The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[AVoice]

You yourself don't take Mark 10 & Luke 16 as absolute, since you recognize the exception clause. Nonetheless, passages need to be read in light of all of Scripture, not in isolation. You seem to have a tendency to interpret Jesus' preferred genre as absolute statement. I think you have genre and canonical... issues.

It is an absolute with regard to what the topic is about. Mt 5:31,32. The topic of discussion is about divorcing wives who are joined in marriage. The exception clause is an interjected side point referring exclusively to the betrothal divorce after which the context continues to address divorces of the joined in marriage. The reason why she who is divorced premaritally is NOT caused to commit adultery is obvious, she was divorced before she became designated as what God had joined together, her marriage afterward to a single man therefore cannot be adultery. She has not been caused to commit adultery like the woman who was divorced postmaritally for whatever reason.

By including the betrothed woman with the joined-in-marriage woman, when interpreting the exception clause, then would not the last clause also refer to the betrothed woman if her betrothal was not terminated for a sexual sin or for anything at least as severe? If anyone married her, even though she has not left and cleaved to a husband, the man who marries her commits adultery?
If except it be for adultery (joined) and fornication (betrothed) were applied equally then desertion and anything else at least as bad would be legitimate grounds for terminating the betrothal, but if not for those reasons the unmarried couple are as one flesh in betrothal as the couple who are one flesh in an actual joined marriage? If either one marries after the unlawful termination of the betrothal they commit adultery?

[mattrose]

You yourself don't take Mark 10 & Luke 16 as absolute, since you recognize the exception clause. Nonetheless, passages need to be read in light of all of Scripture, not in isolation. You seem to have a tendency to interpret Jesus' preferred genre as absolute statement. I think you have genre and canonical... issues.

It is an absolute with regard to what the topic is about. Mt 5:31,32. The topic of discussion is about divorcing wives who are joined in marriage. The exception clause is an interjected side point referring exclusively to the betrothal divorce after which the context continues to address divorces of the joined in marriage. The reason why she who is divorced premaritally is NOT caused to commit adultery is obvious, she was divorced before she became designated as what God had joined together, her marriage afterward to a single man therefore cannot be adultery. She has not been caused to commit adultery like the woman who was divorced postmaritally for whatever reason.

This paragraph is good. It is how I would defend myself if I took your position.

[mattrose]

By including the betrothed woman with the joined-in-marriage woman, when interpreting the exception clause, then would not the last clause also refer to the betrothed woman if her betrothal was not terminated for a sexual sin or for anything at least as severe? If anyone married her, even though she has not left and cleaved to a husband, the man who marries her commits adultery?

Certainly the passage has adultery more largely in view than fornication (since the context is marriage, as we both agree). The last clause, then, may very well apply only to the contextual center. That being said, I don't have a problem with the last clause applying to someone who has been unlawfully divorced during betrothal. It really depends, to some extent, on the culture. If in their minds they considered betrothal a stage of marriage, then yes, perhaps a break-up of a betrothal left a couple still in a 'marriage' and, thus, unavailable to marry others. Laws are often not as black and white as some imagine. A lot depends on the condition of the heart, the culture, etc.

But I don't think it's super relevent to discuss the do's and dont's of betrothal since its not really a part of our culture anyways.

[Homer]

Avoice,

I still await your replies to my questions.

You wrote to Matt:

By including the betrothed woman with the joined-in-marriage woman, when interpreting the exception clause, then would not the last clause also refer to the betrothed woman if her betrothal was not terminated for a sexual sin or for anything at least as severe? If anyone married her, even though she has not left and cleaved to a husband, the man who marries her commits adultery?

It is a deficient assumption on your part that a betrothed woman was the subject at all in Matthew 19. You can not prove that this is the case, nor can you admit that it might not be. We know for sure that real married people are the subject.

[AVoice]

Avoice,

I still await your replies to my questions.

You wrote to Matt:

By including the betrothed woman with the joined-in-marriage woman, when interpreting the exception clause, then would not the last clause also refer to the betrothed woman if her betrothal was not terminated for a sexual sin or for anything at least as severe? If anyone married her, even though she has not left and cleaved to a husband, the man who marries her commits adultery?

It is a deficient assumption on your part that a betrothed woman was the subject at all in Matthew 19. You can not prove that this is the case, nor can you admit that it might not be. We know for sure that real married people are the subject.

Homer do you realize I was disagreeing with Matt in that first part that you quoted me saying above? HE, Matt, is saying that the first clause along with the exception clause INCLUDE the betrothed wife!! I disagree with Matt. I say only the exception clause pertains to the betrothed wife because it is an interjected side point, but he says it pertains to both the betrothed AND the joined in marriage!!
So Homer, you are in disagreement with Matt.

Matt says he understands how the grammar and the culture and definitions and uses of words in the 1st century, makes reading the exception clause as pertaining exclusively to the betrothal divorce in accordance to my model, grammatically competent. Matt is in disagreement with you, since you apply the exception clause, as most people do, to the adultery of the joined married wife. There are 5 or 6 different models and explanations of what Jesus meant with regard to the assumption that he allowed divorce for adultery. Matt's is included and is one of the strangest I have ever heard.

Also it is Matt who says that not only the exception but also the first clause 'whoever divorces his wife' also includes the betrothed wife since they used the word wife then to also apply to the betrothed wife. I have NEVER heard anyone to ever make such a strange assumption. Steve's paper also does not agree with Matt on that assumption.

My argument does not allow the first clause, 'whoever divorces his wife', to pertain to the betrothed wife. Under my model, in accordance with how the rules of how language work, it works well to read the exception clause to pertain exclusively to the betrothal divorce. But you do not understand this. Ask Matt to explain it to you since he says he understands it. Ask someone you know to read the posts I referred to earlier and they may be able to explain to you what this thread is about.

It is a deficient assumption on your part that a betrothed woman was the subject at all in Matthew 19. You can not prove that this is the case, nor can you admit that it might not be. We know for sure that real married people are the subject.

Didn't you mean to say, "It is a deficient assumption on your part that it is possible to apply the exception clause to the betrothed woman, since the betrothed woman is not the subject of Matthew 19?

I have never said that she is 'the subject'. She is absolutely NOT 'the subject'. But as I have demonstrated more than once, which you do not understand, a side point NOT directly related to the subject can be interjected. Since it is not directly related, it is known as a "non essential" part of the sentence. A non essential part of a sentence can come in the form of an exception clause whereby there is absolutely NO granting of permission with regard to what the subject is about. Such an insertion within a sentence need not be previously hinted at, but is interjected on its own and stands alone as having been practically inserted by virtue of the fact that the hearers have knowledge of what it is referring to. The fact that the premarital divorce in betrothal existed, is in and of itself what grants its admissability as a consideration of what the exception clause means exclusively. And then when this is looked into, it is found to be the only workable model which does not create a mess of the contexts.

nor can you admit that it might not be

I am absolutely assured by the solidness of the case and the grammar and the contexts that there is NO doubt whatsoever that the exception clause was in fact spoken EXCLUSIVELY pertaining to the betrothal divorce. Your model is what needs to admit to the embarrassing messiness that exist therein by the contexts determining it as not even fit to be brought into the discussion.

I don't think you realize that your maintaining that the exception of fornication CANNOT be reasonably read as pertaining exclusively to the betrothed woman, is showing everyone that you have not understood much of what has been shared on this thread. You keep asking basically the same question over and over, and answers that repeatedly show your assumption to be wrong seem to be deliberately ignored by you. I don't think you are ignoring, I think you just do not understand. Get someone you trust, who knows English well, to read the thread and explain to you how an exception clause can pertain EXCLUSIVELY to something OTHER than what the subject is about. I have given you at least two grammatical examples of this and Matt has recently provided another.

Homer, your position is very different to Matts.
To whom does the last clause apply? the woman divorced for committing adultery, the woman divorced for burning dinner or both? I expect an answer to this.

Concerning your questions:
Jesus, when teaching about divorce was not covering situations, where, lets say, the husband is violent or rapes his daughter. That is a separate issue that would need to find answers elsewhere.
We know that running away from physical harm was even taught by Jesus, so in a case of a wife avoiding physical harm, for herself and for her children, it is OK to flee from that as a person may flee from persecution. Separating for any number of reasons from a spouse may be wise and necessary, but to go further and actually acquire a divorce, after the need to separate, is always a sin. [Divorce from the lawful joined marriage turns the truth of God into a lie]. And then to go further in compounding that sin by remarriage creates the much greater sin of committing adultery. There are numerous scenarios where a spouse can create unbearable conditions where it is wise for the other parent to take the kids and separate from that spouse and hope and work on a restoration. None of these scenarios, however imaginably horrible, can justify a divorce or a remarriage. Separation is as far as what the NT allows, and it is reasonably allowed as Paul also touches on that.
Man is capable of putting asunder by way of divorcing. Jesus said let not man put asunder. If man does put asunder using law to justify it, God's law overrides any provision to put asunder what God has joined together. So a divorce paper says one thing but God says another. Only death truly ends a marriage, even though a billion people may say a particular divorce for a certain reason has ended that particular marriage.
Let God be true.

[mattrose]

AVoice,

Just so you know, you are either over-reading my posts or starting to mis-represent me. My position is not a new one. I believe the subject of the section is married couples (after the ceremony). I am simply saying that porneia, in this context, is best translated as sexual sin. Sexual sin in the context of married couples (after the ceremony) is most often adultery. Adultery is the main focus of the exception clause in my view.

Your interpreting my posts as a novel view is linked to your belief that these verses are static in nature rather than fluid. Could the passage be useful to a betrothed couple when fornication has occured? Yes. Is that it's main purpose? No. Plus, as I said, it's not a live issue for us since we don't have the cultural practice of betrothal like they did.

It smells like your latest rhetorical turn is to paint my view as novel. This is evidenced by your fresh usage of exclamation points, capital letters, and words like 'strange'. It's a rhetorical technique. Truth is, though, my view is not new. I'm just giving it more nuance that it is usually given. I'll say again, the subject of the passage is marriage/divorce. The application of the exception clause most readily applies to adultery (and that is why the verse ends with that subject in mind).

[steve]

I wish this discussion was on a topic in which I had no personal stake, because I would be more inclined to participate without fear of anyone suspecting that I had a bias based upon my personal circumstances. I will say that I think both Homer and Matt have more than adequately answered the position of AVoice. Their position has always commended itself to me exegetically, even before I was (or could imagine ever being) in a divorced state.

I will say to AVoice that I have stopped reading your posts—not because I disagree (which might otherwise be a greater incentive to me to read them), but because the spirit in which they are presented is simply irritating, and because they do not seem to give reasonable answers to the rebuttals.

[AVoice]

I wish this discussion was on a topic in which I had no personal stake, because I would be more inclined to participate without fear of anyone suspecting that I had a bias based upon my personal circumstances. I will say that I think both Homer and Matt have more than adequately answered the position of AVoice. Their position has always commended itself to me exegetically, even before I was (or could imagine ever being) in a divorced state.

I will say to AVoice that I have stopped reading your posts—not because I disagree (which might otherwise be a greater incentive to me to read them), but because the spirit in which they are presented is simply irritating, and because they do not seem to give reasonable answers to the rebuttals.

I am also in a divorced state. But I am not remarried. Are you remarried?
I did not sign divorce papers. The divorce papers declare that the couple are no longer husband and wife, so signing in agreement to such a declaration, is in my understanding, turning the truth of God into a lie. Being thrown in prison for preaching (as is the case in some countries) or a Christian man no longer having his wife and hence having to live single for the rest of his life or until she is dead, are just two examples of hardness a Christian soldier may need to endure faithfully because of what the truth dictates.

Steve, obviously you have given a lot of thought on this topic. And I suppose you appreciate a good challenge. Since you say you are not reading what I write, you may have missed a point I made that directly relates to a major argument you have made.
I pointed out that Matt has presented another example of an exception clause that is 'non essential'.
His example of paralleling 19:9 with the similarly constructed sentence about Michael Jordan does nothing for his argument because that example only illustrates again what I am saying the exception clauses in 5:32 and 19:9 are doing!
(My exclamation marks are not anger, they are excitement and enthusiasm)
This directly relates to one of your seemingly concrete claims made in your 3-part paper. The examples you gave of exceptions, such as concerning the sign of Jonah, can all be viewed as doing exactly what I have shown Jesus' exception clause has done when viewed as pertaining exclusively to the betrothal divorce!!
The 'divorce for adultery' model has the exception clause function as an essential part of the sentence but the 'divorce in betrothal' model has it serve as a non essential. While trying to defend the divorce for adultery model, examples of the wrong kind of 'exception' have been presented!
The challenge is still valid: if language can indeed function after the manner that the divorce for adultery model dictates that it must function within the pertenant contexts, then an example of an essential exception clause inserted within similarly constructed sentences should be possible to produce. The function that is necessary for the parallel to perform is, when omitting the exception clause altogether, the sentence without the exception is understood to mean the same as the sentence with the exception. Matt's example of Michael Jordan does in fact do this, but that exception clause accomplishes it by being non essential!
Using an example of an exception clause that supports my claim is not what is being sought in this exercise. I am looking for an example that will justify the 'divorce for adultery' model wherein the exception clause is 'essential'.

You did not answer my objection that if we are to take God's example of divorcing Israel and hence paralleling that to our permission to divorce, what prohibits us from having two wives as God says he did allegorically, as he divorced allegorically?

Seeing that many Christians have joined in the misunderstanding that the NT does not establish a higher moral code than what the OT permitted and that this has led a surprising number of them to have extrapolated that to include polygamy as acceptable now since it was 'acceptable' then, (with reasoning such as David being a man after God's own heart and yet being a polygamist) I am genuinely curious whether or not, under any circumstances, you condone polygamy.
In a country where polygamy is lawful, can a Christian in that country, acceptably before God, have more than one wife? Please answer this question.

I seriously consider that a part of what irritates you is that actual valid reasoning from the scriptures exist, which show that the divorce for adultery model, may in fact, not be able to be defended. I am absolutely persuaded that this is the reality of the situation; the divorce for adultery model is completely indefensible. The tenor of your words in your paper indicate to me that you are doing the best you can with what you understand but that you do NOT enjoy the assurance of truth and understanding and absolute conviction that you should have if your position were indeed the actual truth. And if your position really isn't true, of course, it is impossible to possess genuine assurance from the Spirit. I cannot but believe, that a still small voice, that as indeed it should, whispers in the back of your conscience, doubting your overall conclusion, in spite of the overwhelming mental reasoning (scriptural or otherwise) you have to support your position.
I believe I enjoy genuine assurance from the Spirit, not only from the actual conviction of the Spirit presented by and in conjunction with the powerful words in Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor 7:39, (accepting that these verses mean what they plainly appear to mean), but also by the correct understanding of the exception clause that does not alter that straightforward, clearly worded prohibition.
My desire is that you too, can come to have complete and undoubting assurance of the truth on this topic.

[steve]

I actually had deduced that you were divorced. To me, you sound very embittered, and I had concluded that it is because you were victimized by what you regard as an unjustified divorce. There are few experiences that can do more to sour the soul. I know.

[Homer]

AVoice,

Sorry you misunderstand me. I understand very well what this is about. You wrote:

My argument does not allow the first clause, 'whoever divorces his wife', to pertain to the betrothed wife. Under my model, in accordance with how the rules of how language work, it works well to read the exception clause to pertain exclusively to the betrothal divorce. But you do not understand this. Ask Matt to explain it to you since he says he understands it. Ask someone you know to read the posts I referred to earlier and they may be able to explain to you what this thread is about.

Neither does my position allow for the first clause to apply to the betrothed. What I said was that you can not prove the second clause pertains to a betrothed woman. Whether it could is a different matter.

So Homer, you are in disagreement with Matt.

No, I am in complete agreement with Matt. My position is exactly as he stated in his most recent post.

But as I have demonstrated more than once, which you do not understand, a side point NOT directly related to the subject can be interjected. Since it is not directly related, it is known as a "non essential" part of the sentence.

No, I do understand and do not deny that can be done. But all the other clauses clearly are about real married people so your assumption is unlikely and unproven, nor can it be.

Separation is as far as what the NT allows, and it is reasonably allowed as Paul also touches on that.
Man is capable of putting asunder by way of divorcing.

Consider the following:

1 Corinthians 7:10-15
New King James Version (NKJV)

10. Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

Here we have Paul's instructions to Christian couples. If they separate, they are not to divorce, but are to remain unmarried or reconcile.

12. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

And here Paul addresses couples who are composed of a believing spouse and an unbeliever. He is speaking about a subject Jesus never addressed. But it doesn't really appear to be new but rather a reiteration of the Law:

15. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

Failure to fulfill marital duties by abandonment could end the marriage:

Exodus 21:9-11
New King James Version (NKJV)

9. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

If the unbeliever is unwilling to live with the believer, and leaves, the believing brother or sister may divorce the unbeliever. The believing spouse is not under bondage (douloo a verb, to make a slave or servant, be put into bondage). One who is no longer a slave is set free of obligation; the people Paul wrote to certainly knew what being a slave meant. I know you reference v. 39 but if there is no exception Paul has clearly contradicted himself. And please do not bring up the issue of Jewish betrothal; Paul is speaking to gentiles.

If Paul in v.15 does not provide an exception to what he instructed in v. 10-11, then why did he say it? He clearly is giving different instructions to different groups.

Consider Jesus' words in Matthew:

Matthew 19:7-8
New King James Version (NKJV)

7. They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8. He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Now it might be assumed Moses was giving those hard hearted Jews who wanted rid of their wives a way out. As though he said "you guys are mean so I will allow you to get rid of any wife you do not like". I do not think this was the case at all. I believe this exception granted by Moses was for the protection of the woman: so they could escape being beaten, would have proof of their divorce, and could find a new husband who would provide for them. As in the passage in Exodus 21, the wife who was not treated properly must be set free. So Moses demanded she be properly divorced with legal papers as proof.

Now I would ask you to think: do you think really think Jesus is "meaner than Moses"? The Jesus who said His burden is light?

Regarding your challenge on the exception clause, I would offer you this:

The Smith family owns a property with an easement granting permanent access to a property behind theirs. This easement right gives the David family use of a lane which the Smith's also use for their driveway. Another neighbor, the Jeffry family, has been given permission the use the lane also. It adjoins their property. So Blackberry lane is used by three families. But other people have been tresspassing and causing problems by driving through the Jeffry's proprerty. The Jeffrys ask the Smiths for help with the tresspassers. So Mr. Smith put up a large sign at the entrance to the lane which says: NO TRESSPASSING - VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED. During the annual neighborhood picnic Mr. Smith informs all the neighbors "We have put up a no tresspassing sign on the lane; except for the Davids, Jeffrys, and any neighborhood families, and those having business with them, we will prosecute tresspassers".

Here are two examples of communication addressed to different groups. The intention of Mr. Smith is unchanged by either communication, although one contains an exception and the other does not.

Bear in mind that Mark and Luke are addressed to a different audience than Matthew. There is no contradiction; your betrothal exception is as unnecessary as it is unlikely.