ means "properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general". The KJV has gone with the literal translation. But the NASB uses several words (which are not an exact translation ): fornication (4), fornications (2), immoralities (1), immorality (16), sexual immorality (1), unchastity (1). "Immorality" focuses on the on the rightness or wrongness, but "illicit sexual intercourse" represents the actual act(s).
"I don't think you really believe this. Would you blame God for Moses trying to get out what God was telling him to do in the burning bush passage?" What does this have to do with this discussion? Deuteronomy is perfectly clear that God gave ALL the commandments and judgments in that book and Moses simply conveyed them to the Israelites. So now you are just quibbling about words.
My comment aligns well with the flaw of your interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 as well.
Nehemiah6 said:
Notice here that Jesus does not say after this and other examples you quote, "but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you..." Pay attention to the details.
Matthew 19
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.
Moses was a human being. He made judgments and decisions. As you pointed out, the scribes and Pharisees say in Moses' seat, and while Christ's disciples were to honor that, were their decisions all inspired by God? Could they make a court decision that was wrong? Was Hillel right in saying a man could divorce his wife if she burnt the food? Were they right about oaths? And if the decisions of Jewish authorities directly contradicted obedience, to God, the apostles decided that they had to obey God rather than men. The Saducees did not want the apostles preaching the doctrine of the resurrection, and the resurrection of Christ, in the temple, but they had to obey God rather than men. Peter realized that he was supposed to go under a Gentile roof.
Why would whatever decisions Moses had made or allowed to occur that set up the case described in Deuteronomy 24 have to be inspired by God? Deuteronomy 24 is a case.
Look at the wording of the passage in question, Deuteronomy 24. We should interpret it consistent with how the Jesus did, not how the Pharisees did.
Deuteronomy
24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (NKJV)
The kind of stuff that people might do with their marriages is found in verses 1 through 3, but the command is given in verse 4. In this situation where a man would give a certificate to his wife and the wife marry someone else, and he dies or divorces her... the former husband must not take her back.
How do we know that is the interpretation? From the Lord Jesus. He said that Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so. Do not mistake this for Jesus disagreeing with scripture here in Deuteronomy 24 ( @NOV25 @SomeDisciple ). This passage is setting up a case for how divorces worked among them. We know from Christ that this divorce certificate stuff was allowed by Moses because he said so.
Like the Pharisees, you are treating the divorce certificate business as something commanded by God, when Christ is treating it as something permitted by Moses.
Take a look at the wording of the pasage in Deuteronomy 24 in Hebrew. Notice it starts with 'ki', setting up a condition 'when' or 'if' scenario... laying out a case.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/24.htm
Now, compare that to this scenario in the next chapter, 25:11-12.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/25.htm
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
(KJV)
If you interpreted this passage the same way you and the Pharisees and @NOV25 interpreted the divorce certificate scenario in Dueteronomy 24, then you would have to interpret this passage to mean
When two men strive together with one another, and the wife... SHE IS COMMANDED TO TAKE HIM BY THE SECRETS, and then they are commanded to cut off her hand. But it doesn't say that.
What if you were to interpret this verse the same way you interpret the divorce passage in Deuteronomy 24?
Deuteronomy 22
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
So that would become "... if a man find her in the city...HE SHALL LIE WITH HER." If you interpret the same way you interpret Deuteronomy 24, then this verse is commanding men to fornicate with or rape other men's betrothed. Clearly that is that what the passage is saying.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/22.htm
We must interpret Deuteronomy 24 consistently with the way Moses does.
I don't think you really believe this. Would you blame God for Moses trying to get out what God was telling him to do in the burning bush passage? Would you blame God for Moses killing the Egyptian? What about not circumcising Gershom, or striking the rock twice?
Therefore it is God who permitted divorce in the Torah, even though Christ explained that it was only because of the hardness of the hearts of men.
You need to read all the words in a passage to understand what it is saying, not just skim it.
I made a mistake with the quotes and did not catch it until the 5 minutes lapsed, so the above is a better formatted version of my previous post.
Notice here that Jesus does not say after this and other examples you quote, "but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you..." Pay attention to the details.
Matthew 19
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.
Moses was a human being. He made judgments and decisions. As you pointed out, the scribes and Pharisees say in Moses' seat, and while Christ's disciples were to honor that, were their decisions all inspired by God? Could they make a court decision that was wrong? Was Hillel right in saying a man could divorce his wife if she burnt the food? Were they right about oaths? And if the decisions of Jewish authorities directly contradicted obedience, to God, the apostles decided that they had to obey God rather than men. The Saducees did not want the apostles preaching the doctrine of the resurrection, and the resurrection of Christ, in the temple, but they had to obey God rather than men. Peter realized that he was supposed to go under a Gentile roof.
Why would whatever decisions Moses had made or allowed to occur that set up the case described in Deuteronomy 24 have to be inspired by God? Deuteronomy 24 is a case.
Look at the wording of the passage in question, Deuteronomy 24. We should interpret it consistent with how the Jesus did, not how the Pharisees did.
Deuteronomy
24 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (NKJV)
The kind of stuff that people might do with their marriages is found in verses 1 through 3, but the command is given in verse 4. In this situation where a man would give a certificate to his wife and the wife marry someone else, and he dies or divorces her... the former husband must not take her back.
How do we know that is the interpretation? From the Lord Jesus. He said that Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so. Do not mistake this for Jesus disagreeing with scripture here in Deuteronomy 24 ( @NOV25 @SomeDisciple ). This passage is setting up a case for how divorces worked among them. We know from Christ that this divorce certificate stuff was allowed by Moses because he said so.
Like the Pharisees, you are treating the divorce certificate business as something commanded by God, when Christ is treating it as something permitted by Moses.
Take a look at the wording of the pasage in Deuteronomy 24 in Hebrew. Notice it starts with 'ki', setting up a condition 'when' or 'if' scenario... laying out a case.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/24.htm
Now, compare that to this scenario in the next chapter, 25:11-12.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/25.htm
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.
(KJV)
If you interpreted this passage the same way you and the Pharisees and @NOV25 interpreted the divorce certificate scenario in Dueteronomy 24, then you would have to interpret this passage to mean
When two men strive together with one another, and the wife... SHE IS COMMANDED TO TAKE HIM BY THE SECRETS, and then they are commanded to cut off her hand. But it doesn't say that.
What if you were to interpret this verse the same way you interpret the divorce passage in Deuteronomy 24?
Deuteronomy 22
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
So that would become "... if a man find her in the city...HE SHALL LIE WITH HER." If you interpret the same way you interpret Deuteronomy 24, then this verse is commanding men to fornicate with or rape other men's betrothed. Clearly that is that what the passage is saying.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/22.htm
We must interpret Deuteronomy 24 consistently with the way Moses does.
I don't think you really believe this. Would you blame God for Moses trying to get out what God was telling him to do in the burning bush passage? Would you blame God for Moses killing the Egyptian? What about not circumcising Gershom, or striking the rock twice?
Therefore it is God who permitted divorce in the Torah, even though Christ explained that it was only because of the hardness of the hearts of men.
You need to read all the words in a passage to understand what it is saying, not just skim it.
I made a mistake with the quotes and did not catch it until the 5 minutes lapsed, so the above is a better formatted version of my previous post.
You have God commanding the divorce certificate scenario, rather than giving a command not to remarry the remarried wife. If you apply the same reasoning/translation method, then other cases in Deuteronomy would be commanding wives to grab men fighting their husbands by the secrets and command the people to chop the hand off, commanding men to rape betrothed virgins, etc. These are cases to which a command is given. Deuteronomy 14:1-3 sets up a scenario. We know how to interpret the passage because Christ's commentary clarifies it for us.
@presidente
Please take the time to think this all the way through.
If Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is God simply stating an example of common practice that Moses allowed and the only limitation God places on this practice is not to remarry your original wife after she’s married another, then you still have a permission to deal with.
In other words, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is still a permission in your view because God states it but only limits part of the practice in verse 4.
This is why permanence folks like Piper conclude Jesus simply changed the standard, because either way you slice it Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is a permission to divorce and remarry by God.
Please take the time to think this all the way through.
If Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is God simply stating an example of common practice that Moses allowed and the only limitation God places on this practice is not to remarry your original wife after she’s married another, then you still have a permission to deal with.
In other words, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is still a permission in your view because God states it but only limits part of the practice in verse 4.
This is why permanence folks like Piper conclude Jesus simply changed the standard, because either way you slice it Deuteronomy 24:1-3 is a permission to divorce and remarry by God.
Non sequitur. If God only commands a limit to one behavior it doesn’t mean the other action mentioned is given permission. Also in tge two men fighting passage, God doesn’t say it is okay for two men to fight when he forbids tge wife from grabbing the secrets of the other guy. He doesn't endorse the rape of virgins either in chapter 25.
Permission versus not clamping down on it at this time are two different issues. Are you in favor of polygamy
Jesus also said to his listeners except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees you shall know Wise inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.
You’re not thinking it though.
In other words the limitation proves the permission, divorce and remarriage must occur in order to limit the original couple to remarry.
Again, even permanence folks call this portion of scripture the Deuteronomic permission, because any way you twist it’s still a permission from God to divorce and remarry.
Once you realize the Deuteronomic permission is God’s you’ll be forced to tackle whether or not Jesus voids it.
The verse you are referring to is Matthew 5:32, and it is part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where he addresses various aspects of the moral and ethical life of his followers. Let's explore the verse in the context of marriage and divorce:
Matthew 5:32 (ESV): "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
This verse presents a challenging topic, and interpretations may vary among Christian denominations, including within the Catholic Church. However, the specific phrase "except on the ground of sexual immorality" is often understood to allow for divorce in cases of adultery or marital unfaithfulness.
In a Catholic context:
- Divorce and Adultery: According to Catholic teaching, marriage is considered a sacrament, and the Church upholds the indissolubility of the marital bond. However, the Catholic Church recognizes the Pauline privilege and the Petrine privilege, which allow for the dissolution of a non-consummated marriage or a marriage between a baptized and non-baptized person under certain circumstances.
- Annulment: An annulment in the Catholic Church is not the same as a divorce. It is a declaration that a valid sacramental marriage never existed. Grounds for annulment may include factors such as lack of consent, impotence, or a serious psychological issue at the time of marriage.
- Interpretation of Matthew 5:32: The "except on the ground of sexual immorality" clause in Matthew 5:32 is sometimes interpreted in Catholic theology to allow for divorce in cases of adultery. This interpretation recognizes the harm caused by marital infidelity and the potential need for separation in extreme cases.
If you have specific questions about Catholic doctrine or practice, it may be helpful to consult with a Catholic priest or theologian who can provide guidance within the context of Catholic teachings.
You haven't answered my question about polygamy. I can't see how you could arrive at any conclusion other than polygamy being allowed with your approach.
Where does the idols say that that Gentiles may not worship idols? It tells us that the gods of the nations are demons? Does that mean it was always acceptable for Gentiles to worship demons? No. God allowed it to happen, but read Romans 1. Idolatry wasn't a good thing and it led to all type of perversion.
But God did at a certain point call all men to repent, as we see in Paul's sermon in Acts.
In the beginning God established marriage between one man and one woman. But men responded by committing fornication, adultery, and divorcing and remarrying. The wife-swapping type scenario described in Deuteronomy 24 was too much and God forbad taking divorced wives back. But when Christ came, He pointed back to the original intention and clarified that much of the the divorce and remarriage behavior that Pharisees endorsed by their interpretation of the case Moses described in Deuteronomy 24 was actually adultery.
Have you ever read a legal contract that stipulated that if Party A does not enforce a provision, it is not giving up a right to do so later? Well, God doesn't have to stipulate it in a contract.
Don't twist it to say that God gave permission. As Christ taught, "from the beginning it is not so." You seem to have a big problem with Christ's teaching on this issue. You keep contradicting Him.
I know how important it is to your view that it be Moses alone giving the permission but it just isn’t true.
Anyway, keep at it bud.
Later
I know how important it is to your view that it be Moses alone giving the permission but it just isn’t true.
Anyway, keep at it bud.
Later
You ahve proposed interpretations that do not align with the words of Christ.
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.
They teach that it is wrong to murder people in cold blood. Do you disagree with that?
I'd be wary of any news along the lines of LGBT stuff about the pope or the RCCC. 'Woke' media people want to paint the pope as a 'good guy' in their warped eyes, and also present a narrative that the RCC is moving towards adopting the gay agenda.
From a political perspective, conservative Roman Catholics tend to be on the same page on a lot of issues, such as not promoting child castration in the schools.