The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:23 pm
Since the last clauses of both of these verses (Matt 5;32; 19:9) are identical to the last clause of Luke 16:18, which does not possess the exception, how could the meaning of the last clause in Matthew's verses hinge on the exception clause while Luke 16:18 has the same last clause and therefore its meaning cannot hinge on it?
The above reasoning, which I make to bring to attention the extreme deficiency of the divorce for adultery model (the exception of "fornication" made by Jesus having been changed to the divorce for adultery) is only one point of many that can be used to wake up the sleeping.
Let's look at 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.
Notice the last clause:
"and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery". (Luke 16:18)
The same last clause is in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, both which also have the exception clause:
"and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". (Matt 5:32)
"and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery". (Matt 19:9)
All three identical last clauses point to a specific wrong the man does who marries “her that is divorced”. He commits adultery by so doing.
Since the divorce for adultery model has changed the exception, from fornication to adultery, a question is naturally asked as the result since the divorce for adultery model creates a distinction between two post marital divorces: one supposed to be just (for adultery under that model) and one unjust (let’s say for burning dinner). The question is then created, to whom does the last clause pertain, to the wife divorced for adultery or the wife divorced for burning dinner?
But Luke 16:18 does not have the exception clause therefore the question does not exist. It appears plainly since there is no exception clause in his gospel, the last clause cannot be making a distinction between two wives divorced for different things.
So lets say the decision is made (under the confidence that changing the divorce of fornication to the divorce for adultery was in fact a correct thing to do), that since Luke does not have the exception clause and yet has the same last clause that therefore the last clause in all 3 references must pertain to any post marital divorce, both just and unjust.
Well that simply does not fit with the context of Matt 19:9
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.
The natural effect of the meaning of the exception clause in the above verse is that marrying another afterward is in fact NOT adultery. (This is grammatically correct under both models; under the model assuming that the word fornication is correctly changed to adultery, and under the model that fornication is not adultery).
So under that adultery model, after the man has divorced his wife for adultery he is absolutely free to marry another and it is not adultery to do so. This by itself shows that the last clause in all three cannot be pertaining to ANY divorced woman. This is because the woman divorced justly (under that model divorce for adultery being just) is off limits; whoever marries her commits adultery by so doing! Against what man is that man committing adultery, by marrying that woman?
Well of course the man who divorced her!
It is impossible for the man to be free to marry (it being not adultery to marry after divorcing for adultery) and at the same time whoever marries the woman he divorced commits adultery! She has to have a living lawful husband in order for the man who marries her to be charged with committing adultery. The only way to justify such a thing is to assert that a kind of allowable polygamy has been introduced by the NT.
So that doesn’t work. Let’s try the other choice: the last clause pertains to the woman divorced unjustly.
That will work for Matt 19:9 as far as the man goes, since the grammatical function of the exception clause would indicate (as it does under both models) that the divorce which is not allowed makes the man an adulterer if he marries afterward. But the last clause still cannot be agreed to, even by those trying to promote that the last clause must pertain to the woman divorced unjustly. This is because they are then forced to admit that even though she is the innocent party, she cannot get married because it is adultery according to the last clauses!!!
Choosing the unjustly divorced woman as who the last clause refers to (under that model ) also creates the same conflict according to Matt 5:32.
The grammatical function of 5:32 indicates that the woman divorced for unjustly (under both models) IS caused to commit adultery by being so divorced. Her husband who divorced her has caused her to commit adultery. The last clause then, when applied to the divorce for adultery model AGAIN makes the innocent woman off limits to any man who would marry her. Whoever marries her commits adultery.
The straightforward grammatical function of both 5:32 and 19:9 irrefutably places the unjustly divorced woman off limits. This goes for both models. The reason why that truth is offensive to the adultery model is because that model has created a kind of acceptable judgment that the man can perform against the wife for committing adultery. So a human conflict issue has been created where fairness and just payback one human against another becomes an acceptable issue. Once that perception has been created by misunderstanding the exception of fornication to mean that the divorce for adultery is acceptable, then the inconsistency that the innocent divorced wife cannot get married again is simply not acceptable. A huge contradictory inconsistency has been created.
But since Jesus was not allowing a man to divorce his wife for adultery or anything else, and therefore he is not setting a precedent for such behavior, then his basis for not allowing any divorce due to the fact that only death can terminate a marriage, as per the precedent set in Adam and Eve, the last clause becomes perfectly consistent.
So the last clause CANNOT pertain solely to the woman divorced for adultery under their model because 19:9 directly disagrees, necessitating the justification of a form of NT polygamy.
And the last clause CANNOT pertain to the unjustly divorced woman (under that model) because then the innocent woman is unjustly discriminated against by God.
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?
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter;
Divorce from a lawfully joined marriage is not permitted under the NT. Not for adultery, not for something worse than adultery, not for anything:
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:
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
The above reasoning, which I make to bring to attention the extreme deficiency of the divorce for adultery model (the exception of "fornication" made by Jesus having been changed to the divorce for adultery) is only one point of many that can be used to wake up the sleeping.
Let's look at 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.
Notice the last clause:
"and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery". (Luke 16:18)
The same last clause is in Matt 5:32 and 19:9, both which also have the exception clause:
"and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". (Matt 5:32)
"and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery". (Matt 19:9)
All three identical last clauses point to a specific wrong the man does who marries “her that is divorced”. He commits adultery by so doing.
Since the divorce for adultery model has changed the exception, from fornication to adultery, a question is naturally asked as the result since the divorce for adultery model creates a distinction between two post marital divorces: one supposed to be just (for adultery under that model) and one unjust (let’s say for burning dinner). The question is then created, to whom does the last clause pertain, to the wife divorced for adultery or the wife divorced for burning dinner?
But Luke 16:18 does not have the exception clause therefore the question does not exist. It appears plainly since there is no exception clause in his gospel, the last clause cannot be making a distinction between two wives divorced for different things.
So lets say the decision is made (under the confidence that changing the divorce of fornication to the divorce for adultery was in fact a correct thing to do), that since Luke does not have the exception clause and yet has the same last clause that therefore the last clause in all 3 references must pertain to any post marital divorce, both just and unjust.
Well that simply does not fit with the context of Matt 19:9
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.
The natural effect of the meaning of the exception clause in the above verse is that marrying another afterward is in fact NOT adultery. (This is grammatically correct under both models; under the model assuming that the word fornication is correctly changed to adultery, and under the model that fornication is not adultery).
So under that adultery model, after the man has divorced his wife for adultery he is absolutely free to marry another and it is not adultery to do so. This by itself shows that the last clause in all three cannot be pertaining to ANY divorced woman. This is because the woman divorced justly (under that model divorce for adultery being just) is off limits; whoever marries her commits adultery by so doing! Against what man is that man committing adultery, by marrying that woman?
Well of course the man who divorced her!
It is impossible for the man to be free to marry (it being not adultery to marry after divorcing for adultery) and at the same time whoever marries the woman he divorced commits adultery! She has to have a living lawful husband in order for the man who marries her to be charged with committing adultery. The only way to justify such a thing is to assert that a kind of allowable polygamy has been introduced by the NT.
So that doesn’t work. Let’s try the other choice: the last clause pertains to the woman divorced unjustly.
That will work for Matt 19:9 as far as the man goes, since the grammatical function of the exception clause would indicate (as it does under both models) that the divorce which is not allowed makes the man an adulterer if he marries afterward. But the last clause still cannot be agreed to, even by those trying to promote that the last clause must pertain to the woman divorced unjustly. This is because they are then forced to admit that even though she is the innocent party, she cannot get married because it is adultery according to the last clauses!!!
Choosing the unjustly divorced woman as who the last clause refers to (under that model ) also creates the same conflict according to Matt 5:32.
The grammatical function of 5:32 indicates that the woman divorced for unjustly (under both models) IS caused to commit adultery by being so divorced. Her husband who divorced her has caused her to commit adultery. The last clause then, when applied to the divorce for adultery model AGAIN makes the innocent woman off limits to any man who would marry her. Whoever marries her commits adultery.
The straightforward grammatical function of both 5:32 and 19:9 irrefutably places the unjustly divorced woman off limits. This goes for both models. The reason why that truth is offensive to the adultery model is because that model has created a kind of acceptable judgment that the man can perform against the wife for committing adultery. So a human conflict issue has been created where fairness and just payback one human against another becomes an acceptable issue. Once that perception has been created by misunderstanding the exception of fornication to mean that the divorce for adultery is acceptable, then the inconsistency that the innocent divorced wife cannot get married again is simply not acceptable. A huge contradictory inconsistency has been created.
But since Jesus was not allowing a man to divorce his wife for adultery or anything else, and therefore he is not setting a precedent for such behavior, then his basis for not allowing any divorce due to the fact that only death can terminate a marriage, as per the precedent set in Adam and Eve, the last clause becomes perfectly consistent.
So the last clause CANNOT pertain solely to the woman divorced for adultery under their model because 19:9 directly disagrees, necessitating the justification of a form of NT polygamy.
And the last clause CANNOT pertain to the unjustly divorced woman (under that model) because then the innocent woman is unjustly discriminated against by God.
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?
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter;
Divorce from a lawfully joined marriage is not permitted under the NT. Not for adultery, not for something worse than adultery, not for anything:
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:
11And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.