The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[mattrose]

First of all I did give you a reason, because the innocent party would then be off limits. I clearly explained this to be an objection that even others would raise to appointing the last clause to the innocently divorced woman but you did not respond. This is the 3rd time I am bringing up this objection that many would have

It is impossible to make sense of what you are talking about here in topic 5) because the last clause I have been referring to during the discussion of the "last clause" has never used this: "and marries another woman commits adultery”, as the last clause.You quoted a paraphrase that has the last clause omitted. It is therefore impossible to make any sense of what you are talking about in this topic 5),.

I did not quote a paraphrase. I quoted the actual biblical text. You are quoting a probably expanded text and using the expanded text to make your argument against me. I have no reason to use the lengthier KJV here rather than the more concise NIV in light of scholarly textual criticism.

We should probably agree on a text before continuing to dialogue. May I ask if you are a KJV-onlyist? Your argument seems to be built almost entirely on that translation.

[mattrose]

For the sake of ease, I will use the expanded KJV (quoted below) and show you why it still does not present a problem for my view.

9And 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.

1. The word translated 'fornication' (porneia) is still a flexible term referring to sexual sin.
2. The extension (bold) would still make sense in the following way

a) the unjust divorce (not involving sexual sin) is illegitmate in God's eyes
b) the man still gets the divorce because his culture allows it
c) this may cause the woman to think she is single and, indeed, she would appear to be single (though she is not)
d) a man may, thus, choose to marry this woman
e) this causes the man to commit adultery since the woman is still married in God's eyes

Thus, the man who initiated the unjust divorce commits adultery by re-marrying b/c his divorce was illegitimate
And the man who believes he has married the unjustly divorced woman is committing adultery b/c she's actually still married

[AVoice]

For the sake of ease, I will use the expanded KJV (quoted below) and show you why it still does not present a problem for my view.

9And 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.

1. The word translated 'fornication' (porneia) is still a flexible term referring to sexual sin.
2. The extension (bold) would still make sense in the following way

a) the unjust divorce (not involving sexual sin) is illegitmate in God's eyes
b) the man still gets the divorce because his culture allows it
c) this may cause the woman to think she is single and, indeed, she would appear to be single (though she is not)
d) a man may, thus, choose to marry this woman
e) this causes the man to commit adultery since the woman is still married in God's eyes

Thus, the man who initiated the unjust divorce commits adultery by re-marrying b/c his divorce was illegitimate
And the man who believes he has married the unjustly divorced woman is committing adultery b/c she's actually still married

When fornication is interpreted to mean adultery, there then is created a comparison between two divorced women. The one divorced justly and the one divorced unjustly. Hence, because of that interpretation, the last clause then, reasonably, must appoint one or both of those women as who that last clause is referring to.
If fornication is taken that it has to mean adultery, then the text itself here can be read to make sense if the last clause were appointed to pertain to the unjustly divorced woman. But as stated earlier and which you have not yet answered, are you comfortable with having the innocent woman off limits? She is innocent and yet whoever marries her commits adultery.
As far as I know you have not addressed what would be disagreed with by many, if not most, Christians. This is not the first time I am asking for a response to this question. Do you have anything to say about this?

Under the betrothal explanation, there does not exist the ‘right’ to divorce for the behavior of one of the parties. Also, since marriage under that model is recognized as being based on the one flesh status that Adam and Eve had, which made death and death only able to terminate their “one flesh” status, there is no problem with accounting ALL divorces from the joined married state as unjust. Whoever marries her that is divorced no matter why she is divorced commits adultery. The messy question of why she should not be able to marry after being divorced for burning dinner is answered simply because the covenant of marriage that God instituted is based on the pattern in A&E wherein death and death only terminates the bond.

As revealed, the definitions that the word fornication possesses, allows it to mean exclusively, in certain contexts, the premarital sin. Since this particular context (historical and verbal) allows that premarital definition, an acknowledgement of that, by you, is requested, since you have not made it clear where you stand because you did not answer the post that I asked you to read concerning this. Can you respond to this?

[AVoice]

9And 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.

1. The word translated 'fornication' (porneia) is still a flexible term referring to sexual sin.
2. The extension (bold) would still make sense in the following way

a) the unjust divorce (not involving sexual sin) is illegitmate in God's eyes
b) the man still gets the divorce because his culture allows it
c) this may cause the woman to think she is single and, indeed, she would appear to be single (though she is not)
d) a man may, thus, choose to marry this woman
e) this causes the man to commit adultery since the woman is still married in God's eyes

Thus, the man who initiated the unjust divorce commits adultery by re-marrying b/c his divorce was illegitimate
And the man who believes he has married the unjustly divorced woman is committing adultery b/c she's actually still married

Using your points a) through e) I will modify them to show how they compare/fit with the betrothal model.

a) the unjust divorce (all post marital divorces from the lawful couple being unlawful and hence unjustified) are a claim of putting asunder what God has joined together, while in reality the marriage is still in effect under God's law.
b) the man still gets the divorce because his culture allows it, which is also true for those under the OT (Dt 24:1-4)
c) this may cause the woman to think she is single and, indeed, she would appear to be single (though she is not)
d) a man may, thus, choose to marry this woman, having his culture or law sanction the act
e) this causes the man who marries a divorced woman to commit adultery since the woman is still married in God's eyes
f) in light of Mt 5:32, the man by divorcing his wife has caused her to commit adultery by subjecting her to be vulnerable by not having her real husband. Regardless of what she has done, he has dealt treacherously with her. Regardless of what she has done, his remarriage, while she is alive, is also adultery.

[mattrose]

When fornication is interpreted to mean adultery

Two problems here

First, you should probably say "when PORNEIA is interpreted to mean adultery" since the definition of PORNEIA is exactly what we are arguing. By using the KJV's "fornication" with the meaning we both gave to it in this thread (pre-marital sex), you are using your conclusion as part of your argument!

Second, I don't think anybody here is interpreting PORNEIA as 'adultery' alone. The term refers to sexual sin. It is a broad term. It can apply to fornication, incest, adultery, etc. Your first sentence should read: "When Porneia is interpreted to mean sexual sin". This is the 'model' you are arguing against, so you should state it in a way that well-represents that position in the interest of honest dialogue.

[mattrose]

If fornication is taken that it has to mean adultery, then the text itself here can be read to make sense if the last clause were appointed to pertain to the unjustly divorced woman. But as stated earlier and which you have not yet answered, are you comfortable with having the innocent woman off limits? She is innocent and yet whoever marries her commits adultery. As far as I know you have not addressed what would be disagreed with by many, if not most, Christians. This is not the first time I am asking for a response to this question. Do you have anything to say about this?

I have addressed it, but I will address it again rather than make you read through the whole thread again.

1. You admit the text can be read to make sense if the last clause (KJV) pertains to the unjustly divorced woman.
2. This innocent woman would be off-limits for the very simple reason that, in God's eyes, she is still married

Since the divorce was unjust, it is illegitimate. Since it is illegitimate, the couple is still married in God's eyes even if some government has granted them a divorce. Of course I would be uncomfortable with a still married woman getting married to another man! The unjustly divorced woman has been wronged by her husband. She has a duty to utilize the Matthew 18 principle. She should charge him with sin. If he doesn't repent she should bring a group to do the same. If he still doesn't repent she should bring the matter before the church. If he STILL doesn't repent, he is by definition an unbeliever. In that case, he is an unbeliever wishing to divorce. She should let him go (says Paul) through with the divorce. THEN, after this process, she is a genuinly single woman. At that point (not before), she is single in God's eyes and free to re-marry.

I do not find this process complicated. It is 'messy' only in the sense that sin is involved.

[mattrose]

As revealed, the definitions that the word fornication possesses, allows it to mean exclusively, in certain contexts, the premarital sin. Since this particular context (historical and verbal) allows that premarital definition, an acknowledgement of that, by you, is requested, since you have not made it clear where you stand because you did not answer the post that I asked you to read concerning this. Can you respond to this?

The word porneia is a flexible term referring to a variety of sexual sins. I don't have a problem with the idea that in some contexts it may refer only to fornication. I have stated before that your interpretation is a possibility. I have simply been arguing that it is not the only possibility (or even the best).

Ben Witherington actually makes a case similar (but not the same) as yours. He argues that porneia, in this case, only refers to incest. This is different from your interpretation, but the conclusion is the same (no divorce as a more absolute statement). But even he leaves room for exceptions (after his argument) insofar as the passage applies to God's people and marriages b/w 2 unbelievers or mixed marriages may meet with different rules.

All that to say, as I have already said, your interpretation is a possibility. But I do not find your case to be persuasive. When Witherington shared his view in class, I didn't find his view persuasive either.

[Homer]

AVoice,

Here is what I think:

Matthew 19:3-9
New International Version (NIV)

3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4. “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5. and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

From the Pharisees' question and Jesus' response we recognize that the subject is actual wives, not just betrothed.

7. “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Same subject, actual wives.

8. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Again actual wives.

9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

And there is no reason to believe the subject has now changed to betrothed couples. Jesus allows divorce for sexual immorality. He goes beyond the Law of Moses when He says a man commits adultery by marrying another woman. It was not against the Law of Moses to have multiple wives. Under the Law, a married man could have sex with an unmarried woman and it would not be considered adultery. A man committed adultery under the Law only by sleeping with another man's wife.

If you are a student of the scriptures you should know that many things are omitted in one place and said in another. There are numerous examples of this. One place says a person who believes will be saved. Elsewhere we are informed repentance is necessary. We read the whole scriptures and get the whole picture. I believe Mark and Luke omitted the exception because it was understood to be so by the people they wrote to. Matthew's audience was the Jews.

[AVoice]

AVoice,

Here is what I think:

Matthew 19:3-9
New International Version (NIV)

3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4. “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5. and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

From the Pharisees' question and Jesus' response we recognize that the subject is actual wives, not just betrothed.

7. “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Same subject, actual wives.

8. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Again actual wives.

9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

And there is no reason to believe the subject has now changed to betrothed couples. Jesus allows divorce for sexual immorality. He goes beyond the Law of Moses when He says a man commits adultery by marrying another woman. It was not against the Law of Moses to have multiple wives. Under the Law, a married man could have sex with an unmarried woman and it would not be considered adultery. A man committed adultery under the Law only by sleeping with another man's wife.

If you are a student of the scriptures you should know that many things are omitted in one place and said in another. There are numerous examples of this. One place says a person who believes will be saved. Elsewhere we are informed repentance is necessary. We read the whole scriptures and get the whole picture. I believe Mark and Luke omitted the exception because it was understood to be so by the people they wrote to. Matthew's audience was the Jews.

Are you claiming that when a specific aspect of a topic is being addressed, [as in this case, post marital divorce], any exception clause introduced into the same sentence, as a matter of fact, cannot relate to a differing aspect of the topic under discussion?
If an example were made, of this ability of an exception clause to 'jump' to an entirely different aspect of what the discussion is directly about, would not this grammatical example disprove your assertion?

This is the claim that you are making, please correct if necessary:
Since Jesus is absolutely addressing the post-marital divorce (Matt 5:31; 19:8), the included exception clause therefore HAS TO also pertain to the post-marital divorce.
If the words 'wife' and 'husband' and 'divorce' were not used in both situations, [for both the joined in marriage as well as for the not-yet-joined in marriage] then, yes, your claim would be an irrefutable argument. But since those words 'wife' and 'husband' and 'divorce' were in fact used for both situations, that claim has no footing in this discussion. This is especially apparent since examples using the same format as Mt 5:32 can be demonstrated where an exception clause is introduced which is "non essential".
So since this particular argument has no bearing on the discussion, I invite you to introduce arguments that actually do relate to the discussion. I am happy to answer any questions you have on this.

Your interpreting 'fornication' to mean adultery makes the exception clause absolutely "essential".
When an essential part of a sentence is omitted, the meaning of that sentence is altered. That is why the term "essential" is used. When a non essential part of a sentence is omitted, the meaning is not altered, only an additional, relatively unimportant, not directly related side-point or 'aside', has been left out.
Your model absolutely cannot leave out the exception clause while it is interpreted to mean for adultery, because without that supposed interjected essential provision, there is NO allowance for post marital divorce!!

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.

[TK]

AVoice,

Here is what I think:

Matthew 19:3-9
New International Version (NIV)

3. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4. “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5. and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

From the Pharisees' question and Jesus' response we recognize that the subject is actual wives, not just betrothed.

7. “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Same subject, actual wives.

8. Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Again actual wives.

9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

And there is no reason to believe the subject has now changed to betrothed couples. Jesus allows divorce for sexual immorality. He goes beyond the Law of Moses when He says a man commits adultery by marrying another woman. It was not against the Law of Moses to have multiple wives. Under the Law, a married man could have sex with an unmarried woman and it would not be considered adultery. A man committed adultery under the Law only by sleeping with another man's wife.

If you are a student of the scriptures you should know that many things are omitted in one place and said in another. There are numerous examples of this. One place says a person who believes will be saved. Elsewhere we are informed repentance is necessary. We read the whole scriptures and get the whole picture. I believe Mark and Luke omitted the exception because it was understood to be so by the people they wrote to. Matthew's audience was the Jews.

Are you claiming that when a specific aspect of a topic is being addressed, [as in this case, post marital divorce], any exception clause introduced into the same sentence, as a matter of fact, cannot relate to a differing aspect of the topic under discussion?
If an example were made, of this ability of an exception clause to 'jump' to an entirely different aspect of what the discussion is directly about, would not this grammatical example disprove your assertion?

This is the claim that you are making, please correct if necessary:
Since Jesus is absolutely addressing the post-marital divorce (Matt 5:31; 19:8), the included exception clause therefore HAS TO also pertain to the post-marital divorce.
If the words 'wife' and 'husband' and 'divorce' were not used in both situations, [for both the joined in marriage as well as for the not-yet-joined in marriage] then, yes, your claim would be an irrefutable argument. But since those words 'wife' and 'husband' and 'divorce' were in fact used for both situations, that claim has no footing in this discussion. This is especially apparent since examples using the same format as Mt 5:32 can be demonstrated where an exception clause is introduced which is "non essential".
So since this particular argument has no bearing on the discussion, I invite you to introduce arguments that actually do relate to the discussion. I am happy to answer any questions you have on this.

Your interpreting 'fornication' to mean adultery makes the exception clause absolutely "essential".
When an essential part of a sentence is omitted, the meaning of that sentence is altered. That is why the term "essential" is used. When a non essential part of a sentence is omitted, the meaning is not altered, only an additional, relatively unimportant, not directly related side-point or 'aside', has been left out.
Your model absolutely cannot leave out the exception clause while it is interpreted to mean for adultery, because without that supposed interjected essential provision, there is NO allowance for post marital divorce!!

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