Divorce in Catholicism on grounds of adultery

[presidente]

“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.

First of all, you are not addressing the interpretation I hold to, the one the NIV adopted, the one also seen in the English words in the interlinear I liked to of Deuteronomy 24.

Again, the idea is that WHEN a man has found something unclean about his wife that displeases him, gives her a write of divorce, sends her away, she marries another man, and he divorces her or dies, then the first husband must not take her as a wife.

The first husband not taking her as a wife is a command part.... not God telling Moses to give writings of divorce. That's the interpretation I am describing, and it aligns with what Jesus says in both Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Look at it. The Pharisees ask why Moses COMMANDED to give her a writing of divorcement. Jesus responded that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts ALLOWED divorce, but from the beginning it was not so.

You are missing major points of the conversation here.

God has the right to forbid certain extremes. The NKJV translates Paul as saying that God 'winked' at idolatry, when He was addressing a Gentile audience, but now is calling all men to repent. Other translations say God overlooked idolatry.

Divorce and remarriage was not the original intention. Moses gave the law. He let people divorce and remarry because of the hardness of their hearts. In this midst of this situation, God puts a restriction that the man may not take back a remarried wife after a second divorce or the second husband dies. Now, the new Lawgiver comes, and He clarifies that it is adultery for the man to put away his wife, except it be for fornication (speaking in the context of putting away with a certificate).

You are interpreting 'permission' to divorce and remarry with a certificate into Deuteronomy 24, just as the Pharisees did. Christ said Moses allowed it, but from the beginning it was not so.

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

That is not a problem if God did not command the divorce or set up the scenario with the certificate... but only clarified at that time that he wasn't going to permit men taking back the remarried wife in the case described.

Either way, there is a problem for you with your interpretation, because Christ says this whosoever puts away his wife... not just the ones who put away without a certificate. And it is clear from Deuteronomy 24 that the scenario involves putting/sending the wife away WITH a certificate, so the use of the term 'put away' does not preclude the use of a certificate.

 

[NOV25]

@presidente Here’s part of your problem:

“Divorce and remarriage was not the original intention. Moses gave the law. He let people divorce and remarry because of the hardness of their hearts. In this midst of this situation, God puts a restriction that the man may not take back a remarried wife after a second divorce or the second husband dies.”

Moses gave the law, he allowed divorce and remarriage.

Who gave it God or Moses? Yes. 😉

Where is it recorded?

Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Who wrote it, The Holy Spirit or Moses? Yes. 😉

You keep flopping from Moses to God as if they’re separate in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
As mentioned before, this is a common error with proponents of your view.

You must think of it this way, Mosses allowed divorce and remarriage for the hardness of heart is the same thing as God allowed divorce and remarriage for the hardness of heart.

It is the will of God that two become one for life but after the fall provision and guideline for divorce and remarriage is given by God in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

 

[SomeDisciple]

You must think of it this way, Mosses allowed divorce and remarriage for the hardness of heart is the same thing as God allowed divorce and remarriage for the hardness of heart.

and while I do agree with presidente that Moses wasn't perfect- I think the law he gave had to be. Over and over in the OT when a prophet screws up by misrepresenting God, he gets a double dose of smackdown. When Moses didn't circumcise his son... there was the Angel of the Lord about to KILL HIM and then when Moses strikes the Rock for the second time- that's it, no promised land for you, dude. And when Moses tries to get him to change his mind "DONT ASK ABOUT THIS AGAIN". I think the scriptures make it pretty clear that prophets are not given a whole lot of leeway- you have the privilege of hearing from God directly and the responsibility is proportionate to the privilege. Even Baalam at first was afraid to screw with God's word- I think he knew better and that's why he ended up getting killed.

 

[SomeDisciple]

It is the will of God that two become one for life but after the fall provision and guideline for divorce and remarriage is given by God in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

I think what Presidente is saying, though, is that Deut24 ISN'T provision for divorce. It's guidance IN CASE of divorce.

But if God didn't provide for divorce, then what is he doing in Jerimiah giving Israel a certificate of divorce?
...because faithless Israel had committed adultery, I gave her a certificate of divorce and sent her away.

Looking at the YLT
This is Mark10

2And the Pharisees, having come near, questioned him, if it is lawful for a husband to put away a wife, tempting him, 3and he answering said to them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ 4and they said, ‘Moses suffered to write a bill of divorce, and to put away.’ 5And Jesus answering said to them, ‘For the stiffness of your heart he wrote you this command, 6but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them; 7on this account shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, 8and they shall be — the two — for one flesh; so that they are no more two, but one flesh; 9what therefore God did join together, let not man put asunder.’
10And in the house again his disciples of the same thing questioned him, 11and he saith to them, ‘Whoever may put away his wife, and may marry another, doth commit adultery against her; 12and if a woman may put away her husband, and is married to another, she committeth adultery.’

So, a woman can PUT AWAY her husband, right? But she cannot issue that divorce. So the bold section cannot mean "put away with certificate"
Conversely- the MAN CAN put away and GIVE a certificate. When the woman accepts the certificate- they are divorced(right?), so the woman he is sending away is no longer his wife...

 

[SomeDisciple]

so the woman he is sending away is no longer his wife...

So... what follows logically- and I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct; but, logically he is not "Putting away his wife". He is putting away his ex-wife.
Unlike the woman who puts away her husband- and is still technically married to him, because there is no divorce.

 

[presidente]

@presidente Here’s part of your problem:

“Divorce and remarriage was not the original intention. Moses gave the law. He let people divorce and remarry because of the hardness of their hearts. In this midst of this situation, God puts a restriction that the man may not take back a remarried wife after a second divorce or the second husband dies.”

Moses gave the law, he allowed divorce and remarriage.

Who gave it God or Moses? Yes. 😉

Where is it recorded?

Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Who wrote it, The Holy Spirit or Moses? Yes. 😉

You keep flopping from Moses to God as if they’re separate in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
As mentioned before, this is a common error with proponents of your view.

You are not seem to be trying to understand the interpretation I explained, the interpretation the NIV goes with, the interlinear I posted goes with, or the words of Jesus that Moses allowed divorce in contrast to the Pharisees who interpret the passage to mean God commanded the writing of divorcement.

Most may have been allowing certificates of divorce, based on his own judgment, prior to the writing of Deuteronomy 24. In Deuteronomy 24, we read of a situation-- when a man is displeased with his wife due to some uncleannes, puts a certificate of divorce in her hand, sends her away, she marries another, who gives her a certificate and divorces her or dies... then there is a command that the first husband may not marry her.

You are taking the scenario setting up the command as a command.

Like the Pharisees, you are stuck on the idea that God commanded the giving of the certificate of divorce.

 

[SomeDisciple]

I would suspect the certificate is a permission rather than a command.

At least some of the Pharisees had it right, because in MARK they are using the word for "Permit" rather than "command".

So I really don't think the emphasis of the story is on the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees interpretation of Deut. with respect to whether the certificate was commanded or permitted.

 

[SomeDisciple]

I would suspect the certificate is a permission rather than a command.

At least some of the Pharisees had it right, because in MARK they are using the word for "Permit" rather than "command".

So I really don't think the emphasis of the story is on the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees interpretation of Deut. with respect to whether the certificate was commanded or permitted.

BUT BUT BUT!!!!!

Jesus' question was "what did Moses COMMAND you?"

and his reply was "because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this COMMANDMENT"

 

[SomeDisciple]

So, I feel like the "permission" and "commandment" are kinda interchangable.

 

[presidente]

I think what Presidente is saying, though, is that Deut24 ISN'T provision for divorce. It's guidance IN CASE of divorce.

But if God didn't provide for divorce, then what is he doing in Jerimiah giving Israel a certificate of divorce?
...because faithless Israel had committed adultery, I gave her a certificate of divorce and sent her away.

If you read the prophets, he also married two sisters, Israel, and Judah, but the law of Moses forbids taking a sister as a second wife while the first is still living. These are analogies that communicate israel's unfaithfulness. God is not subject to the laws of the law of Moses, which were given to men.

You quote the YLT below:

11and he saith to them, ‘Whoever may put away his wife, and may marry another, doth commit adultery against her; 12and if a woman may put away her husband, and is married to another, she committeth adultery.’

So, a woman can PUT AWAY her husband, right? But she cannot issue that divorce. So the bold section cannot mean "put away with certificate"

I suppose it was possible that a woman could have been powerful enough to run her husband off or kick him out back then. There was an unusual case of the woman we know as Herodias who managed to get chief priests (according to Josephus) to issue a certificate of divorce from Philip, her husband. She married his brother, and John the Baptist said of this situation, "it is not lawful for thee to have her."

Conversely- the MAN CAN put away and GIVE a certificate. When the woman accepts the certificate- they are divorced(right?), so the woman he is sending away is no longer his wife...

And then if he marries another, he commits adultery.

 

[presidente]

I would suspect the certificate is a permission rather than a command.

At least some of the Pharisees had it right, because in MARK they are using the word for "Permit" rather than "command".

So I really don't think the emphasis of the story is on the contrast between Jesus and the Pharisees interpretation of Deut. with respect to whether the certificate was commanded or permitted.

As a rather new student of Greek, I was looking at the Mark passage a while back and the permit versus allow issue really stood out to me. It is an important detail and it shows up in both Mark and Matthew.

 

[SomeDisciple]

And then if he marries another, he commits adultery.

How can we come to this conclusion if the woman he is putting away is no longer his wife?

 

[presidente]

How can we come to this conclusion if the woman he is putting away is no longer his wife?

Becauae of the words of Christ in Matthew 19 and Mark 10...and two shall be one flesh.

 

[NOV25]

I was looking at the Mark passage a while back and the permit versus allow issue really stood out to me.

Yeah, I can tell 🤣

 

[NOV25]

1 Corinthians 7:27-27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed 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.

Check out the Greek words for loosed, lusis and luo.

 

[presidente]

1 Corinthians 7:27-27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed 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.

Check out the Greek words for loosed, lusis and luo.

Prior to this Paul addressed virgins. He may be referring to those loosed from obligations to marry their betrothed so they could pursue a life of celibacy, but change their minds and decide to marry. This quote follows 'Now concerning virgins in verse 25.

 

[NOV25]

Prior to this Paul addressed virgins. He may be referring to those loosed from obligations to marry their betrothed so they could pursue a life of celibacy, but change their minds and decide to marry. This quote follows 'Now concerning virgins in verse 25.

That’s the way the ESV and other modern translations approach it. They claim Paul is addressing the betrothed here and in other places in verses 25-38 but it doesn’t really make sense if you look at the Greek. And it seems to be a fairly new view, most of the older commentary doesn’t claim Paul is speaking to the betrothed in these places throughout v25-38.

Couple issues with the “ESV view”.
The first appearance of “loosed” is the Greek word lusis which means divorced. And the second “loosed” is luo, from the root word apoluo, which they translate as divorce in Matthew 5,19 Mark 10 and Luke 16

In other words, are you married, don’t get divorced… Are you luo/put away/“divorced” don’t get married but if you do it’s not a sin…

Interesting right? If they were consistent in their translation of luo/apoluo then Paul would be telling the “divorced” it’s ok to remarry, which is a direct contradiction to their translation of Christ’s words in the gospels.

Remedy? Paul is taking to the betrothed not the married 🤣

 

[SomeDisciple]

Couple issues with the “ESV view”.
The first appearance of “loosed” is the Greek word lusis which means divorced. And the second “loosed” is luo, from the root word apoluo, which they translate as divorce in Matthew 5,19 Mark 10 and Luke 16

I don't understand how this is an issue, though; betrothals were binding and had to be nullified with a divorce, right?

I still feel like it would be irresponsible to leave out that he only meant for the betrothed, though.

 

[NOV25]

I don't understand how this is an issue, though; betrothals were binding and had to be nullified with a divorce, right?

Good question, it seems that way when reading about Joseph and Mary, but no.

There is no OT text that requires a divorce certificate to dissolve a betrothal and the Jewish “law” wouldn’t require it for Joseph and Mary either. It’s likely just another misconception derived from us dumb westerners and our English translations.

The fate of a woman who turned up pregnant during a (non-sexual) betrothal period would have been either bad or worse. She certainly wouldn’t have received a divorce certificate which would allow her to remarry.

Can read all about Jewish “law” here👇
https://www.sefaria.org/texts

 

[presidente]

Good question, it seems that way when reading about Joseph and Mary, but no.

There is no OT text that requires a divorce certificate to dissolve a betrothal and the Jewish “law” wouldn’t require it for Joseph and Mary either. It’s likely just another misconception derived from us dumb westerners and our English translations.

The fate of a woman who turned up pregnant during a (non-sexual) betrothal period would have been either bad or worse. She certainly wouldn’t have received a divorce certificate which would allow her to remarry.

Can read all about Jewish “law” here👇
https://www.sefaria.org/texts

Not sure what text you are referring to at sefaria.org. But Jewish weddings in the Old Testament are not based on saying words in front of a minister. They do that now. That was a Roman custom, apparently adopted by Christians later. I'm not sure how it became a Jewish custom. A man took a woman to wife, if she were a virgin, based on paying the bride price for virgins. Sex with another man's betrothed woman, if she were a virgin, was treated as adultery, not mere fornication. A betrothed woman was married, just in an unconsumated stage of marriage.

A lot of Christians talk about marriage as if it is based on 'marriage vows.' That is our custom. Post-exhilic Jews did have a written marriage contract. For virgins, the deal was made when the husband gave the bride's father the bride price. In the case of Ruth, Joab took her as his wife when he redeemed a relative's property.