The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[Homer]

AVoice,

You asked:

Please show any single point wherein the betrothal explanation is "messy" with regards to the actual NT texts spoken by Jesus.

The betrothal explanation is messy when the actual marriage practices of the Jews are considered and especially when the Law of Moses is taken into account.

The practices under the law complicate things. Marriage was contracted by "mohar", the price paid to the bride's father. (Betrothal means "price paid".) This took place one year before the wedding. According to the law, the bride could be betrothed by money, contract, or cohabitation. In the case of cohabitation, the man and woman entered a private chamber, having first declared to witnesses that their actions counted as betrothal. Given that sexual relations were permitted at the time of Christ between the betrothed, when do they become one flesh? And how, in your system, do you decide if divorce is allowed?

Under the law the man who had sex with a betrothed woman was stoned to death as an adulterer. If she was not betrothed his "fornication" with her meant only that he had to marry her and could never divorce her. This is a fatal blow to your idea that Jesus' porneia in Matthew 19 only applies to the unmarried:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23. “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24. then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Fornication with either a betrothed or a married woman was adultery.

[AVoice]

AVoice,

You asked:

Please show any single point wherein the betrothal explanation is "messy" with regards to the actual NT texts spoken by Jesus.

The betrothal explanation is messy when the actual marriage practices of the Jews are considered and especially when the Law of Moses is taken into account.

The practices under the law complicate things. Marriage was contracted by "mohar", the price paid to the bride's father. (Betrothal means "price paid".) This took place one year before the wedding. According to the law, the bride could be betrothed by money, contract, or cohabitation. In the case of cohabitation, the man and woman entered a private chamber, having first declared to witnesses that their actions counted as betrothal. Given that sexual relations were permitted at the time of Christ between the betrothed, when do they become one flesh? And how, in your system, do you decide if divorce is allowed?

Under the law the man who had sex with a betrothed woman was stoned to death as an adulterer. If she was not betrothed his "fornication" with her meant only that he had to marry her and could never divorce her. This is a fatal blow to your idea that Jesus' porneia in Matthew 19 only applies to the unmarried:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23. “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24. then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Fornication with either a betrothed or a married woman was adultery.

You do not understand my position. Nothing you said above has any bearing on what I am saying.
All that needs to be agreed on concerning the betrothal divorce is that it did actually exist, that a 'husband' and 'wife' divorced while as they were not yet joined in marriage. This kind of divorce was not a putting asunder of what God has joined together since Jesus, using Gen 2, clearly defines what God has joined together; those who are joined in marriage, not those merely waiting to become joined in marriage.

Let me lay out two commonly held views and Mattrose's as the third view:
1) the post marital sexual sin is what the exception clause means
2) the premarital fornication is what the exception clause means
3) the exception clause covers both the premarital and post marital sexual sin.

Matt 5:32, which clauses are separated in order from A-D
But I say unto you,
A)That whosoever shall put away his wife,
B)saving for the cause of fornication,
C)causeth her to commit adultery:
D)and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

A breakdown of these 3 views:

1) the post marital sexual sin is what the exception clause means:
A) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [whatever joined in marriage husband divorces his joined in marriage wife]
B) saving for the cause of fornication, [unless she commits post marital sexual sin (adultery)]
C) causeth her to commit adultery: [causes the unjustly divorced woman to commit adulttey by making her vulnerable to other men who could marry her and thereby commit adultery. This clause gets messy when the question is asked how the woman divorced for adultery is NOT caused to commit adultery]
D) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [ some who hold this divorce for adultery model say the woman this clause refers to has to be the woman divorced for adultery, some say it is the woman divorced unjustly, some say it is both. Very messy. This same last clause also in Matt 19:9 and Luke 16:18 (which verse does not have the exception clause) is the Achilles heal to the divorce for adultery model]

2) the premarital fornication is what the exception clause means
A)That whosoever shall put away his wife, [whatever joined in marriage husband divorces his joined in marriage wife (as per the undenial context of Matt 5:31)]
B)saving for the cause of fornication, [unless of course for fornication, which identifies the betrothal divorces done premaritally, and hence identifies the exception clause as a non essential largely irrelevant aside]
C)causeth her to commit adultery: [(back on topic after the aside), the joined in marriage wife who has been divorced is made vulnerable to other men who could 'lawfully' marry her and thereby commit adultery. When the question is asked how is the woman divorced for fornication NOT caused to commit adultery, there is no messiness: the answer is simple and corresponds to the existing grammar: she is not caused to commit fornication because she is not made vulnerable since she is still single since the divorce takes place premaritally.]
D)and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery [the "her" refers to any lawfully joined in marriage wife who has been divorced from that joined marriage. Any man who marries her commits adultery. There is no possible messiness connected with this last clause, very cut and dry and absolute. As long as she and her first lawful husband are alive they are bound as one flesh in marriage as per Adam and Eve's precedent set for all subsequebnt marriages.]

3) the exception clause covers both the premarital and post marital sexual sin, (Mattrose's view) .
A)That whosoever shall put away his wife, [this includes both the joined-in-marriage as well as the not-yet-joined-in-marriage wives]
B)saving for the cause of fornication, [ this would then mean adultery (post marital sexual sin), in the case of the joined-in-marriage wife, and it would mean fornication (premarital sexual sin), in the case of the not-yet-joined-in-marriage 'wife'.
C)causeth her to commit adultery: [It appears this can only apply to the joined in marriage wife who was divorced unjustly, due to the definition of adultery, which definition would not be applicable to the still-single woman. In that case this entire sentence spoken by Jesus would be very poorly worded. The actual grammatical construction means (under mattrose's model) that whether joined in marriage or not, the wives divorced unjustly are also caused to commit adultery.
So the unjustly divorced woman is caused to commit adultery by having been made vulnerable to other men who could "lawfully"marry her and thereby commit adultery. This clause, as is the case with the first model, also gets messy when the question is asked how the woman divorced for adultery is NOT caused to commit adultery]
D)and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [This is limited to the joined in married wife who was unjustly divorced. Whoever marries her commits adultery. Due to the messiness created by this treatment of the innocent woman, reasons are applied that would make this last clause applicable to the innocent woman only temporarily, if at all. Very messy.

Mattrose please correct if necessary.


Homer, you have not yet indicated whether or not you understand the concept of a non essential insertion within a sentence.
Since our modern culture uses the terms husband and wife and divorce, not permitting them to go outside of the actual joined in marrige state, it can be difficult for us to place ourselves in the shoes of the first century folks who used these words differently.
So to demonstrate the concept, it is best to use an example we can relate to.
Take the format of something done and the cause of that action.
In the case of Matthew 5:32
"Whoever divorces his wife", is the action,
"causes her to commit adultery", is what is caused,
"saving for the cause of fornication" is the exception clause inserted within these two clauses indicating that in that case the negative result would not occur.

In this following example,
"Whoever leaves the front door open", is the action,
"causes flies to get in the house", is what is caused,
"except after someone buys a screen door" is the exception clause inserted within these two clauses indicating that in that case the negative result would not occur.

"Whoever leaves the big front door open, except after someone buys a screen door, causes flies to get in the house'.

This is a rough example but the principle is very valid. An entirely different door is introduced by the exception clause. This exception clause is "non essential". Though it carries it own unique connotation and implication as is the nature of such interjected 'asides', it can be totally omitted without effecting the meaning of the rest of the sentence.
"Whoever leaves the big front door open, causes flies to get in the house", is not at all effected by the inclusion of the exception clause. No permission is granted by that exception clause.
The exception clause in Matthew 5;32 and 19:9 can also be read as "non essential", applying exclusively to the betrothal divorce.

Like in the example above where an entirely different door was introduced by way of a non essential exception clause, in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 the exception clause can very reasonably be read as a non essential part of the sentence whereby an entirely different divorce was introduced. The ability for the exception clause to be totally omitted without effecting the meaning would account for how Mark and Luke could leave it out without concern: it was only an aside, it did not pertain to the topic at hand anyway, which was the divorcing of the joined-in-marriage wives.

Try putting yourself in the shoes of the 1st century hearers of Jesus when this type of divorce was commonly understood and tell me how it is unreasonable to read the exception clause in that manner.
Once it is acknowledged that it can in fact be reasonably read in that manner, the next steps are to check the surrounding grammar and implications of meanings to see if the text actually supports it.
This test should also be applied to the divorce for adultery (post marital sexual sin) model.
Let's take an honest look at how well each model does under the scrutiny the contexts provide in Matt 5 and 19 and Mark 10 and Luke 16.
I can tell you now, the divorce for adultery model does not fare well.

The above example concerning the screen door also answers some of your other questions. It would be unreasonable to make the conclusion that the person making the statement also intended to say that unless a screen door is bought, the objective of stopping the flies from entering is not possible. To make that conclusion means the reader does not get what the speaker was intending by the inclusion of that "non essential".
In the same way, a lack of perception of what the exception clause implies when read as non essential (referring exclusively to that other kind of divorce) is manifest in this question: "doesn't the betrothal explanation mean that if a man terminates his betrothal for a non sexual sin, he causes her to commit adultery?"

By not reading it as non essential, here is another question that is basically irrelevant:

Given that sexual relations were permitted at the time of Christ between the betrothed, when do they become one flesh? And how, in your system, do you decide if divorce is allowed?

Are we by the above example, put in the corner by the exception clause, as though whether making our own screen door as opposed to buying one is important and somehow necessary to answer?

What is critically implied by Jesus' exception clause when reasonably read as a non essential is that all post marital divorces are prohibited. The man who commits that crime causes her to commit adultery and the man who marries her after the divorce commits adultery. If the man who divorced her remarries, that remarriage is adultery and the woman he marries is therefore also involved in adultery with another woman's husband.

Terminating a betrothal is not a sin in respect to violating God's marriage laws, no matter why the man decides to terminate it. There may be sinfulness he is guilty of surrounding the situation but unless he puts asunder what God has joined together, which the termination of betrothal does not do, he is not guilty of violating God's prohibition of divorce.

Sexual relations before actually becoming joined by pronouncement in ceremony (if that is what is agreed to by the parties as the beginning of their life as lawful husband and wife) is just fornication and therefore the sinful one-flesh union then is not the same as the non-sinful one-flesh union under the agreement that they have now left and cleaved.
Engaged couples today fornicate all the time and it is acceptable in society but not by God. If they agree that the ceremony is where they will actually leave and cleave (as the attendees expect) whereafter the lawful sexual union within that marriage begins, then all the sexual relations beforehand were sinful fornication.

[AVoice]

So, since you are saying that Jesus was showing respect and in effect reinforcing a cultural issue that the scriptures gave no such weight to, the question still is valid if applied to Jesus' hearers: Do you say that no engaged couple among Jesus' hearers could end their engagement for any reason other than fornication?

Since the Bible doesn't tell me very much about betrothal policies, I don't have very much to go on. Based on the story of Joeseph and the exception clause, I would indeed guess that porneia was the only legitimate (in God's eyes) reason for a betrothed person to initiate a divorce.

Since your model lumps the post marital sexual sin equally together with the premarital sexual sin, as what the exception clause refers to, then doesn't the grammar indicate that terminating the betrothal for burning dinner, because it was not for a sexual sin, has caused her to commit adultery? And wouldn't the last clause also apply to the betrothed woman unjustly divorced?

Since the Bible doesn't tell me very much about betrothal policies, I don't have very much to go on. Based on the story of Joseph and the exception clause, I would indeed guess that porneia was the only legitimate (in God's eyes) reason for a betrothed person to initiate a divorce.

I have no reason to answer the last part of the question since you are using a poor textual tradition, but I will anyways since I don't feel the textual addition causes a problem. If betrothal really didn't count in that culture as a marriage, then ending it over burnt toast would be illegitimate, yes. They very well may have still been 'betrothed' in God's eyes (and His eyes are the ones that matter).

In God's eyes?
Jesus manifested God's eyes.
He revealed what Gen 2 has always meant and concluded that what therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder! It is the leaving and cleaving that designates as what God has joined together. Regardless of the Jewish culture, the line drawn between what God has joined together and what God has not yet joined together is very clearly drawn.

Since Matthew 5 is part of Jesus' commandments declaring the gospel to all of mankind, the position that Jesus was teaching that if a betrothed couple divorced for a non sexual sin and then married afterward to others, that this is adultery, is strange to say the least.
The NT cuts through all the unnecessary stuff from the OT. The leaving and cleaving is what puts the couple over the line of no return, bound until death. Breaking the betrothal for a non sexual violation, while a cultural violation, not supported by scripture as you admit, does nothing to violate God's law relating to marriage since it is only after the leaving and cleaving does God's prohibition of termination apply.
The assumption that Jesus was upholding a culture that was not in line with the truth, is the result of not separating two types of violation: the cultural, non absolute-truth tradition and the absolute truth that comes forth from God as revealed by the NT. These two kinds of violation cannot be mixed as if there were no difference. Pushing for the bond that is reserved for the joined-in-marriage onto a betrothal, as if they had left and cleaved, is a clear violation of the truth the NT brings. This would be a good example of, as Paul says, the concept of being bound to the law, not free in Christ to simply believe the NT counsel by which we are complete.
The NT does in fact uphold a higher moral standard when compared to the OT standard. Divorce was not the only thing Jesus threw out of the window which by the OT was justified. It was only 1 of 6 things in Matt 5 where he says something like "but I say to you". The "but I say to you" in all 6 cases can be read to relate to prohibitions of formerly allowed or excusable behaviours.

[AVoice]

[Here is an interesting exercise:

Whatever student opens that door,------------, commits insubordination.

This is a similar format of Matt 5:32 and 19:9.
1st clause) Whoever does a certain thing (Whatever student opens that door)
3rd clause) the negative effect of that action (commits insubordination)
2nd clause) an interjected exception clause indicating that in that case the negative effect does not occur.

In the above example the exception clause has been left out.

Exercise 1:
Can you think of an exception clause that would be essential to the entire sentence? That means without that exception clause the sentence would not be truthful as far as possessing the meaning intended by the author.

Exercise 2:
Can you think of an exception clause that would be non-essential to the entire sentence? That means either with or without that exception clause, the sentence carries the identical main meaning. This is because the exception clause, being "non essential", is merely an added bit of info, which is not directly related, which therefore does not effect the meaning intended by the author if omitted.

You are appointed to be the author of both sentences. The challenge is to make one sentence possess an essential exception clause and the other sentence a non essential exception clause.
Mattrose, you or anyone else are invited to the challenge of this exercise.

Holy mackeral.

TK

OK, so no one is up for a challenge.

Whatever student opens that door,------------, commits insubordination.

An essential exception clause introduced into this sentence would be:
Whatever student opens that door, saving for a perceived emergency, commits insubordination.

A non essential exception clause would be:
Whatever student opens that door, unless in simulation on the schools virtual tour computer program, commits insubordination.

Notice that the essential exception clause is absolutely necessary for the authors intended meaning to be represented: in this case the sentence without the exception clause has a different meaning than the sentence with the exception clause.
Without the exception clause:
Whatever student opens that door commits insubordination.
This is a reasonable statement and has a plain meaning as worded. There is no allowance provided for students to open that door.
With the exception clause:
Whatever student opens that door, saving for a perceived emergency, commits insubordination.
Permission is clearly granted for perceived emergencies.

When Jesus' exception clause is interpreted to be for adultery, there are two entirely separate messages as demonstrated by the comparison between Luke 16:18 and Mt 19:9:

Without the exception clause as Luke actually records it:

16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

With the exception clause as Matthew actually records it:

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.

The only way within the text how Luke could omit it and Matthew include it and yet there be no contradiction as seen in the above example of allowance versus prohibition, is if the exception were read as "non essential".


Back to our example when a non essential exception clause exists:
Whatever student opens that door, unless in simulation on the schools virtual tour computer program, commits insubordination.

Understanding that we are not at all talking about a computer program to begin with, the inclusion of the non essential exception makes absolutely no difference to the fact that a complete prohibition is in force. Whether included or omitted, the sentence carries the identical meaning.

The invitation is still open for someone to show why Jesus' exception clause, within its contexts, cannot be reasonably read as "non essential". Remember, "fornication", besides being able to cover sexual sins generally, has a very specific premarital definition that is applicable where contexts accommodate it.
When read as the premarital sexual sin exclusively, (Jesus having no reason to not use 'adultery" if that is what he meant,) that common definition and use of "fornication" by itself serves as a queue, making the betrothal divorce very practical to consider.

[TK]

AVoice-

In your opinion what is the "state" of those persons who have divorced a cheating spouse, in reliance on the plainly stated "exception clause," even assuming you are right and they were mistaken in doing so? And, further, in your opinion what should they do now, if you could conclusively prove the the world that your view is correct?

TK

[mattrose]

AVoice,

My position is not really a 3rd view. It is commonly understood that 'porneia' refers to sexual sin in general (fornication, incest, adultery, etc). Just because adultery is the issue most directly applicable to the passage at hand doesn't mean the others are excluded. You make the mistake of particularizing porneia in this passage. Do not project that mistake onto your opponents.

I will now show how this common understanding makes sense of all the passages involved by providing a mini-commentary

Matthew 5
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1. The people were getting 'easy-divorces' so long as they gave the women certificates of divorce. This is the context of the statement.
2. Jesus says that such a mindset about divorce is illegitimate. Easy-divorce leaves people still 'married' in His/God's eyes
3. B/c they are still married, subsequent marriages are adultery
4. Jesus, though, provides an exception to this statement against divorce. Porneia (sexual sin) is a legitimate cause for divorce.

Not messy. Even if the exception clause were not there, I'd still understand it the way I understand it with the exception clause. It would look like this:

Matthew 5
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The context would still be the same (the practice of divorce on demand). The rest of the Bible would still speak to the issue of exceptions for covenant breaking. The very reason the people were practicing 'easy divorce' was because there was such a thing as legitimate divorce and they were distorting that truth.

Matthew 19
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.

The same 4 principles apply. Now you have insisted on including a textual addition (red above). This is almost certainly not part of the original passage. But it doesn't much matter. The man who got an 'easy divorce' commits adultery if he marries another b/c, In Jesus/God's eyes, he is still married to his wife. Likewise, another man cannot marry the wife b/c she is still married in Jesus/God's eyes too.

Of course, if a godly woman is thrown aside (through easy divorce), she should confront the husband about his sin. If he doesn't respond with repentance, she should confront him with a group and, upon further resistance, she should confront him with the whole church. If, after all this, he continues to sin, he is to be counted as an unbeliever. This makes him an unbeliever wishing to depart. She should let him go through with his wishes (divorce). She would then, of course, be free to re-marry.

If you think this is 'messy' so be it. I don't think it's confusing (only the experience itself would be messy). Plus, even if you do consider it messy, there's no indication in Scripture that interpretation should always be simple. We're dealing here with broken human relationships. Fallen life get messy.

Mark 10
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Numbers 1-3 above still apply. Jesus is making a strong statement against divorce. It is not necessary, when making a general statement, to list any/all exceptions. Thus, Mark doesn't provide us with the exception clause. You yourself admit there is an exception to the 'no divorce' policy (in your case, you believe divorce was allowed if fornication/pre-marital-sex had taken place before the wedding). Thus, you don't interpret this as an absolute statement (though you, sometimes, pretend to take it that way). In practice, we both treat it as a strong and generally true statement with 1 (or more) exception(s). The lack of the exception clause here does not ban divorce during betrothal for fornication in your view. Likewise, the lack of the exception clause here does not ban divorce after the wedding for sexual sin in my view.

Not messy.

Luke 16
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Basically, the same commentary fits here as for Mark.

Not messy.

Thus, in your many words, you have still failed to do the very thing that your post sets out to do. You have not shown that the more common view of these verses is deficient. If there are areas of my commentary that are deficient, you should be able to concisely (in 1 sentence, after all, you like things neat and tidy) point them out!

[AVoice]

I have written on this already. Feel free to respond to my points. http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_divorce.html

Steve's link has this that I thought to comment on:

We are left with three options: 1) that Jesus spoke more than once on this topic, sometimes including (as per Matthew), and sometimes omitting (as per Mark, Luke and Paul) the exception clause; 2) that Jesus did not give the exception, but Matthew made it up to modify what Jesus really said; or 3) that Jesus really said it (as per Matthew), but Mark, et al, (for some reason) did not include it.

We may readily rule out the first suggestion, since Matthew 19 (which includes the exception) and Mark 10 (which omits it) are parallel passages, recording the same statement on the same occasion.

Matt 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.
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.

Mark 10:
10And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Please take note of Mark 10 above. This is spoken in the house. It is very reasonable, by the contexts, to perceive that Matthew 19:9 was spoken earlier, directly to the Pharisees in public. We can tell by comparing the contexts of Matt 19 and Mark 10 that these two accounts are surrounding the same event.

In light of the facts, that ‘non essential’ exception clauses exist, and that the exception clauses in 5:32 and 19:9 qualify to be read as such, it is very reasonable to conclude that in Matthew 19: 8, 9 Jesus included the exception clause while speaking before the Pharisees and the public, but later in the house, when speaking to the disciples privately, he clarifies as they ask him of the same matter, even though they had earlier heard him say exactly what is recorded in Matt 19:9.

This fits very well within the betrothal explanation. Before the Pharisees, who strained at gnats but swallowed camels, would it not have been practical for Jesus to have been more thorough to touch on the betrothal divorce as an aside, so as not to be accused of going so far in his prohibition that he also prohibited divorce for those not yet even joined in marriage? Or could his reason for including it, have been to be more forceful while speaking to the Pharisees with the implication easier to perceive in the context of Matt 5, namely, the only way a man can divorce his wife is if he does it before he marries her?
In the house his disciples wanted clarity and he did not bother to include the exception clause there, since it did not pertain to the joined-in-marriage anyway. His communication to them, as among friends and without Pharisaical scrutiny, did not need to be so thorough.
There we have in one moment Jesus’ teaching being spoken with the exception clause out in public and shortly thereafter it being spoken without the exception clause in the house. The exception clause being “non essential” would make these two authors to have recorded accurately what they heard. Both are true and without contradiction. No one changed either of their texts. We have what they actually wrote, what they actually witnessed. There is no contradiction due to the exception clause being “non essential”.

In light of this there would be no problem whatsoever with accepting “that Jesus spoke more than once on this topic, sometimes including (as per Matthew), and sometimes omitting (as per Mark, Luke and Paul) the exception clause”.
I think the 2nd option “that Jesus did not give the exception, but Matthew made it up to modify what Jesus really said” should not even be considered and is unnecessary ;
Concerning the 3rd option, I think we have the reason now why Mark Luke and Paul did not need to include the exception clause.

[AVoice]

AVoice-

In your opinion what is the "state" of those persons who have divorced a cheating spouse, in reliance on the plainly stated "exception clause," even assuming you are right and they were mistaken in doing so? And, further, in your opinion what should they do now, if you could conclusively prove the the world that your view is correct?

TK

If all we had was Matthew's Gospel, which contains the exception clauses, then it would be more easily excusable for someone to abandon their God given conscience that should be screaming that divorce is plainly wrong.
Seeing that the wording in Mark and Luke and 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3 is so powerful in and of themselves, the natural reaction for many has been to not be so sure about any supposed allowance to divorce. The dialogue in Mark 10:2-12 does not accomodate the slightest notion of even a consideration of divorce, much less a major concession for adultery that would put asunder what Jesus said man is not to put asunder.
So the "plainly stated exception clause" is not really so plain after all unless you read one of the modern trashy corruptions aiding in the falling from the truth that the scriptures warn us of.
The Greek word is porneia, Satan loves to eliminate "fornication" as being a straight acoss equivalent of the word because that would throw out a major hint of what the exception clause is about, since that word can be defined in certain contexts as pertaining to the premarital sexual sin exclusively.
The people just not sure what the exception clause means, (it did not say for adultery) and were plainly afraid of being so bold as to jump on the divorce for adultery bandwagon because they were afraid of the strength of the wording in Mark and Luke and 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3 are found to have been vindicated. Their fear was the fear of God. The exception clause does not even pertain to the joined in marriage state anyway. What they read as powerful in Mark and Luke and Paul, which establish the old solemn phrase, "till death do us part" had all they needed to know. They were right after all.

Your question would pertain to those who were lawfully married to begin with, meaning neither had been married before and if they had, any former lawful spouse is dead.
The state of the man who has divorced a cheating wife is that he has seared his conscience if he actually thinks she is no longer his wife. Every day that he does not inform her of his sin in divorcing her and offer his God given duty to forgive and reconcile, is another day of maintaining his state of being charged by God with causing his wife to commit adultery.
Unforgiveness is synonymous with hardness of heart. Hardness of heart is directly connected to divorce in almost every case.
If your arm was mangled in an accident, you would nurture and try to preserve it as much as is possible. The wife is part of her husbands very body. To not forgive and not have a soft heart as he would to his own flesh and blood and do whatever is possible to revive, no matter what state she is in, is sin. To divorce for whatever reason is sin. To remarry afterward is adultery.

If those divorced cannot be reconciled to their real spouses, they must remain living as the single until the spouse is dead, after which time they are eligible for marriage again.

[Homer]

Matt,

Very good answers in your last post!

[Homer]

AVoice,

A few posts back I asked and you did not answer:

Also consider:

Acts 15:20-21
New King James Version (NKJV)

20. but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

When the council at Jerusalem instructed the Gentiles to refrain from sexual immorality (porneia) do you think it more likely they had in mind only premarital sex or the sexual acts forbidded in the Law, Leviticus 20?

A simple yes or no will suffice. By your method it can be established that gentile converts were allowed to commit adultery:

Acts 15:28-29
New King James Version (NKJV)

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things[/u]: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

No adultery mentioned! Only premarital sex is banned! Or do you think there might have also been some unspoken things that were understood? (Hint Mark 10 & Luke 16)

I am not surprised that you are insisting that porneia can not mean adultery in your arguments regarding Matthew 5 and 19. You make an assumption yourself, without which your whole argument falls apart.