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.
You and me both. 🤣
But seriously, the reason verse 32 seems confusing is likely because of a mistranslation/misunderstanding.
Did you know that for thousands of years Jewish men have sent away their wives without a divorce certificate then often marry another woman? However, the woman sent away without the divorce certificate is unable to remarry.
Happens everyday, to this day!
Research the Hebrew word Agunah: the chained woman, here you’ll begin to find the missing context to Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16.
Christ gives us a hint in verse 31. Whoever sends away must give a certificate.
May the Lord bless your study.
But seriously, the reason verse 32 seems confusing is likely because of a mistranslation/misunderstanding.
Did you know that for thousands of years Jewish men have sent away their wives without a divorce certificate then often marry another woman? However, the woman sent away without the divorce certificate is unable to remarry.
Happens everyday, to this day!
Research the Hebrew word Agunah: the chained woman, here you’ll begin to find the missing context to Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 16.
Christ gives us a hint in verse 31. Whoever sends away must give a certificate.
May the Lord bless your study.
If you look a little closer, step out of the modern English translations into the original languages, you may arrive at a different conclusion.
I know it’s difficult challenging your own understanding, especially when you’ve seen it a certain way for decades, it was for me at least. But if you’re interested in this topic and plan to continue advising people on it, I highly suggest you do.
I was of the permanence camp for quite some time, it’s a fair conclusion all things considered but, it’s not biblical.
Our Messianic Jewish brothers and sisters provide valuable insight here and in many other topics the western church has fumbled.
I may not agree with everything in this article but it’s a good start for anyone trying to make proper sense of the topic.
https://eitan.bar/articles/bible-divorce/
Be a Berean, test his claims against the scripture of course…
I know it’s difficult challenging your own understanding, especially when you’ve seen it a certain way for decades, it was for me at least. But if you’re interested in this topic and plan to continue advising people on it, I highly suggest you do.
I was of the permanence camp for quite some time, it’s a fair conclusion all things considered but, it’s not biblical.
Our Messianic Jewish brothers and sisters provide valuable insight here and in many other topics the western church has fumbled.
I may not agree with everything in this article but it’s a good start for anyone trying to make proper sense of the topic.
https://eitan.bar/articles/bible-divorce/
Be a Berean, test his claims against the scripture of course…
Thankyou.
I really want to know why if things go badly wrong during marriage, why it's wrong to end it according to Catholicism. The principle being of a contract ending because those party to it have broken the terms in a big way - such as adultery.
For romance or not, marriage is a legal binding contract.
I really want to know why if things go badly wrong during marriage, why it's wrong to end it according to Catholicism. The principle being of a contract ending because those party to it have broken the terms in a big way - such as adultery.
For romance or not, marriage is a legal binding contract.
I spent a couple of years in the Messianic movement. It's not monolithic in terms of doctrine. I wasn''t taught that divorce and remarriage is okay in that movement, but there is a lot of variety.
The agunah problem has historically been a problem. But as religious Pharisees, Christ's opponents did not believe in divorcing and remarrying without a certificate. Their leaders had prominent seats in the Sanhedrin. When you read the Mishneh or Talmud, you are reading their leaders debates.
I'll address a point in the article that doesn't fit well with the rest of my message here.
I think it is pretty clear that Jesus treats Moses allowing divorce as a response to the hardness of men's hearts, differently from the Pharisees who interpreted it as a command. But be that as it may, in order to put one to death, one had to have two or three witnesses. I suppose those who the idea that some indecency referred to adultery could accept divorce as a choice with a lower standard of proof. Also, Joseph had wanted to put Mary away. The Torah required execution for women found to be non-virgins after marriage who had played the harlot in her father's house. Joseph had a dream that revealed that this was not the case for Mary. They were living under Roman law and not free to execute people, if the situation with the Lord Jesus is any indicator of the legal system.
There are also other issues. Like what if a woman engaged in french kissing, heavy or light petting, flashing a man, lesbian activity, etc.
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.
I use the archaic KJV language because it preseverse the put away/divorce distinction in the text. There are people who argue as if knowing the difference between divorce and putting away (in the two languages-- your article focused a bit on Hebrew) is some kind of secret exegetical key that makes the text say something different. But from some time until probably the 1970's or 1980's, And the Geneva and Douay-Rheims translations in English maintained the distinction also and used 'put away.'
Also, the 'God hates divorce' interpretation of Malachi 2:16 is not some interpretation. John Calvin cited various sources for interpreters on the divorce and remarriage issue before him. Here is a quote from his commentary on this passage in Malachi.
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/cal/malachi-2.html
The issue here is NOT that there is some secret to the Hebrew or Greek that makes this an issue of 'put away' versus 'divorce.' Trying to make this about such a distinction seems to me to be slight of hand, a trick that might work on English speakers not familiar with the formal equivalence translations, who use the dynamic equivalence translations of the past few decades.
This is an issue of being able to follow the flow of argument, and also of knowing a bit about historical context. While the agunah problem was an issue, it does not make sense that it would have been a point of debate with the Pharisees.
There were also two competing factions in the Pharisees, followers of Hillel and followers of Shammai. Hillel had passed away, but his school of thought was still influential and became the basis for modern Judaism since his followers refocused Judaism around the legal 'cult' and synagogue Judaism after the destruction of the temple. The Mishneh and Talmud became very important documents in Judaism, eventually, recording their scholarly debates and discussions.
If we study further we can see that the Hillel allowed a man to divorce his wife for any cause, focusing on one part of the Deuteronomy 24 passage. Shammai took another view, focusing on the 'some uncleanness' passage. So for Hillel, if a wife burned the bread, she could be put away. For Shammai, she had to commit some serious indiscretion.
Look at the Pharisees question. They ask the Lord Jesus if a man could put away his wife 'for any cause.'
Part 2 to follow
Part 2
If you look up numerous scholarly academic articles on the topic that look into the historical context and debate at that time, they look at the RELEVANT issues. The relevant issue is what the Pharisees bring up-- the 'any cause' divorce debate. It is likely that the debates pointed to in the Mishnah and Talmud were the issues the Pharisees brought up to Jesus.
Here is a quote from the Mishnah tractate Gittim.
"The School of Shammai say, A man should not divorce his wife except he found in her a thing of indecency, as it is said: For he finds in her an indecent thing [Deut 24:1]. And the School of Hillel say, Even if she spoiled his dish, since it says: For he finds in her an indecent thing [Deut 24:1]. (m.Git. 9.10)"
which I took from this article:
https://instonebrewer.com/publications/Mishnah and Mark 10.1-12 - Instone-Brewer PrePub.pdf
This is the issue. What are the proper grounds for a LEGAL divorce according to the Torah, given with certificate in hand. That is the 'any cause' issue that they brought to Christ, and NOT that agunah problem of divorcing without a certificate. Christ's words indicate that he disagreed with their interpretation that the divorce certificate made divorce appropriate.
If you will notice in the passage I quoted in Matthew, above, Jesus said points out that the original intention of marriage was that two shall be one flesh, and said 'What God hath joined together, let no man put assunder.
Matthew 19
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.
One I don't care about the KJV is that we don't use 'suffer' for 'allow' anymore. But the Pharisees took Deuteronomy 24 as God 'commanding' a divorce. Jesus took it as Moses allowing a divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
I am not usually a fan of the NIV, but I notice that they translate the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 24 to be consistent with the Matthew 24 interpretation of the passage
24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.
Here, the first three verses set up the scenario, and there is a command in verse 4, for the first husband, after he has done these things, not to marry this woman again. It goes on to explain this will defile the land in subsequent verses.
Also notice that it is in the context of the kind of putting away that Moses allowed (which involved her having a certificate), that Christ spoke these words:
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.
A woman who has a certificate from her husband in hand who is put away is indeed put away. She's not still in the house. She is not still with her husband. Saying verse 9 does not apply to put away women who have divorce certificates is illogical and defies the context-- which is about putting away women with a certificate.
If you look up numerous scholarly academic articles on the topic that look into the historical context and debate at that time, they look at the RELEVANT issues. The relevant issue is what the Pharisees bring up-- the 'any cause' divorce debate. It is likely that the debates pointed to in the Mishnah and Talmud were the issues the Pharisees brought up to Jesus.
Here is a quote from the Mishnah tractate Gittim.
"The School of Shammai say, A man should not divorce his wife except he found in her a thing of indecency, as it is said: For he finds in her an indecent thing [Deut 24:1]. And the School of Hillel say, Even if she spoiled his dish, since it says: For he finds in her an indecent thing [Deut 24:1]. (m.Git. 9.10)"
which I took from this article:
https://instonebrewer.com/publications/Mishnah and Mark 10.1-12 - Instone-Brewer PrePub.pdf
This is the issue. What are the proper grounds for a LEGAL divorce according to the Torah, given with certificate in hand. That is the 'any cause' issue that they brought to Christ, and NOT that agunah problem of divorcing without a certificate. Christ's words indicate that he disagreed with their interpretation that the divorce certificate made divorce appropriate.
If you will notice in the passage I quoted in Matthew, above, Jesus said points out that the original intention of marriage was that two shall be one flesh, and said 'What God hath joined together, let no man put assunder.
Matthew 19
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.
One I don't care about the KJV is that we don't use 'suffer' for 'allow' anymore. But the Pharisees took Deuteronomy 24 as God 'commanding' a divorce. Jesus took it as Moses allowing a divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
I am not usually a fan of the NIV, but I notice that they translate the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 24 to be consistent with the Matthew 24 interpretation of the passage
24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.
Here, the first three verses set up the scenario, and there is a command in verse 4, for the first husband, after he has done these things, not to marry this woman again. It goes on to explain this will defile the land in subsequent verses.
Also notice that it is in the context of the kind of putting away that Moses allowed (which involved her having a certificate), that Christ spoke these words:
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.
A woman who has a certificate from her husband in hand who is put away is indeed put away. She's not still in the house. She is not still with her husband. Saying verse 9 does not apply to put away women who have divorce certificates is illogical and defies the context-- which is about putting away women with a certificate.
@NOV25
I may not have made a clear point about translations. Until 30 or so years ago, we didn't have these modern translations that did not retain the distinction between 'divorce' and 'put away', at least not in as widespread usage. Both the traditional view and the Protestant view were held to by those who had scriptures in Greek or in translation that made this distinction.
We also need to keep in mind that the words translated 'put away' could have functioned as the 'go to' word for divorce. The translators translate a word related to the legal document using 'divorcement' or 'divorce.' We throw the term 'divorce' around quite a bit in our language now. The ancient Hebrew did not have the equivalent of our 'separated' category where a couple are living separate in the process of getting a divorce (not as far as we know). The agunah situation might have been similar, but a lot of our separations occur because the wife leaves, which was unlikely the case with most agunah back then.
I've seen elsewhere an attempt to equate agunah with modern separation, a perpetual state of that.
A divorced woman with a certificate could be described as 'put away', as we see in the text of Matthew 19.
Of course it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put away WITHOUT certificate also. But Christ's words clearly applied to put away women with certificates since that is clearly what is described in the context. I could have made the same arguments with Mark 10, which does not have the exception clause.
I may not have made a clear point about translations. Until 30 or so years ago, we didn't have these modern translations that did not retain the distinction between 'divorce' and 'put away', at least not in as widespread usage. Both the traditional view and the Protestant view were held to by those who had scriptures in Greek or in translation that made this distinction.
We also need to keep in mind that the words translated 'put away' could have functioned as the 'go to' word for divorce. The translators translate a word related to the legal document using 'divorcement' or 'divorce.' We throw the term 'divorce' around quite a bit in our language now. The ancient Hebrew did not have the equivalent of our 'separated' category where a couple are living separate in the process of getting a divorce (not as far as we know). The agunah situation might have been similar, but a lot of our separations occur because the wife leaves, which was unlikely the case with most agunah back then.
I've seen elsewhere an attempt to equate agunah with modern separation, a perpetual state of that.
A divorced woman with a certificate could be described as 'put away', as we see in the text of Matthew 19.
Of course it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put away WITHOUT certificate also. But Christ's words clearly applied to put away women with certificates since that is clearly what is described in the context. I could have made the same arguments with Mark 10, which does not have the exception clause.
Roman Catholics are a lot stricter about divorce than most Protestants. There are exceptions like annulments for Roman Catholics, and if a Roman Catholic marries someone they consider to be a heretic, then their church might not acknowledge it. Usually that occurs if the other parent will not consent to raising the child Roman Catholic.
Annulments might be used if it turns out the couple were brother or sister. Historically there has been occasional corruption with annulments, kings or other high officials claiming they are too closely related to the wife to get out of the marriage or something else like that. Not consummating might be an issue. I don't know the details, except for some of the stories about corruption. I have also read that RCC bishops in the US give out a huge percentage of the annulments. There doctrine is really strict on divorce. Annulments are an area that I consider where 'corruption' might occur, even on biblically valid marriages, but it probably isn't the norm.
If a marriage partner does not marry with the intent for it to be for life, the RCC might consider an annulment. This is an area where they might seem a bit more liberal than myself from my perspective.
As far as interpretation goes, Mark and Luke do not make any exceptions for adultery. If a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. He that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.
Matthew 19 has the 'exception clause.' So the Protestant interpretation is that this allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality. Matthew 19 doesn't say anything about 'except it be for fornication' for the woman divorcing the man, but rather for the man divorcing the woman. Mark forbids the woman putting away the man. That wasn't legal in the Jewish legal system, but there had been a case where the chief priests, according to Josephus, had given Herodias divorce papers against her first husband. John told Herod, "It is not lawful for thee to have her." Of course, she had been his sister-in-law, too, and her husband was still alive.
The exception clause says 'except it be for fornication', but it does not actively say if a man divorces and remarries under that case, he is okay.
Then there are different interpretations of what 'except it be for fornication' means. Does 'fornication mean sex before marriage? So one interpretation is that it applies specifically to the case mentioned in the Old Testament where a man finds out his wife fornicated before marriage and she was not a virgin. Without the presence of the Roman legal authorities or obstruction from the Jewish authorities, they might have been able to stone women for that.
We might also see 'fornication' as encompassing a broad array of forbidden sexual activity. If Acts 15 is referencing sins for Gentiles from the Old Testament, like eating blood, Leviticus 18 indicates that it was a sin for Gentiles to engage in a wide array of sexually immoral practices. Is that is what is meant by 'fornication' in that passage.
Many Protestants interpret the passage to refer to, or at least include, adultery.
Historically, though, in the west, Roman Catholics held to the traditional view. Eastern Orthodox ended up with a looser view on the topic.
Annulments might be used if it turns out the couple were brother or sister. Historically there has been occasional corruption with annulments, kings or other high officials claiming they are too closely related to the wife to get out of the marriage or something else like that. Not consummating might be an issue. I don't know the details, except for some of the stories about corruption. I have also read that RCC bishops in the US give out a huge percentage of the annulments. There doctrine is really strict on divorce. Annulments are an area that I consider where 'corruption' might occur, even on biblically valid marriages, but it probably isn't the norm.
If a marriage partner does not marry with the intent for it to be for life, the RCC might consider an annulment. This is an area where they might seem a bit more liberal than myself from my perspective.
As far as interpretation goes, Mark and Luke do not make any exceptions for adultery. If a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. He that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.
Matthew 19 has the 'exception clause.' So the Protestant interpretation is that this allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality. Matthew 19 doesn't say anything about 'except it be for fornication' for the woman divorcing the man, but rather for the man divorcing the woman. Mark forbids the woman putting away the man. That wasn't legal in the Jewish legal system, but there had been a case where the chief priests, according to Josephus, had given Herodias divorce papers against her first husband. John told Herod, "It is not lawful for thee to have her." Of course, she had been his sister-in-law, too, and her husband was still alive.
The exception clause says 'except it be for fornication', but it does not actively say if a man divorces and remarries under that case, he is okay.
Then there are different interpretations of what 'except it be for fornication' means. Does 'fornication mean sex before marriage? So one interpretation is that it applies specifically to the case mentioned in the Old Testament where a man finds out his wife fornicated before marriage and she was not a virgin. Without the presence of the Roman legal authorities or obstruction from the Jewish authorities, they might have been able to stone women for that.
We might also see 'fornication' as encompassing a broad array of forbidden sexual activity. If Acts 15 is referencing sins for Gentiles from the Old Testament, like eating blood, Leviticus 18 indicates that it was a sin for Gentiles to engage in a wide array of sexually immoral practices. Is that is what is meant by 'fornication' in that passage.
Many Protestants interpret the passage to refer to, or at least include, adultery.
Historically, though, in the west, Roman Catholics held to the traditional view. Eastern Orthodox ended up with a looser view on the topic.
@presidente thanks for your responses, happy to find someone who has obviously spent as much time in this topic as I have.
Some questions that come to mind while reading your posts. Some of them may sound silly but they’re worth a ponder.
Was it a punishable offense to agree with Shammai on grounds for divorce?
What are the commands given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
What is the OT command Jesus quotes in Matthew 5:31?
Who wrote Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses or Jesus? 😉
Should we expect to see tension between Jesus and Moses (aka the Old Testament)?
Does Jesus void any part of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
Or is Jesus simply correcting the way we are to view Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to that of fornication only divorce and if so how does it read through this lens? In other words, does a fornication only divorce Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cause further tension with Jesus’ own words in the gospels?
I could go on and on with the problems caused by the false apoluo=divorce view, because it simply isn’t true. Once we fully understand Jesus is in fact addressing the improper sending away without the divorce certificate all the tensions disappear.
Some questions that come to mind while reading your posts. Some of them may sound silly but they’re worth a ponder.
Was it a punishable offense to agree with Shammai on grounds for divorce?
What are the commands given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
What is the OT command Jesus quotes in Matthew 5:31?
Who wrote Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses or Jesus? 😉
Should we expect to see tension between Jesus and Moses (aka the Old Testament)?
Does Jesus void any part of Deuteronomy 24:1-4?
Or is Jesus simply correcting the way we are to view Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to that of fornication only divorce and if so how does it read through this lens? In other words, does a fornication only divorce Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cause further tension with Jesus’ own words in the gospels?
I could go on and on with the problems caused by the false apoluo=divorce view, because it simply isn’t true. Once we fully understand Jesus is in fact addressing the improper sending away without the divorce certificate all the tensions disappear.
1 Corinthians 7:27-27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed (lusis: divorced). Art thou loosed (luo: put away) from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Ever wonder why translations like the ESV attempt to negate centuries of trusted commentary by claiming Paul is addressing the betrothed throughout verses 25-38?
Think about it.
Ever wonder why translations like the ESV attempt to negate centuries of trusted commentary by claiming Paul is addressing the betrothed throughout verses 25-38?
Think about it.
Luke 16:17-18 ESV
[17] But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
Then Jesus voids Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in the very next verse?👇
[18] “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
This is bad, even for the ESV 🤣
[17] But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.
Then Jesus voids Deuteronomy 24:1-4 in the very next verse?👇
[18] “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
This is bad, even for the ESV 🤣