The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[AVoice]

Mt 5:
31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32But 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.

Mt 19:
8He 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.
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.

Notice the ”But I say unto you” in 5:32 and the “And I say unto you” in 19:9.
Preceding each of these similar statements is the reference to Dt 24:1-4 which was what Moses wrote showing that by law divorce was allowable.
Jesus is disregarding what was written solely for the hardness of their hearts and clarifying that the truth of the matter is that they are one flesh until death as set by the precedent in Adam and Eve. That is why if he divorces and remarried he commits adultery and whoever marries her after he divorces her commits adultery.

There are two views under discussion here in this thread of the “divorce for fornication.”
The one view that interprets it to mean an allowance for adultery basically has to take only part of the verse to make that claim: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication ….”. The focus on “except it be for fornication” is taken as if there were no more context. It is assumed that since Jesus is talking about a man divorcing his wife, therefore the reference to that divorce for fornication has to be post marital. But looking to the end of this view we see that the last clause is forced to be basically omitted; there is not a practical meaning that can be attributed to that last clause.

The other view, asserts that the word ‘fornication’ maintains its meaning after its common usage and the particular definition it also possesses pertaining to the premarital sexual sin. Seeing that the Jewish culture, as verified by scripture, practiced a premarital divorce for fornication, which divorce took place while they were betrothed, [which was NOT for adultery, since adultery specifically pertains to the ‘joined-in-marriage’], this view can very reasonably be read as what Jesus was referring to:
The exception clause was simply an ‘aside’, clarifying that his prohibition of divorce, of course, did not go so far as to also apply to non married “husbands” and “wives”. [The Jewish culture used the terms husband and wife to also label the betrothed couple who were not yet joined in marriage Deut 22:23,24:20:7 Matt 1;18-24]. When the full context of 5:32 and 19:9 are considered, especially when it is seen that the betrothal view is not forced to deny the last clause as the adultery view is; the betrothal view is to be regarded as truthful. It is under that betrothal model that not only the last clause but the entire context fits perfectly; this proves without any doubt what the authors intention was.

What legitimate objection exists against the betrothal explanation?

[AVoice]

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.

Under your ‘divorce for adultery’ model there exits a just and unjust divorce. The ‘just’ divorce is for the wife's adultery, the unjust divorce is for, let's say, burning dinner.
The way Matthew says it in 19:9 indicates that the last clause means exactly what it plainly says even after the man who unjustly divorces his wife marries another.
What would indicate that that last clause cannot mean what it very plainly says even after the man who divorced his wife unjustly has 'married another'? Even after he marries another, that last clause still has to mean what it says as it pertains to the unjustly divorced woman; in effect, whoever marries her who was divorced for burning dinner commits adultery.

Matthew 19:
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.

So do you still maintain that the "her", which the last clause refers to, is the unjustly divorced woman? Would you perhaps under your divorce-for-adultery model be willing to reconsider and try to apply the "her" in that last clause to the woman who was divorced "justly"?

Choosing the "justly" divorced woman as to whom the last clause must apply is even more confused. Jesus very clearly contradicts himself in the same breath if that route is taken. That is because in Matt 19:9 the man very clearly can marry after divorcing for adultery (under that model) yet concerning the woman divorced for adultery, it is plain whoever marries her commits adultery. So she is married to him but he is free and not married to her? Complete confusion.
The whole point is to show that the 'divorce for adultery' model does not work with the actual words Jesus used. It gets VERY messy.
Though explanations can be presented with reasons from the OT as has been done here, when compared to what Jesus actually said to see if his context supports such explanations, the explanations simply don't fit with the plain words. Very messy as can be expected when a "non essential" insertion within a sentence can be mistaken as "essential".
In the case of Matt 5;32; 19:9, the non essential addition into the sentence came in the form of an exception clause.

Your example concerning the sign of Jonah strengthens and creates an example in favour of the betrothal explanation of the exception clause.

[mattrose]

The one view that interprets it to mean an allowance for adultery basically has to take only part of the verse to make that claim: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication ….”. The focus on “except it be for fornication” is taken as if there were no more context. It is assumed that since Jesus is talking about a man divorcing his wife, therefore the reference to that divorce for fornication has to be post marital. But looking to the end of this view we see that the last clause is forced to be basically omitted; there is not a practical meaning that can be attributed to that last clause.

I don't think anyone in this thread is treating the passage as if it FOCUSES on the exception. Nor is anyone assuming that the reference HAS to be post-marital. We all recognize that porneia can occur before and/or after the wedding ceremony. Furthermore, I don't see anyone in this thread omitting the last clause at all. I stated the 'practical meaning' above.

[mattrose]

The other view, asserts that the word ‘fornication’ maintains its meaning after its common usage and the particular definition it also possesses pertaining to the premarital sexual sin. Seeing that the Jewish culture, as verified by scripture, practiced a premarital divorce for fornication, which divorce took place while they were betrothed, [which was NOT for adultery, since adultery specifically pertains to the ‘joined-in-marriage’], this view can very reasonably be read as what Jesus was referring to:
The exception clause was simply an ‘aside’, clarifying that his prohibition of divorce, of course, did not go so far as to also apply to non married “husbands” and “wives”. [The Jewish culture used the terms husband and wife to also label the betrothed couple who were not yet joined in marriage Deut 22:23,24:20:7 Matt 1;18-24]. When the full context of 5:32 and 19:9 are considered, especially when it is seen that the betrothal view is not forced to deny the last clause as the adultery view is; the betrothal view is to be regarded as truthful. It is under that betrothal model that not only the last clause but the entire context fits perfectly; this proves without any doubt what the authors intention was.

Another point of contention arises when you claim that the greek word you translate as 'fornication' refers particularly to pre-marital sexual sin. I think, and I think most translators agree, that the word is more flexible than that. It can be used more broadly as a reference to sexual sin in general. The point that was raised earlier, which you simply dismissed, is a valid point. Why would sexual sin BEFORE the ceremony be a worse offense than sexual sin AFTER the ceremony? You can't have your cake (claim that betrothal counted and necessitated a 'divorce'... a point on which we agree) and have it too (claim that a betrothal divorce is not really a divorce).

We all agree that the exception clause is simply an aside, so I'm not sure why you count that as a point for position number 2. Nor have you adequately explained how position 1 denies the last clause.

[mattrose]

What legitimate objection exists against the betrothal explanation?

I don't think it is an impossible interpretation. I just think it is not the best interpretation given the range of meaning in the greek according to most scholars I've read. Jesus is sharpening the meaning of God's law. They were practicing 'easy-divorce.' Jesus is saying that divorce is not allowed while providing an exception to that general rule. And that's where I think your argument is pretty weak. You are trying to prove that divorce is not allowed at all, but you are admitting that a divorce was necessary to obtain to get out of a betrothal and that this was allowed by Jesus in the case of pre-marital sexual sin. So we all believe there is an exception to the 'no-divorce' rule. You have a very strict interpretation of that exception whereas some others here have a more flexible interpretation. Bottom line, you believe Jesus allows divorce too.

[mattrose]

Very messy as can be expected when a "non essential" insertion within a sentence can be mistaken as "essential".

Again, you are the one complicating things and making it 'messy'

Nobody, here, as far as I can tell, is making the exception clause the 'essential' part of the teaching. We all treat it as an aside.

My understanding of the Bible's teaching on marriage is not complicated or messy:
1. A marriage can only legitimately end in 1 of 3 ways
a) If there is sexual sin then divorce is permitted but not required. The nature of 'sexual sin' is an area of debate.
b) If an unbelieving spouse wishes to leave, the believer should let them. The term 'divorce' is not used here, but I think such is a valid interpretation of the context.
c) Death
2. A legitimate ending to a marriage creates 2 single people

I'm not sure why you are focusing so much on the nature of sexual sin when we probably all agree that divorce is a horrible thing, always involving sin in at least 1 party, and should never be recommended for a believer to initiate.

Let's assume for a second that your view is correct and that the restrictions against divorce are more strict than the rest of us imagine. What is your goal is teaching us this truth? Are you aware of some on this board who are seeking 'easy-divorce'? Are there some on this message board who are advising others to get divorces on non-biblical grounds? Is it possible that this is a hobby horse for you? A way to vent over a terrible past experience? A way to feel like you are more faithful to God's Word? I don't know if any of these suggestions is true. I'm just wondering what compels you to passionately talk to strangers on this subject.

[Homer]

AVoice,

Seems to me you are the one making a mess of the scriptures.

You wrote:

The other view, asserts that the word ‘fornication’ maintains its meaning after its common usage and the particular definition it also possesses pertaining to the premarital sexual sin.

This is an extremely weak argument. Looking at the English word fornication, Greek porneia and Hebrew Zanah, you will find:

1. That fornication in all three languages includes all sexual unchastity. Incest, bestiality, homosexual acts, premarital sex, and adultery. (The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, in Jude 1:7, was said to be ekporneuo, meaning "to give oneself over to fornication".)

2. It is used principally (in preference to 'adultery') in the Scriptures for the after marriage infidelity of a wife.

The Greek porneia was used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew zanah. The Septuagint was the scripture version used at the time of Jesus. It is very possible Jesus used the Hebrew word zanah when He gave His exception for divorce; it is very unlikely He used the Greek porneia.

If you read Ezekial 16 and 23 you will find the story of God and His unfaithful wife, Israel. In the Septuagint the Greek porneia is used some 40 times to translate the Hebrew zanah referring to Israel's spiritual adultery. The Hebew word naaph (adultery) is used only six times. Both words refer to the same offense. So Jesus, in His exception clause, used the very same word God predominately used of His unfaithful wife, Israel.

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?

I think the exception clause refers to all the sexual sins that required a person be "cut off from God's people".

[AVoice]

AVoice,

Seems to me you are the one making a mess of the scriptures.

You wrote:

The other view, asserts that the word ‘fornication’ maintains its meaning after its common usage and the particular definition it also possesses pertaining to the premarital sexual sin.

This is an extremely weak argument. Looking at the English word fornication, Greek porneia and Hebrew Zanah, you will find:

1. That fornication in all three languages includes all sexual unchastity. Incest, bestiality, homosexual acts, premarital sex, and adultery. (The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, in Jude 1:7, was said to be ekporneuo, meaning "to give oneself over to fornication".)

2. It is used principally (in preference to 'adultery') in the Scriptures for the after marriage infidelity of a wife.

The Greek porneia was used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew zanah. The Septuagint was the scripture version used at the time of Jesus. It is very possible Jesus used the Hebrew word zanah when He gave His exception for divorce; it is very unlikely He used the Greek porneia.

If you read Ezekial 16 and 23 you will find the story of God and His unfaithful wife, Israel. In the Septuagint the Greek porneia is used some 40 times to translate the Hebrew zanah referring to Israel's spiritual adultery. The Hebew word naaph (adultery) is used only six times. Both words refer to the same offense. So Jesus, in His exception clause, used the very same word God predominately used of His unfaithful wife, Israel.

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?

I think the exception clause refers to all the sexual sins that required a person be "cut off from God's people".

If in fact the exception clause was spoken as an interjected side point as a reference to that OTHER kind of divorce, which was done premaritally as we Joseph about to do, then the one word to describe that sexual offence would be "fornication".
The word adultery would not apply since it was a sin committed while as the person was single and the divorce took place also before the marriage. They both retain their status as single. Hence the man does not cause her to commit adultery.

Based on the popular interpretation of the exception clause they define "fornication". That is circular reasoning. In the same line of circular reasoning "fornication is changed to "sexual immorality". The Greek is able to make the equivalent of the word 'sexual' and also of the word 'immorality'. Jesus did not use that terminology.
He used the equivalent of the English "fornication" which like in English can apply specifically to the unmarried sexual offence.
For example ask a Greek scholar if the following is reasonable, which context indicates the sexual offense CANNOT be adultery but which is in fact "fornication". So some 'fornication" CAN be adultery but it is possible that the particular context absolutely rejects "adultery" as being what fornication can mean in that context.
Knowing that Jane and John are single:

"Jane and John were caught fornicating"

To allocate adultery as what fornication means in this context would be an act of illiteracy.

Would not the equivalent statement about Jane and John, if translated into Greek, also use the word fornication? Are you asserting that the word fornication in Greek is not used in this same way applying specifically to the premarital where contexts can accomodate that application?
The word fornication has a specific premarital application since it is the one single word (at least in English) that can by itself describe the sexual sin of the single. It has connotation that "sexual immorality" does not possess. Since 'adultery' specifically relates to the violation of a marriage, the word fornication when listed alongside "adultery" (as it does 7 times in the NT) naturally points to, and absolutely includes, the premarital sexual sin in comparison.

Granted it would not be the death knell necessarily to the divorce for adultery model, but this, alongside the contexts of 5:32 and 19: that are irreconcilable to the divorce for adultery model, alongside the reality of the cultural premarital divorce for fornication (not for adultery) wherein "husband and wife" had dual meaning, alongside the availability to read the exception clause as "non essential" due to their culture, alongside two other separate authors not even hinting at allowing divorce and giving every indication that divorce and remarriage are absolutely forbidden, (which makes an omission of the exception clause completely understandable because it had nothing to do with the joined-in-marriage), alongside the fact that 5:32 and 19;9 can be read smoothly and without the major hiccups and contradictions inherent in the divorce for adultery model.
ALL wives, who had been lawfully joined in marriage (neither in the couple had been previously married and if they had the former spouse is dead) if any single one of them is divorced for any single reason, the man is charged with causing her to commit adultery, he has dealt treacherously with her, she is made vulnerable to other men and to hell for the adultery that may follow. Whoever marries her commits adultery for as long as her first and lawful husband is still alive.

The one flesh status in marriage (totally different than in fornication) is not dependent on the behaviour of the indivuals involved, it is based on the precedent set in Adam and Eve. Only death was able to terminate their status of "one flesh".

[AVoice]

The one view that interprets it to mean an allowance for adultery basically has to take only part of the verse to make that claim: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication ….”. The focus on “except it be for fornication” is taken as if there were no more context. It is assumed that since Jesus is talking about a man divorcing his wife, therefore the reference to that divorce for fornication has to be post marital. But looking to the end of this view we see that the last clause is forced to be basically omitted; there is not a practical meaning that can be attributed to that last clause.

I don't think anyone in this thread is treating the passage as if it FOCUSES on the exception. Nor is anyone assuming that the reference HAS to be post-marital. We all recognize that porneia can occur before and/or after the wedding ceremony. Furthermore, I don't see anyone in this thread omitting the last clause at all. I stated the 'practical meaning' above.

Am I correct to understand that you think what I am sharing is that Jesus allows divorce after the marriage?
Do you think that somehow I am saying Jesus allows divorce after the wedding?

Concerning your practiacl meaning. I answered in detail to show that meaning would mean the woman divorced for burning dinner, who would be the innocent party, is prohibited from marriage. I asked if you are sure you want to maintain that position.

Concerning the focus on the exception clause:
Interpreting the divorce for fornication to be for adultery or interpreting it in any way to apply to the post marital husband divorcing his wife turns the exception clause into a major and necessary portion of the entire teaching that CANNOT be omitted. The aside you say it is, is not at all in any way what I have described as an aside.
If the exception were an aside, meaning a "non esential" we could read all 4 passages in the NT spoken by Jesus and totally omit the exception clause and they would all literally say the same thing. Such is the case with the betrothal explanation. But not so with the divorce for adultery explanation. Since the context of Mark 10 and Luke 16:18 have NOTHING within their contexts to suggest allowing divorce for adultery is allowed, omitting the exception clauses in Matthew would give no foundation whatsoever for even the notion for divorce for adultery being considered, much less allowed.

Earlier in the thread I submitted an essay titled 'what does the exception clause mean'. If you were to read that, you can understand what the thread is about. This thread has NOTHING to do with the idea that a man can divorce, AFTER he marries her, for fornication she committed BEFORE he married her. That is just as much a heresy as allowing divorce for adultery since it allows man to put asunder what God has joined together.

[AVoice]

Very messy as can be expected when a "non essential" insertion within a sentence can be mistaken as "essential".

Again, you are the one complicating things and making it 'messy'

Nobody, here, as far as I can tell, is making the exception clause the 'essential' part of the teaching. We all treat it as an aside.

My understanding of the Bible's teaching on marriage is not complicated or messy:
1. A marriage can only legitimately end in 1 of 3 ways
a) If there is sexual sin then divorce is permitted but not required. The nature of 'sexual sin' is an area of debate.
b) If an unbelieving spouse wishes to leave, the believer should let them. The term 'divorce' is not used here, but I think such is a valid interpretation of the context.
c) Death
2. A legitimate ending to a marriage creates 2 single people

I'm not sure why you are focusing so much on the nature of sexual sin when we probably all agree that divorce is a horrible thing, always involving sin in at least 1 party, and should never be recommended for a believer to initiate.

Let's assume for a second that your view is correct and that the restrictions against divorce are more strict than the rest of us imagine. What is your goal is teaching us this truth? Are you aware of some on this board who are seeking 'easy-divorce'? Are there some on this message board who are advising others to get divorces on non-biblical grounds? Is it possible that this is a hobby horse for you? A way to vent over a terrible past experience? A way to feel like you are more faithful to God's Word? I don't know if any of these suggestions is true. I'm just wondering what compels you to passionately talk to strangers on this subject.

Again it seems you have not understood what this thread is about. It is not about a restriction against post marital divorce which is more strict. That suggests we both allow by our positions the divorce after marriage but mine is more strict. Nothing is further from the truth. This thread is about there being absolutely NO allowable reason under the NT for a man to divorce his joined-in-marriage wife.
The texts in Mark 10 and Luke 16:8 mean EXACTLY as they very plainly appear to mean. NO divorce, no remarriage, for any imaginable thing. Whosoever, also includes the married man with an adulterous wife. Nothing in the context suggests that there is another definition for "whosoever".

So back to your explanation of the last clause. She is divorced for burning dinner, he remarries which is adultery. She cannot remarry because the last clause pertains to her. She is the innocent party. Is that what you are saying?