Matthew 5:32

[Sean73]

In the Catholic Bible Matthew 5:32 says "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawfull) causes her to commit adultery,..." NAB. In the Protestant NIV bible it replaces"(unless the marriage is unlawfull)" with "except for marital unfaithfullness". Why the difference?

[cris]

In the Catholic Bible Matthew 5:32 says "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawfull) causes her to commit adultery,..." NAB. In the Protestant NIV bible it replaces"(unless the marriage is unlawfull)" with "except for marital unfaithfullness". Why the difference?

Hi there Sean73.  I see you're brand new to CU so I welcome you and hope you have a blessed stay here.

I think catholic Matt:5:32 means this...........any catholic who marries outside the catholic church, then the catholic church considers that marriage unlawful. The catholic church already considers them to be living in adultery, for the simple reason they WERE married outside the church. The marriage wasn't lawful to begin with.  It has nothing to do with the legalities of the state.  State lawfulness doesn't enter the picture here.  As far as the state is concerned, any marriage performed by a justice of the peace, minister, or priest is considered lawful.  If that catholic, who married outside the church divorces his wife and repents of living in adultery, then that catholic is in good standing with the church and can marry again "in the church". That marriage would then be considered lawful and blessed by God.

The NIV, a protestant bible, recognizes ALL marriages between a man and woman legal and lawful, even though they were performed outside the protestant church.  Therefore, the difference in wording.  If protestants are married, the only reason for divorce is unfaithfulness of a spouse.  In this case they are free to marry again and that marriage is considered a lawful marriage in the eyes of the state AND protestant church.

I hope I haven't confused you more!

Grace and peace,
cris

[Bronzesnake]

In the Catholic Bible Matthew 5:32 says "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawfull) causes her to commit adultery,..." NAB. In the Protestant NIV bible it replaces"(unless the marriage is unlawfull)" with "except for marital unfaithfullness". Why the difference?

Welcome to C.U. my brother.

Both are actually saying the same thing.

Look at the KJV verse.

 Mat 5:32 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.

 The marriage becomes "unlawfull" because of fornication or "marital unfaithfullness"

Good discussing with you my friend.

John

[cris]

In the Catholic Bible Matthew 5:32 says "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawfull) causes her to commit adultery,..." NAB. In the Protestant NIV bible it replaces"(unless the marriage is unlawfull)" with "except for marital unfaithfullness". Why the difference?

Welcome to C.U. my brother.

Both are actually saying the same thing.

Look at the KJV verse.

 Mat 5:32 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.

 The marriage becomes "unlawfull" because of fornication or "marital unfaithfullness"

Good discussing with you my friend.

John

Yep, it is saying the same thing, but it IS different for catholics and protestants as I described above.  Just ask me to add to the confusion.

 

[Sean73]

From what I have researched the greek word porneias which is used in this scripture verse can mean several thing all dealing with being sexual in content including prostitution, adultery or an illicit marriage or relationship. The Vulgate says "except for fornication". The RSV says "except on the ground of unchastity". KJ "saving for the cause of fornication". NIV "except for marital unfaithfullness". Douay-Rheims "excepting for the cause of fornication". So there is no doubt that we are dealing with an illicit sexual relationship. Also seeing that the word porneias is being translated to fornication in many bible versions, the definition of which is having relations before marriage how does this play into the verse? So I suppose the real question is, is divorced allowed when Jesus in so many scripture passages is very stongly against it? Could it be that the divorce being allowed is similar to when Joseph was going to quietly divorce Mary who was betrothed to Joseph but they had not yet come together and that after a marriage is consumated divorce is not allowed?

[Soldier4Christ]

From what I have researched the greek word porneias which is used in this scripture verse can mean several thing all dealing with being sexual in content including prostitution, adultery or an illicit marriage or relationship. The Vulgate says "except for fornication". The RSV says "except on the ground of unchastity". KJ "saving for the cause of fornication". NIV "except for marital unfaithfullness". Douay-Rheims "excepting for the cause of fornication". So there is no doubt that we are dealing with an illicit sexual relationship. Also seeing that the word porneias is being translated to fornication in many bible versions, the definition of which is having relations before marriage how does this play into the verse? So I suppose the real question is, is divorced allowed when Jesus in so many scripture passages is very stongly against it? Could it be that the divorce being allowed is similar to when Joseph was going to quietly divorce Mary who was betrothed to Joseph but they had not yet come together and that after a marriage is consumated divorce is not allowed?

The meaning for the Greek word porneia is "harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication."  The word was used for a sexual act with other than your given spouse. This word is never used in the relationship between husband and wife.

In reference to Joseph.

Mat 1:19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

This is not talking about a writ of divorcement. It says that he was going to put her into privacy so that no one would see her and know that she was pregnant.


The answer to the question "So I suppose the real question is, is divorced allowed when Jesus in so many scripture passages is very stongly against it?" is found in the following verses. It was due to the hardness of their hearts that it was allowed.


Mat 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mat 19:7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8  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.

Even in Jeremiah we see divorcement mentioned in reference to adultery.

Jer 3:8  And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

[Sean73]

I have learned since my last post that porneia typically does not refer to adultery.  The word for adultery is usually  moicheia although this does not always apply.

This is not talking about a writ of divorcement. It says that he was going to put her into privacy so that no one would see her and know that she was pregnant.

I would have to dispute this because the RSV, NIV, NAB and others all use the word "divorce".  The only version that I know of that doesn't is the King James.

Mat 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mat 19:7  They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8  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.

Jer 3:8  And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

These verses are speaking of divorce during Old Testament times, not during and after the time of Jesus.  I know of nothing the the New Testament that allows for divorce except for Mat 5:23 which has been disputed either way.  If you know of any NT verses that allow for divorce let me know.

[-foc-]

In the Catholic Bible Matthew 5:32 says "But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawfull) causes her to commit adultery,..." NAB. In the Protestant NIV bible it replaces"(unless the marriage is unlawfull)" with "except for marital unfaithfullness". Why the difference?

the difference is that the CC wants 'control' over who can end a marriage and who cannot.
THEY decide *IF* this marriage is 'unlawful' and can be 'annulled' or not.

If its simply sexual sin, then anyone can determine that...ifs the marriage is 'unlawful' now we may have to seek higher ups (clergy) for determining this for us.

My father in law is dealing with this exact issue presently....and its terrible that hes already paid thousands for his divorce...now the CC his fiance goes to has got their hands out for a few thousand more....all because his ex was catholic.

porneia = harlotry, as someone has already presented.


removal of link
Moderator

[-foc-]

I have learned since my last post that porneia typically does not refer to adultery.

Actually, this is entirely incorrect.
Porneia covers all sexual sin, by the married and the unmarried...it is sexual immorality in general by anyone....which is why it is used alone to forbid sexual sin in Acts 15 and in the letters to the  Ephesians and Colossians (poreai and at least one of its other forms "pornos')

With children being here, I cant give you a link, but you can research it for yourself...being careful not to let doctrinal views determine its meaning for you...

[-foc-]

Mat 1:19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

This is not talking about a writ of divorcement. It says that he was going to put her into privacy so that no one would see her and know that she was pregnant.

What is your basis for this assertion?
I see nothing in the text that presents that Joseph was going to put her away without the written proof Moses had required of the Jews in Deut.
This was a horrid Jewish practice that left this woman in a terrible state, Joseph does not seem to be this sort of man, but 'just'.....enough so that he didnt want to make a 'public example' of Mary. Hardly the type that would leave her in such a position.

Scripture shows Joseph as a 'just' man...no just man would cast this wife out leaving her 'aguna'....unable to ever remarry for not being properly divorced.

[-foc-]

Could it be that the divorce being allowed is similar to when Joseph was going to quietly divorce Mary who was betrothed to Joseph but they had not yet come together and that after a marriage is consumated divorce is not allowed?

One would have to wonder why Jesus didnt simply state as much and relieve His followers in later years a LOT of confusion.

There really isnt much to back this idea that Jesus was making exception for the Jewish custom of betrothal...which is lawfully bound in marriage and why even the betrothed wife would face the death penalty for willful sexual betrayal to her husband.

the whole discussion in Matt 19 is pertaining to a marriage and divorce/putting away.....betrothal never even enters the discussion.

Additionally, *IF* Jesus had meant only the betrothed wife, then why not simply use the words for "espoused wife" as was used for Mary on occasion? Thats all He had to add to clear things up *IF* this were actually the case.

Fact is, Jesus used the word 'woman' or 'wife' alone, without the additional word necessary to show a betrothed wife (G3423) presenting that *IF* Jesus were actually making a distinction between the two, a consummated wife versus a betrothed wife...His ACTUAL words would indicate the consummated wife, not an espoused wife at all...

http://divorceandremarriage.bravehost.com/wifespousedwife.html