The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:37 am

Allowing divorce for adultery, is in reality, heresy by the NT standard

There is a document titled "Jesus does not allow divorce". There is a section in that paper that sums up pretty well the dilemma of the doctrine, which amounts to this:

On the one hand we have the simply worded non complicated verses [Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 (1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3)] that do not possess the exception clause that appear by every indication to forbid divorce and remarriage no matter what.
On the other hand we have the two verses in Matthew, [5:32; 19:9],
which provide an exception, raising the question, how can divorce and remarriage be forbidden as clearly indicated in Mark 10:11,2 and Luke 16:18, and at the same time, somehow, be allowed as can be the initial reaction to Matt 5:32; 19:9.

That is the question which most folks never cared to try to answer and hence deprived themselves of understanding.

While divorce and remarriage IS in fact forbidden, there is a type of divorce that is not forbidden which also at the same time does not conflict with divorce being forbidden!!! That is because this cultural divorce, as revealed by scripture, took place before the engaged “husband" and “wife” became joined in marriage.

The refusal of someone to at least consider this as a viable meaning indicates their willingness to deny the scriptural basis that makes it very eligible for consideration.

Once the scriptural basis for eligibility is accepted and a very plain down-to-earth look is taken, there can be no reasonable denial that it is the only explanation, wherein the scriptures themselves that possess the exception clause (Matthew 5;32; 19:9) do not contradict each other. (In the case of 5:32 violent contradiction occurs within itself, besides being irreconcilable to 19:9 when the divorce for fornication is interpreted to be a divorce for adultery.)

• The direct conflict between Jesus allowing and not allowing does not exist when this understanding is embraced

• 'Let not man put asunder' is not in any way contradicted: death, and death only, terminates a marriage, hence the old folks’ phrase ‘till death do us part’ is found to be truthful after all

• The crime of lowering Jesus to Moses' level of tolerating hardness of heart is not committed

• The fact that it 'was not so from the beginning' under the unmistakable implication that it is not tolerated now, is not challenged, nor does it require apology as though it really is tolerated after all



Let me say this again:

Once the scriptural basis for eligibility is accepted and a very plain down-to-earth look is taken, there can be no reasonable denial that it is the only explanation, wherein the scriptures themselves that possess the exception clause (Matthew 5;32; 19:9) do not contradict each other. (In the case of 5:32 violent contradiction occurs within itself, besides being irreconcilable to 19:9 when the divorce for fornication is interpreted to be a divorce for adultery.)

When the word ‘fornication’ in 5:32 and 19;9 is interpreted to mean a divorce for adultery, which by the definition of adultery means this divorce can then ONLY occur AFTER the marriage, the meaning of the entire sentence is self contradictory and a mess.
While reasons and explanations can be attempted at what Matthew MUST have meant under the circular reasoning and assumption that the divorce for fornication HAS to mean for adultery, the fact remains that the grammar is absurd and contradicts basic meanings, and apparently either Matthew or Jesus or both were illiterate or incapable of expressing in plain words what was meant: alternatively this section was not preserved and we have to make due with a corrupted nonsensical section of text. By such apologetic endeavors and the need of inserting entire sentences to speak on Matthew’s behalf of what he “had to have therefore meant”, a simple question comes to mind:

What are the chances that the self contradicting nature of the interpretation, allowing divorce for adultery, is correct, while there exists a cultural issue (concerning divorce and a revelation of how they used the words ‘husband’ ‘wife’ and ‘divorce’), which makes the plain wording in both 5:32 and 19:9 completely competent grammatically and logically wherein there is no need for elaborate and non-conducive-to-the–text explanations?
In other words:
When the cultural reality, as explanation is provided in scripture, concerning the premarital divorce for fornication (not for adultery) is embraced as what Jesus’ exception clause pertains to exclusively; both verses, 5;32; 19:9, are completely competent and speak for themselves as written, with no need of inserting entire sentences and lengthy reasonings to make sense of “what he had to have therefore meant”.
One more time:
What are the chances that even one of the embarrassingly messy and self contradictory ‘divorce-for-adultery’ interpretations, can be correct, when there exists an explanation that requires none such messiness and self contradiction and wherein the grammar, in both verses, because of this explanation, are completely competent and compliment each other?

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:44 pm

What Does Jesus’ “Exception Clause” Mean?

There are many who believe that the exception clause, found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, absolutely has to mean that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery. They have wrongly assumed that the exception clause could not have been an interjected side point referring to the cultural premarital divorce that Jesus’ hearers were very familiar with.* Perhaps their strongest argument in favour of their interpretation that Jesus allows divorce for adultery, is that Jesus was definitely addressing the post marital divorce, (Matthew 5:31). Though it is correct that Jesus was in fact addressing the post marital divorce, they have incorrectly interpreted this to mean that it was therefore impossible for the exception clause to have been spoken in reference to that other kind of divorce, which only terminated betrothal. The opponents to this ‘betrothal explanation’ of the exception clause are mistaken concerning their assumption about exception clauses. An exception clause can in very fact be introduced into the kinds of sentences Jesus used and function only as an interjected side point; which means this kind of exception clause may be omitted and not affect the main point being made. This use of an exception clause can be demonstrated in both Greek and English.

It makes sense that if an example of this kind of exception clause can be produced, then that particular argument against the betrothal divorce, citing it as an unreasonable explanation of what Jesus’ exception clause means, should cease to be used. I mean, let those who disagree with the betrothal explanation argue against it all they want, but not with arguments that honesty itself should forbid them to use. [Note: the charge of dishonesty cannot honestly be laid against those who sincerely believe something false: to them it is honest. But when the excuse of ignorance is erased by factual demonstration and the person continues to hold to what has been proven false; then the charge of dishonesty may apply.]
To demonstrate the existence of this kind of exception clause, the first three clauses from Matthew 5:32, are paralleled by three other similarly constructed clauses:

1) Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery
2) Whosoever shall open that valve, saving for the cause of overflow, causes damage to the crops

1 a) Whosoever shall put away his wife,
[the action done, (two ways of doing it)]
1 b) saving for the cause of fornication,
[the acceptable reason/situation for doing it]
1 c) causeth her to commit adultery
[the negative result if done wrongly]

2 a) Whosoever shall open that valve,
[the action done, (two ways of doing it)]
2 b) saving for the cause of overflow,
[the acceptable reason/situation for doing it]
2 c) causes damage to the crops
[the negative result if done wrongly]

The basic format is;
a) an action done
c) something negative caused by that action
b) an inserted exception indicating that in this case, that action may be done and not cause that negative result.

The above, which parallels the first three clauses in Matthew 5:32, concerns water flow in a particular farming situation. During the winter, when no crops are growing, the occasional severe rainy season will fill the reservoir to overflowing, which in order to prevent eroding the retaining mounds surrounding the reservoir, a valve is opened, which releases the excess water into the field used for crops.The problem is that the outlet of the valve is such that the water gushes out with force, which if there were crops growing, would cause damage to them. Hence, during the growing season, if anyone were to open that valve, damage would be caused to the crops. But during the winter, when it is sometimes necessary to open that valve, there is no concern of damaging any crops.

So let’s examine both sides of this parallel:
The phrase "Whosoever shall put away his wife", is the action being paralleled by the action of "Whosoever shall open that valve", both which can be done under two differing situations, which are determined by and connected to a time factor:
Divorce can be done:
during betrothal or during being joined in marriage
Opening that valve can be done:
during winter or during growing season
Opening the valve in our parallel will not necessarily produce a negative result. That action does not damage the crops if done at the acceptable time.
The Hebrews had an unusual divorce for fornication, which was done premaritally. Hence it did not produce the negative result of causing her to commit adultery since she had not gone outside of her status as a single, never-married woman. Any man marrying her after this was of course also not committing adultery since her ‘husband’ divorced her while they were both still single.
The phrase, “saving for the cause of fornication” is paralleled with, “saving for the cause of overflow”. These indicate allowable reasons for divorcing or opening the valve. Those actions for these reasons may be performed without causing the negative effects of:
1c) causeth her to commit adultery
2c) causes damage to the crops

Let us focus now on the water flow situation provided above that serves as a grammatical parallel to Matthew 5:32.
Suppose now that a discussion is being had among a group of farmers who are to buy and use the field for crops and are therefore unaware of the correct use of the valve. They are persuaded that it should be used during growing season to irrigate the crops. Let’s say someone even wrote a letter to an experienced farmer in another county describing to the best of their knowledge the situation, to which he replied that he believes, according to what he understands, that it would be alright to use that valve for irrigation during the growing season. So this whole discussion is about whether or not it is allowable to use the valve for irrigation during growing season. While they have been informed and are very aware that it is used for overflow during winter to prevent damage to the reservoir; that is not what they are enquiring about. Their inquiry pertains specifically to the use of that valve for irrigation: the inquiry has nothing to do with its use for overflow. So their supposing that the valve should be able to be used for irrigation, they ask the previous owner to make sure.
They say, “we are confident that the valve may be used for irrigation. We even have a letter from an experienced farmer from another county, to whom the valve and piping situation has been explained to the best of our knowledge, and he agrees, that according to what he understands, the valve should be able to be used to release water into the field during growing season. But we wanted to ask you to see what you have to say since you are the former owner and should certainly know”.
The former owner and actual and final authority says;

“It has been said that it is alright to use that valve for irrigation.
But I say unto you, that whosoever shall open that valve, saving for the cause of overflow, causes damage to the crops”.

It must be recognized that the above exception clause does not pertain to the main point being made. Since this kind of exception clause only serves as an interjected side point, it can be omitted altogether and the point being made is completely unaffected by that omission. Notice how the farmer’s complete prohibition is not at all effected when this kind of exception clause is left out:
“It has been said that it is alright to use that valve for irrigation.
But I say unto you, that whosoever shall open that valve… causes damage to the crops”.

The effect of this kind of exception clause is as if he said, I am not saying that valve has no use, it does, for overflow, but it is absolutely not to be used for that about which you have inquired. If you use it for irrigation, you will damage the crops.
It could be said that that kind of exception clause clarified the farmers point in light of all that pertained to the use of that valve. By way of comparison it adds an element of completion to his overall prohibition of that which they had up to that point mistakenly supposed was allowable. Though the question had nothing to do with opening the valve for overflow, it was reasonably included as part of his answer.

This kind of parallel makes it difficult for the opponents of the betrothal explanation of the exception clause to continue to assert that this kind of exception clause does not exist. Jesus’ exception clause is very easily read in this manner once a person becomes informed concerning first century culture and use of words.
“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, [saving for the cause of fornication,] causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

One would think that this understanding would cause a rejoicing and relief that the plain wording in Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:17,18 can be accepted at face value without concern that such acceptance is error. These other foundational verses in Mark and Luke plainly forbid divorce and remarriage. The reason why there is not the slightest hint in these verses that an exception for divorce exists, is because such an exception does in fact not exist. Divorce and remarriage by these verses is very clearly prohibited for any reason whatsoever. And like Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, the point of discussion in these other two main references spoken by Jesus is also the post marital divorce.

Since the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is only an interjected side point, it can also be omitted in both verses, as seen below, without effecting the main point Jesus is making:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife… causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The verses in the NT without the exception clause, (Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18), and the verses with the exception clause, (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), all mean the same thing because the type of exception clause recorded in Matthew can be omitted without changing the point being made. Notice how Matthew 19:9 and 5:32, quoted above, with the exception clause omitted, are identical in meaning to the verses below, which do not possess the exception clause:
Luke 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.
Mark 10:
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

By understanding the exception clause correctly, it is easy to understand that these four main references in the NT, spoken by Jesus, (Matthew 5:32; 19:9 Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18) all say the same thing. Divorce from the married state followed by remarriage is not allowed: not for adultery; not for something worse than adultery; not for anything. Divorce from the married state followed by remarriage is adultery.

But this question will continue to be asked:
Why would Jesus make an exception clause that doesn’t directly pertain to the point under discussion?
Other than the reason provided above, (that including the exception clause provided a more complete answer in light of their culture and thereby clarifying his intended prohibition by way of comparison), consider the following:
Jesus’ exception clause served to prevent his words from being taken to an extent that he did not intend. He was dealing with those looking to accuse and find fault with his teaching. Though Mark and Luke do not record the exception clause, (without any great consequence since it doesn’t pertain to the married wife anyway), the exception clause still served the practical purpose of preventing those who strained at gnats but swallowed camels from accusing him:
Since Jesus by his teaching prohibits a husband from divorcing his wife for anything, and since their betrothed couples were also titled “husband” and “wife”, the exception clause served the practical purpose of clarifying that he was not going to that extent in his prohibition of husbands divorcing their wives. Since, “for the cause of fornication” was a very clearly recognizable reason in their culture for acceptably terminating a betrothal, Jesus used that as a means to say in effect that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if he does it before joining with her in marriage.
That cultural divorce, where a “husband” “divorces” his “wife” for her fornication, (not for adultery), which divorce only terminates their espousal/betrothal, is not a putting asunder what God has joined together. By Jesus’ clarification of what constitutes “what God hath joined together”, the premarital divorce for fornication is not a sin because that kind of divorce takes place before they become a joined married couple. This means that that kind of divorced wife is not caused to commit adultery. It also means that the man who divorced her for fornication can also marry afterwards and not commit adultery by so doing. This fits perfectly with the texts of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 concerning the husband and wife involved in the divorce for fornication. In 5:32, she, the wife having committed fornication, is said to not have been caused to commit adultery by being divorced: and in 19:9, he, her husband who divorced her for fornication, may also marry afterward without committing adultery by so doing.


* Unlike today, Jesus’ hearers were very familiar with this kind of divorce. As strange as this may sound, the betrothed couple were titled as “husband” and “wife” before they were joined in marriage. This does not mean that they were married as “what therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder”; it only means that in ancient times the words “husband” and “wife” were used differently than how we use them today. Their titles of ‘husband and wife’ not only described the couple joined in marriage, but also the couple not yet joined. Nowadays we could say ‘husband and wife-to-be’, while they simply called them ‘husband and wife’, their betrothal, by culture, being very binding and hence not easily terminated. Please see Deut. 22:23,24; 20:7 Matt. 1:18-24.
Further, this termination of their betrothal, for her fornication, (not adultery) was described as “divorce”, a word that we today understand can only apply to a couple already joined in marriage. This strange-to-us premarital divorce was not for adultery. The word adultery by definition can only be applied to the sexual offence violating someone’s joined marriage. This, on the other hand, was a divorce for “fornication”.
One application of the word “fornication” is that it may function to describe the premarital sexual sin exclusively. That is one specific definition of ‘fornication’.

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by backwoodsman » Sat Sep 03, 2011 5:29 pm

AVoice wrote:raising the question, how can divorce and remarriage be forbidden as clearly indicated in Mark 10:11,2 and Luke 16:18, and at the same time, somehow, be allowed as can be the initial reaction to Matt 5:32; 19:9.
It's really a lot more simple than you make it sound. When there's more than one account of the same event, it seems only reasonable that those providing more detail give a more complete picture than those providing less detail.
The refusal of someone to at least consider this as a viable meaning indicates their willingness to deny the scriptural basis that makes it very eligible for consideration.
With all due respect, you need to be a little more careful about accusing your brothers & sisters of denying scripture simply because they don't agree with your interpretation of something.

I appreciate your enthusiasm to convince others of your view on divorce. But the Bible says very little about divorce, and what it does say is really pretty straightforward if one simply reads it and takes it at face value without importing any preconceived notions. If you need to play complicated games with words and grammar to explain your view, then it might be wise to reconsider whether you've really arrived at the best explanation.

There's a lot wrong with the laxness with which divorce is viewed by many Christians these days, but that's not a good reason to go beyond what scripture says to the opposite extreme.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by Homer » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:40 am

Hi AVoice,

I'm beginning to think you are opposed to divorce for any reason. :shock:

You wrote:
This, on the other hand, was a divorce for “fornication”.
One application of the word “fornication” is that it may function to describe the premarital sexual sin exclusively. That is one specific definition of ‘fornication’.
Not sure what you mean here, but the Greek word porneia, translated "fornication", is a broader term than the Greek word for adultery. Porneia refers to any immorality, including adultery.

Have you considered that Jesus was abrogating the permission for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 in both Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that Matthew included important information that Mark and Luke had omitted, likely because Moses, in Deut. 24, had said nothing about divorce for adultery because there was no need to since stoning was the penaly for adultery?

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:39 am

Homer wrote:Hi AVoice,

I'm beginning to think you are opposed to divorce for any reason. :shock:

You wrote:
This, on the other hand, was a divorce for “fornication”.
One application of the word “fornication” is that it may function to describe the premarital sexual sin exclusively. That is one specific definition of ‘fornication’.
Not sure what you mean here, but the Greek word porneia, translated "fornication", is a broader term than the Greek word for adultery. Porneia refers to any immorality, including adultery.

Have you considered that Jesus was abrogating the permission for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 in both Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and that Matthew included important information that Mark and Luke had omitted, likely because Moses, in Deut. 24, had said nothing about divorce for adultery because there was no need to since stoning was the penaly for adultery?
The meaning of the word fonication, since it does have broad application, depends on the context. And like any word where its definitions also possess a specific application, the practical argument that the context should be allowed to dictate its meaning in that particular setting should be warmly embraced. So porneia would include adultery if the context supports that. I am sure you cannot be making the claim that anywhere "porneia" is used it automatically has to include adultery.

The entire contexts of the verses containing the exception clause should naturally be coherent if the particular interpretation of the exception clause, that is embraced, were correct.
The fact that there existed a premarital divorce for fornication NOT FOR ADULTERY, along with the fact that their use of words labeled the man and woman in this not-joined-in-marriage state, "husband and wife"; the door has been flung wide open to very reasonably view the exception clause as what linguists call "non essential".
If you could just for a moment extricate yourself from the assumption that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery and give a balanced test of the meaning and implications of the text each model presents, I cannot see how a rational mind can continue to entertain the absurdities inherent in the divorce for adultery model. The hoops that explanation is forced to jump through becomes a real circus once the questions start flowing.

When a "non essential" part of a sentence can be misinterpreted as "esential", confusion and incoherency is expected as those with all good intentions try to defend that misunderstanding.

We have two ways to view the entire passages of Matt 5:32; 19:9.
The divorce for adultery model cannot answer the questions the entire contexts beg in an easy and straightforward manner.

So having one explanation that can answer easily in a straightforward manner without self contradiction posed by the texts themselves; what chance exists that that plain straightforward interpretation conducive with the actual texts is wrong while the interpretation creating a circus of problematic explanation is right?

OK, so you say fornication in that context has to mean adultery. Are you unaware of the divorce for fornication (not adultery) where a "husband" would "divorce" his "wife" BEFORE they became joined in marriage? What then constrains you to continue to maintain that fornication has to mean adultery in that context?
In short, what you propose, that Jesus did in fact allow divorce for adultery, is contradicted by the fact that the text cannot be made to support that assumption no matter how desperate the attempt.

In Matt 5;32, to what woman does the last clause apply. The woman divorced justly (for adultery) under your model? Now check Matt 19:9 and see if your answer still makes sense. This confusion is created by the simple fact that the exception clause did not pertain to the 'joined-in-marriage' but was an interjected aside clarifying that his prohibition of husbands divorcing their wives did not extend so far as to also prohibit the premarital divorces "for fornication" which was a recognizable way to describe that kind of divorce. The confusion you will face is the result of interpreting a "non essential" as "essential".

The confusion does not exist when the exception clause is understood as pertaining to that cultural premarital divorce for fornication and not for adultery. A "non essential" is basically an 'aside', included in the sentence and hence it can be totally omitted without damaging the main point the sentence is making. When 'fornication' is interpreted as adultery and hence absolutely "essential' due to the fact that adultery is absolutely a post marital offense by definition, the overall doctrine CANNOT omit that provision and still be truthful. But since "non essential" parts of sentences can in fact be completely and without regard omitted and no damage whatsoever is done to the central meaning of the entire sentence, Mark and Luke under the inspiration of the Spirit could, without concern, omit the exception clause that Matthew was guided to include.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Sun Sep 04, 2011 12:05 pm

backwoodsman wrote:
AVoice wrote:raising the question, how can divorce and remarriage be forbidden as clearly indicated in Mark 10:11,2 and Luke 16:18, and at the same time, somehow, be allowed as can be the initial reaction to Matt 5:32; 19:9.
It's really a lot more simple than you make it sound. When there's more than one account of the same event, it seems only reasonable that those providing more detail give a more complete picture than those providing less detail.
The refusal of someone to at least consider this as a viable meaning indicates their willingness to deny the scriptural basis that makes it very eligible for consideration.
With all due respect, you need to be a little more careful about accusing your brothers & sisters of denying scripture simply because they don't agree with your interpretation of something.

I appreciate your enthusiasm to convince others of your view on divorce. But the Bible says very little about divorce, and what it does say is really pretty straightforward if one simply reads it and takes it at face value without importing any preconceived notions. If you need to play complicated games with words and grammar to explain your view, then it might be wise to reconsider whether you've really arrived at the best explanation.

There's a lot wrong with the laxness with which divorce is viewed by many Christians these days, but that's not a good reason to go beyond what scripture says to the opposite extreme.
I was not being disrespectful or accusative. The facts remain and you will agree, if the scriptures plainly lay something out as existant and someone will not even look and therefore accept what reasonably exists within scripture, that person is showing their willingness to deny scripture. We both agree with that, I cannot see how you cannot agree with that.
Jesus did not say a man can divorce for adultery. You cannot find an actual verse where Jesus said that.
He made an exception and the exception was "fornication" and not adultery.
The fact exists that the Biblical culture they were under possessed a premarital divorce, not for adultery, but for fornication. So this view does not change the word Jesus used. Your view HAS to change the word from "fornication" to adultery.
Please read more of the thread to get a better grasp of what is being discussed here.
Please understand the two ways of reading 5:32 and 19:9 and then make a decision what actually fits with the actual words Jesus used.
You claim it is simple when viewed that divorce is allowed for adultery. Are you willing to answer some practical and easy questions concerning Jesus' context and grammar to see if that model can be made to make sense?
The reality of the situation is that the divorce for adultery model CANNOT be made to make sense when held within the perameters of Jesus' own words.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by Homer » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:58 pm

AVoice,
The reality of the situation is that the divorce for adultery model CANNOT be made to make sense when held within the perameters of Jesus' own words.
Seems to make perfect sense to me. Consider first what Moses said and, in particular, what he did not say:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (NKJV):
1. “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2. when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3. if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4. then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.


Then look at what the Pharisees claimed that Moses said and Jesus explanation regarding why Moses said it:

Matthew 19:1-10 (NKJV):
1. Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. 2. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
3. The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5. 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’? 6. So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
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. 9. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10. His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”


Notice that Moses never, as the Pharisees claimed, commanded divorce because of immorality committed prior to marriage. As Jesus said, Moses only permitted it, and only because of the people's hard heartedness, not because of "some uncleanness". It appears that in their state of mind they would have been cruel to their wives so Moses mercifully allowed divorce. Moses had no need to mention adultery in the context. That fell under the actual command that the adulterers be stoned to death, Lev. 20:20, Deut. 22:22. Adultery was even a capital offense in Roman law prior to Augustus. And it appears, in Jesus reply to the woman caught in adultery, John 8:10-11, that He did not continue the practice of the law of Moses, the stoning for adultery. He allowed instead the option of divorce.

In your thinking, you appear to place an immoral act prior to marriage as a worse sin than adultery. Why? I suggest you carefully read Leviticus 7:20, and see there the list of abominable sins that were cause for someone to be stoned, or cut off fron Israel. Note that adultery is listed. Do you find premarital sex there?

I assure you I am not condoning premarital sex but I do believe it is less cause for dissolution of marriage than adultery, and believe it to be so in Jesus' eyes.

Forgiveness for adultery is the preferred solution but divorce is allowed. This is what I believe Jesus taught.

AVoice
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:12 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:45 pm

Homer wrote:AVoice,
The reality of the situation is that the divorce for adultery model CANNOT be made to make sense when held within the perameters of Jesus' own words.
I assure you I am not condoning premarital sex but I do believe it is less cause for dissolution of marriage than adultery, and believe it to be so in Jesus' eyes.

Forgiveness for adultery is the preferred solution but divorce is allowed. This is what I believe Jesus taught.
You quote me but do not address the issue as Jesus' own words should be allowed to determine what the truth is.
If you have not read the OP and the various other posts here, how can you expect to even begin to address what the thread is about?

Please, who under God's heaven is saying a joined marriage can be dissolved by sex she committed before marriage????
You must have assumed, because you have not read what the thread is about, that I am promoting the "found her not a maid" explanation of the exception clause!!

Please read the OP
Where has anyone even insinuated such a thing on this thread???
Last edited by AVoice on Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by mattrose » Tue Sep 06, 2011 4:35 pm

AVoice,

Have you considered that many, here, may not be all that interested in reading your lengthy posts because they are poorly formatted and filled with apparent emotionalism (as indicated, for instance, by your extensive utilization of multiple question marks)?

Even if your position were a theological slam-dunk, you'd be better off discussing it with a gentle spirit and a recognition of the strength of counter-points.

In Christ,
matthew

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by mattrose » Tue Sep 06, 2011 5:00 pm

Please, someone out there trying to justify the interpretation that Jesus allows divorce for adultery: what possible meaning can you attribute to the last clauses of 5:32 19:9 and 16:18?
I think it is fairly straight forward. In 5:32, if a man initiates a divorce for a reason other than sexual sin, it is not a legitimate divorce in God's eyes. The marriage still exists and, thus, the victim (the divorced woman) may inappropriately be thought of as 'available'. But she is not available since she is married and, thus, any so called 'marriage' to this woman would be adultery for her and the man.

19:9 just says it the other way. Since the so called divorce is actually illegitimate, the subsequent 'marriage' is equally illegitimate.

Luke 16:18 is making the same point (that illegitimate divorce doesn't actually end a marriage) without taking the time to mention that there is such a thing as a legitimate divorce.

That the exception is not mentioned except in Matthew is not very strange. After Jesus fed the 4,000, the Jewish authorities demanded a sign. Jesus replied, according to Matthew, that "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Mark, however, simply has Jesus saying "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given it." No exception clause appears in Mark. Perhaps Matthew was just more thorough when it comes to listing exceptions. In either case, I don't see how your argument causes a problem for anything I have written above. It may be that your argument is excellent and you are just not very good at making it, but as I read your OP I found it more likely that you were trying to create a problem for the fornication = sexual unfaithfulness crowd that just doesn't really exist.

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”