Audio only:
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus seems to soften his usual crystal-clear teaching against divorce. But what is he saying? Is he saying that adultery is an exception that allows for divorce? Karlo Broussard tackles this tough question.
Cy Kellett:
Does adultery cancel marriage? Karlo Broussard next. Hello, and welcome to Focus, the Catholic Answers podcast for living, understanding, and defending your Catholic faith. I’m Cy Kellett your host. In practice, we Catholics and Protestants probably don’t live very differently when it comes to marriage. I don’t know what the statistics are, but it would seem to be very similar. But doctrinally, we are quite different when it comes to marriage. Catholics hold the view that a marriage, once constituted can never be sundered. Protestants, not all but many hold the view that no, there’s an exception to this and it’s in Matthew’s gospel when Jesus says that in the case of adultery, except in a case of adultery, in other words, a marriage is indissoluble except in the case of adultery. Is that true?
Well, that’s one of the challenges Karlo takes on in his book, Meeting the Protestant Challenge: How to Answer 50 Biblical Objections to Catholic Beliefs. And when I say Karlo, of course, I mean Karlo Broussard and here’s what he has to say about marriage. Karlo Broussard, pretty good apologist. Thanks for being with us here.
Karlo Broussard:
Thank you, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
You objected to extraordinaire last time. So I went with pretty good apologist.
Karlo Broussard:
Pretty good apologists-
Cy Kellett:
You’re willing to accept that?
Karlo Broussard:
And working on it. Yeah.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. Fair enough. All right. Last time we talked about one of these Catholic Protestant problems regarding the priesthood. There’s also a difference between Catholics and most of the Orthodox and Protestants regarding marriage, exactly what Jesus taught about marriage. So we’ll tackle that this time. All right?
Karlo Broussard:
Let’s do it.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. So the tradition of the church is that marriage is indissoluble right? The catechism teaches that while spouses are living, a new marital union cannot be recognized as value, excuse me, as valid if the first marriage was. So, as long as the two spouses who entered into a marriage are alive, you can’t have this one validly marry someone else.
Karlo Broussard:
Right. That’s paragraph 1650 in the catechism.
Cy Kellett:
Those who attempt civil marriage after divorce therefore, find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. The bases church is this teaching on Jesus’s words in Matthew, excuse me, Mark chapter 10, verses 11 and 12, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And she who divorced her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” That seems really, really clear, but…
Karlo Broussard:
But.
Cy Kellett:
Saint Matthew decided to help us out. And so this is where the problem is. So here’s the Protestant challenge to that reality.
Karlo Broussard:
How can the church teach what we just articulated in paragraph 1650 of the catechism, when Matthew says-
Cy Kellett:
Right, when the Bible says in Matthew’s gospel chapter 19, verse nine, “Whoever divorces his wife, except unchastity and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” So since Jesus puts, except for unchastity, doesn’t that mean a man who divorced his wife and married another, wouldn’t be committing adultery if the wife had committed infidelity in the marriage?
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right, yeah. So that’s the challenge. And I must admit, on the surface, it would seem, well, wait a minute, Jesus seems to be making an exception here, right?
Cy Kellett:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
Man, divorces his wife, marries another, he’s going to commit adultery, except for that case that we’re calling unchastity here in this translation. Some might say, except for adultery, or as our Protestant brothers and sisters will often interpret it, except for adultery or except for spousal infidelity.
Cy Kellett:
But, okay. I want to completely admit that one sees an objection here, but it’s also true that none of the other gospels make any exception.
Karlo Broussard:
That is true. We only have it in Matthew, and that’s going to come into play and through our conversation, whenever we’re reasoning through this and doing some exegesis here, that tidbit, this extra tidbit that Matthew includes in his gospel is going to come to light as to why he would include this extra tidbit hen we go through our conversation.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. All right. So let’s talk about that. You said unchastity or adultery might not be the best way to actually translate this.
Karlo Broussard:
Right. Well, adultery, I would argue that adultery is not what Jesus is referring to here. And this is the tradition of the church in interpreting this passage. So I think there are two major approaches that we can take here in responding to this passage. Number one, I think it’s more of a negative approach where we want to give some reasons why Jesus can’t mean adultery. So we’re going to say, “No, Jesus is not meaning adultery.” Why is that? And we’re going to give some reasons why. But then our second approach is more positive where we’re going to offer a positive explanation as to what we think Jesus means here, when he says, “Except for unchastity.” And why we think that. So that’s just the lay of the land. So what are some reasons why we shouldn’t take this to mean adultery? Well, number one, the Greek word for unchastity here is important.
Karlo Broussard:
So we’re going to introduce the Greek word and I’ll just keep referring to that Greek word with regard to this exception clause here. The Greek word for unchastity is porneia from which we get the English word pornography-
Cy Kellett:
Pornography.
Karlo Broussard:
So now the Greek word porneia can refer, sometimes refers to fornication, but more generally just sexual immorality, sexual immorality in general, which could include adultery. So the general concept of porneia could include adultery. But what’s interesting is that’s not the word Matthew uses when he’s referring to adultery. In fact, in the very same passage, Matthew uses a word for adultery-
Cy Kellett:
Oh yeah, that’s right because he says [crosstalk 00:06:01] commits adultery.
Karlo Broussard:
He commits adultery, and the Greek word is [foreign language 00:06:04].
Cy Kellett:
Oh, right.
Karlo Broussard:
So Matthew himself is using two distinct words here, except for porneia and then he says [foreign language 00:06:13] when referring to adultery.
Cy Kellett:
That’s pretty clear then, he’s not… If you use two different words basically in the same sentence, you’re not talking about the same thing.
Karlo Broussard:
Well, you want to be careful with that because Matthew also uses two distinct words and refers to the same thing in Matthew 16:18. When he says, “You are [foreign language 00:06:30].” When Jesus says, “You are [foreign language 00:06:32] and upon this [foreign language 00:06:32] I will build my church.” So you want to be careful with that reasoning, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
All right. Okay. So even less than a pretty good apologist on this side.
Karlo Broussard:
Okay. So it true that we have two distinct words here, but here’s our supporting evidence that Matthew is referring to two different things with these two different words. Because everywhere else in Matthew’s gospel, when Matthew refers to spousal infidelity, he uses [foreign language 00:07:03]. the only time in Matthew where porneia is being used, and it’s being like debated whether or not it’s used as adultery is right here. Every other time when Matthew uses it, it’s a different word. It’s [foreign language 00:07:17] So for example, okay, so we’ve got the same passage here, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, marries another commits adultery,[foreign language 00:07:27] and he marries a divorced woman commits adultery [foreign language 00:07:30].”
Karlo Broussard:
So that’s Matthew chapter 19 verse nine. But in chapter five, verse 27, he uses [foreign language 00:07:38] to refer to the exterior act of adultery. And then in verse 28, he broadens the concept of adultery to include lust, referring to the interior act of adultery.
Cy Kellett:
Right, okay. Right. From the Sermon on the Mount.
Karlo Broussard:
Using the same word. So if you lust after a woman, you commit adultery. And then in verse 30, two of the same chapter, Matthew 5:32 in reference to the husband making his wife and adulteress by divorcing her same word is being used there. So if Matthew thought that Jesus was talking about spousal infidelity, like adultery, providing an exception to his teaching on divorce, if that’s what Matthew thought Jesus was referring to, well then why doesn’t he use the word that he always uses when he’s referring to spousal infidelity?
Cy Kellett:
Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
You see?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
But he doesn’t. He uses another word. So given the background of his common use of this word [foreign language 00:08:37] for spousal infidelity and that he doesn’t use it here is a strong indication that Matthew is thinking Jesus is thinking or saying something else, talking about something else. Here’s what one Bible scholar, John P. Meier writes about this, I think he captures it nicely. “If Matthew wishes to name adultery as a reason for divorce, he would be almost forced to employ some form of [foreign language 00:09:03] or the noun to express the concept, because that’s what he uses elsewhere. Every time he’s referring to spousal infidelity, since Matthew doesn’t use any form of [foreign language 00:09:16] it is a strong indication that he does not think Jesus is referring to spousal infidelity.” So that’s the first reason why we should think that Jesus is not referring to spousal infidelity when he speaks of this, except for unchastity, except for porneia clause. Okay?
Cy Kellett:
Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Karlo Broussard:
Now here’s the second reason which I find the second and third reason are even stronger. The disciples’ reaction to Jesus’s teaching would be unintelligible if Jesus were referring to spousal infidelity when porneia is used here.
Cy Kellett:
Oh, right. Because… Okay, so what the disciples say next, go ahead.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes.
Cy Kellett:
I know where you’re going now.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. So remember, whenever Jesus says, “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” And then in response this… And then Jesus says, “If a man puts away his wife, marries another, he commits adultery, except for this porneia case.” And then the apostles respond in verse 10. “Well, Jesus, if this is the case of a man with his wife, it’s not expedient to marry.”Now notice that reaction, they’re like, “No one should get married now.” Now, how could we make sense of that?
Karlo Broussard:
Well, it’s interesting to note that at the time of Jesus, there were two rabbinic schools of thought as to what constituted legitimate grounds for divorce. You had the Hillel school and the school of Shammai. The Hillel school following the Jewish leader, Hillel.
Cy Kellett:
Go ahead and divorce.
Karlo Broussard:
Practically anything.
Cy Kellett:
Do whatever you want.
Karlo Broussard:
I mean, it could be something as simple… John P. Meier talks about how it could be as simple as something as burnt food. If your wife burns your food, you can get rid of her. Or just some prettier woman you’re more attracted to you, you get right out of your wife. But then the school of Shammai on the other hand, they believed that the grounds for divorce and remarriage, emphasis there, is more restrictive, such as spousal infidelity. And the apostles at the time of Jesus would have already been swimming in those waters of thought, so to speak.
Cy Kellett:
O sure.
Karlo Broussard:
They would have been breathing that Jewish theological milieu of knowing the various schools of thought. So in their mind, spousal infidelity was already grounds for divorce and remarriage.
Cy Kellett:
That was the strictest law.
Karlo Broussard:
That was the strictest. So think about this Cy, if Jesus were saying, “Well, you can’t divorce and remarry, except for a case of spousal infidelity.”
Cy Kellett:
That would-
Karlo Broussard:
That that would be nothing new. It would be, well, tell me something I don’t already know, Jesus. It would be nothing new under the sun. Because they were already breathing that theological concept. They already had it in their mind. So if that’s what Jesus meant, you can’t divorce and remarry except for this case of spousal infidelity, well then the apostles would have just said, “Well, okay, we already believe that. That’s easy enough.” But they don’t. They actually say, “Well golly, it’s not expedient for anybody to marry now.” So that reaction indicates that Jesus is giving a new teaching, something that’s beyond what the apostles were used to.
Karlo Broussard:
Which included his spousal infidelity being grounds for divorce and remarriage. So this indicates that Jesus is not referring to spousal infidelity as grounds for divorce and remarriage. Given the fact assuming that God has joined together man and woman as husband and wife, in other words, that the marriage is valid. So the disciples reaction constitutes a second reason why we should not conclude that Jesus is referring to spousal infidelity with this exception clause, this porneia exception clause. So that’s the second reason, but there’s one more reason.
Cy Kellett:
All right. What’s that?
Karlo Broussard:
You ready for it?
Cy Kellett:
Yep.
Karlo Broussard:
Okay.
Cy Kellett:
One more reason why we should not-
Karlo Broussard:
Why we should not, sort of this negative approach.
Cy Kellett:
I gotcha.
Karlo Broussard:
We’re trying to refute the Protestant position of thinking that porneia-
Cy Kellett:
Adultery.
Karlo Broussard:
Refers to spousal infidelity or adultery. Notice that Jesus distances his view of marriage from the prevailing views among first century Jews. Because remember this whole conversation is teed up with the question given to him by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” In verse three, did you catch that?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, for any cause.
Karlo Broussard:
For any cause. So it seems as if the Pharisees are setting Jesus up to see which school of Jewish thought he’s going to side with, is he going to side with the Hillel school which would involve you can divorce your wife and remarry for any cause, for any reason. So the Pharisees say, “Hey Jesus, are you going to side with the Hillel school? Or are you going to side with the Shammai school?” Which was more restrictive and say, well, spousal infidelity is grounds for divorce and remarriage. But Jesus’s response, Cy, indicates that Jesus is siding with neither side.
Cy Kellett:
That’s right, yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Because Jesus’s response appeals to the very beginning of creation-
Cy Kellett:
All the way back to the beginning of the book of Genesis.
Karlo Broussard:
Of the man and the woman. That’s right. When Jesus says, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. For they’re no longer two, but one flesh.'” Here’s the key verse. “What therefore God has joined together let no man put asunder.” That’s the negative. So the [foreign language 00:14:48] the Pharisees are like approaching Jesus with a [foreign language 00:14:51]. A question, can a ma divorce his wife for any cause? And the implication being which side are you going to fall on, Jesus? Hillel or Shammai. Jesus is basically saying, “Neither, what God has joined together let no man put asunder.”
Karlo Broussard:
And with that statement, we can see how Jesus is saying neither school is right, because on this supposition that what God has joined together let no man to put asunder, neither the Hillel school nor the Shammai school is correct in allowing for divorce and remarriage. The implication being that these causes can dissolve the marital bond and Jesus is saying-
Cy Kellett:
Nope.
Karlo Broussard:
“No so.” So Jesus’s is negative response to the question is clear indication that he is not referring to spousal infidelity as being grounds for divorce and remarriage. This exceptional case that well, if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he wouldn’t be committing adultery in this exceptional case. Jesus is not referring to spousal infidelity for the reasons that we’ve articulated here.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. So then we want to get into the positive argument. And then what does, porneia refer to then? I mean, there’s not no reason that it’s in there, it’s there for some reason.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. So whenever we look at just porneia in generally as it’s used in the New Testament. As I mentioned earlier, it refers just generally to sexual immorality. Now, out of the 25 times in the New Testament where it’s used, only two of these do scholars even suggest that it’s used for adultery and that’s here in Matthew chapter 19.
Cy Kellett:
Oh.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s the only two times. Oh actually, I’m sorry. Not here, two times here. It’s Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 because the teaching is repeated in both passages. But everywhere else, it’s not used for adultery. So it’s used for fornication. Now notice that implies sexual immorality outside marriage, not in marriage. It refers to incest, which would imply sexual immorality that is not within a valid marriage, that’s not a valid union. It’s used just generally for sexual immorality, just generally speaking, nothing specific.
Karlo Broussard:
And then it’s used in scripture, for example, in Revelation 14:8 and Revelation 18:3 for metaphorical impure passions. Sort of lustful passions. So since we know that porneia can’t refer to adultery in Matthew 19:9 and every time porneia is being used in the New Testament it’s referring to some form of sexual immorality outside of marriage. Well then it’s reasonable to conclude that porneia is being used here by Matthew, in Matthew 19:9 to refer to some case that involves illicit sexual activity, that’s outside of the boundaries of marriage, some sexual immorality that is not within a union that’s valid. In other words, a sexual immorality that’s illicit in that it’s not within the boundaries of marriage.
Cy Kellett:
So it would be like if a son married his stepmother.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right, right. So that will not be a valid union. There would not be a valid marriage.
Cy Kellett:
Right, that’s a sexual immorality that actually makes marriage impossible.
Karlo Broussard:
Right.
Cy Kellett:
Because of the kind of immorality that it is.
Karlo Broussard:
Correct. Correct. So that part, and then we even have, for example, in Acts chapter 15, porneia is actually used by the council fathers at the council of Jerusalem when they give them those precepts that the Gentiles are to not eat meat, they’re to not eat meat that’s not fully drained of blood. They’re not to partake of blood. And then the fourth precept was abstain from porneia. Well, given that scholars suggests that the three of the four precepts are coming from Leviticus. These are all the Levitical precepts. It’s reasonable to conclude that the fourth precept that the council fathers bind on the Gentiles is coming from Leviticus as well. Well, which Levitical precept within the surrounding context of those other precepts has to do with sexually immorality? Incestuous relationships.
Cy Kellett:
Oh, okay.
Karlo Broussard:
So we even have precedents in the New Testament of porneia being used in reference to sexual immorality involved in invalid unions. Because you can have sexual immorality in a valid union like within marriage and the husband and wife fail in chastity. And employ their sexual powers in deviant ways. So you can have sexual immorality in marital unions, real marital unions, and sexual immorality in invalid unions. But porneia throughout the New Testament seems to always be used for this sexual immorality within invalid unions. Unions that are not real marriages to begin with.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, okay.
Karlo Broussard:
If that is the case, if we’re right here, Cy, then what Jesus is teaching us here in Matthew 19 verse nine is basically the concept of the church’s understanding of an invalid marriage. Yeah. And this provides the rationale as to why it would be such that, it would be the case that if a man puts away his wife and marries another, he would not be committing adultery, in the case of porneia-
Cy Kellett:
Because-
Karlo Broussard:
Why?
Cy Kellett:
He’s not married.
Karlo Broussard:
He wasn’t married to begin with, it wasn’t a valid union. It was sexual immorality within an invalid union. And if an invalid union, well, then if he marries another woman, it would not be adultery because he’s not bound to the woman he engaged in sexual immorality within the first place. And this is the biblical precedence, the biblical basis for the church’s understanding of the declaration of nullity, commonly referred to as getting an annulment. Which is basically the church is saying, “You were never validly married in the first place. God never joined you and woman together, man and woman together as husband and wife.” As such, those two individuals are free to enter into a marriage with another. And that would not be adultery because they’re not bound-
Cy Kellett:
Because they weren’t married.
Karlo Broussard:
To the other. They weren’t married to begin with. And this seems to be what Jesus is teaching us here.
Cy Kellett:
And I’m thinking that whenever Saint Paul talks about marriage, it seems to support this.
Karlo Broussard:
Yes.
Cy Kellett:
That’s what I was referring to when I said a son marry his stepmother because-
Karlo Broussard:
First Corinthians five talks about seemingly an incestuous relationship of some sort.
Cy Kellett:
And Paul is disapproving of it. He’s not saying, “Well, they’re married, so…”
Karlo Broussard:
Right.
Cy Kellett:
He’s… So, okay.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. But even I’m glad you brought up Saint Paul, because we can shed some further light upon our interpretation or get further support of our interpretation because in First Corinthians seven Saint Paul does address the issue of splitting up and divorcing, quote unquote divorcing in the sense of just not living under the same roof. And he gives the instructions to the Corinthians that if a husband and a wife separate, they either remain separated or they reconcile. He does not give a third option of remarriage. Of course, he’s assuming that the bond is real, that the man and the woman are married, that it’s a valid union. And if valid union then-
Cy Kellett:
There’s two choices.
Karlo Broussard:
And physical separation, quote unquote civil divorce. You have two choices. You remain such, or you reconcile, but you can not remarry. Why? Because as Jesus taught, if one is to remarry, when that first union is valid, that would be adultery. Why? Because the person’s your spouse and you’re bound to your spouse until the bond dissolves by death, which is divinely revealed by Saint Paul in Romans chapter seven, where he teaches us that a wife is bound to her husband only as long as he lives. Once he dies, she’s no longer bound, saint Paul teaches us. That implies that the bond, the marital bond that exists, what God has joined together that dissolves with death of one of the spouses.
Cy Kellett:
So in a certain way, there’s a kind of irony in that, properly understood, this passage does not in any way conflict with the Catholic teaching about marriage. It actually-
Karlo Broussard:
Supports it.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
So, yeah. So rather than our belief contradicting this passage, as Catholics we can actually look to this passage once properly understood as biblical support for the Catholic understanding that if you divorce and remarry, you’re committing adultery, except for a case when that first union was not a real marriage to begin with. So that’s not just something we as Catholics are making up, that’s coming from Jesus himself.
Cy Kellett:
Thank you Karlo.
Karlo Broussard:
Thank you, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
As I said, the truth is, there’s probably not much difference in practice between Catholics and Protestants. And the wider truth is marriage is in a state of crisis, of profound crisis as a matter of fact, and we Christians have an obligation to do what we can to help marriages, to help married people, and to build up marriage as an institution so that it can be strengthened. It’s vital, but often very, very frail and fragile. So it needs our help. I think we all agree on that part. We may disagree on what Jesus said specifically and what he meant in Matthew’s gospel with his exception, but I’d rather leave it on a positive note than on a note of disagreement.
And that note of agreement is man, we all need to help marriages along. You can email us, Focus@Catholic.com. Focus@Catholic.com. We do need your financial support and you can give it at GiveCatholic.com, GiveCatholic.com. And when you give in whatever amount you give, if you would just leave a little note that says, “This is for Catholic Answers Focus.” That will help the money get to us. Like and subscribe, if you’re watching on YouTube that helps. Like and subscribe, we’re growing there on YouTube. Thank you for that. We’re also growing in the other places where podcasts are available, Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, and that’s in part because many people have given us those five star reviews and written a little bit of a review for us. If you would do that, that would help us grow this podcast. I’m Cy Kellett, your host, see you next time, God willing right here on Catholic Answers Focus.