The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3354
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by steve » Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:18 am

The question I'm asking now is that if there were any way that the betrothal model does not work grammatically, then please let that be known. The grammar fits perfectly in Matt 5;32 and 19;9 when the betrothal model is applied.
I don't recall this being the issue. Matt has agreed that the wording of the passage could fit with the betrothal model. I don't think anyone has denied that. I certainly wouldn't. The question is whether the wording fits equally, or better, with alternative models to the betrothal model. I have seen both Matt and Homer repeatedly point out the obvious fact to you that porneia, in the passages, can as easily carry a broader meaning—but you do not seem to get it. I think they may have gotten the message that you are not listening, or thinking clearly about what they have said. After enough of this, people find better things to do with their time.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by mattrose » Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:03 am

Yeah, I stopped responding for 2 reasons

1. I'm actually on vacation
2. I responded to each supposed 'deficiency' and you just ignore or disagree with those responses. What else is there to say?

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

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:23 pm

steve wrote:
The question I'm asking now is that if there were any way that the betrothal model does not work grammatically, then please let that be known. The grammar fits perfectly in Matt 5;32 and 19;9 when the betrothal model is applied.
I don't recall this being the issue. Matt has agreed that the wording of the passage could fit with the betrothal model. I don't think anyone has denied that. I certainly wouldn't. The question is whether the wording fits equally, or better, with alternative models to the betrothal model. I have seen both Matt and Homer repeatedly point out the obvious fact to you that porneia, in the passages, can as easily carry a broader meaning—but you do not seem to get it. I think they may have gotten the message that you are not listening, or thinking clearly about what they have said. After enough of this, people find better things to do with their time.
It is impossible for the wording to apply to two opposite things and yet be grammatically competent in both interpretations.
When fornication is changed to adultery the grammar does not work. While you admit that the betrothal model works, you all appear to ignore the failure of the adultery model to actually be grammatically competent. While your explanations can take on an appearance of competency, the grammar of 5;32 and 19:9 does not support the explanation.

Grammatical incompetency is not the case in 5;32 and 19:9 when the betrothal model is applied. There is no need to add or change words.
For example under the adultery model, Matt's version needs to add the words 'not so' to the last clause in Matt 5:32 19:9.(That is the version where the last clause only applies to the woman divorced unjustly).
For example Mark 10;11,12 and Luke 16:18 cannot carry their apparent plain meaning under the adultery model.
The grammar works under the betrothal model; the grammar fails under the adultery model. The betrothal model fully supports the apparent plain meaning of Mark 10 and Luke 16. No words need to be added or omitted and the grammar is perfect.
The Grammar is NOT perfect under the adultery model. In fact it contradicts itself.
For example she who is put away for adultery under the adultery model is not caused to commit adultery, yet the last clause says whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery. Hence the need to insert "not so' into the last clause because of the effect the exception clause creates when changed to be an allowance to divorce for adultery (post marital divorce).
So the verses in Mark and Luke that do not have the exception clause, also do not have the effect that the exception clause would have on the same last clause. So the last clause in Luke 16:18 cannot possess the understanding of "not so divorced" without the exception clause that would be misunderstood to create such a need to edit. 'Whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery' actually means exactly that.

So what you say fits, actually, does not at all fit, unless editing and adding or omitting words is your definition of what fits.
Using the same format of Matt 5:32, add the necessary words that would clearly reflect what you say it has to mean. This would reveal that what you teach does not at all fit with the actual words that Jesus spoke.
The best evidence against the divorce for adultery heresy are the verses used that are alleged to support it!

It is true Steve, we all have a stake in the doctrine as all who are able to become married have the same stake.
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.
And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another she commits adultery.
So if you divorced your first wife (assuming that it was her first marriage as well) and you remarried, you commit adultery.
The same would apply to me if I had done that.
As long as the first lawful wife is alive, involvement with another is adultery.
Adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
This makes people angry, like Herodias who got John's head.
If the truth hurts, we are still supposed to love it, because it is the truth.
We are supposed to deny ourselves and accept the suffering, not profanely go out and find another wife.
Remarriage is adultery. Remarriage profanes the sanctity of marriage.
Last edited by AVoice on Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:45 pm

mattrose wrote:Yeah, I stopped responding for 2 reasons

1. I'm actually on vacation
2. I responded to each supposed 'deficiency' and you just ignore or disagree with those responses. What else is there to say?
There were numerous questions I asked that you made no effort whatsoever to directly answer.
The same with Steve.
I believe neither of you are interested and I require no more communication unless some serious responses are intended. A lot of people have viewed this thread, perhaps someone wanting to get serious with the various pertinent questions will enter the discussion.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by mattrose » Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:06 pm

Avoice,

I have seriously tried to answer all of your questions. I think it is more the case that you don't like my answers than that I haven't given them.

If you can provide a list of questions that have remained unanswered, I'd be glad to get to them. I only ask that you ask them in 1 or 2 sentences.

I agree with you, though, that readers of this thread have been able to sift through the 2 views and have the necessary information to make a good decision.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by Homer » Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:24 pm

AVoice,

You keep saying the grammar is incompetent. Looking at the Greek words and their English translations in an interlinear or Young's Literal translation I fail to see the problem you claim is there. In fact it seems straightforward to me. Adultery is a legitimate cause for divorce. Absent adultery, people who divorce and remarry commit adultery because God does not recognize the divorce.

It does not seem plausible to me that in a conversation entirely about actual married people that Jesus would interject an aside about people whom God had not joined together ("made one flesh") when He had just brought up the "made one flesh" Himself.

Perhaps if you take the text of Matthew and go through it word by word you can explain what you mean in an understandable way. Your position is very far from an obvious way to understand the text, and you do not help yourself with your wordy explanations.

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

Re: The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

Post by AVoice » Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:46 pm

If there are any viewing this thread who have the patience to listen to practical reason as it pertains to this topic, the following is valuable to the discussion. I will answer Homer and Matt with short clear responses and questions when I have time, before too long.

The two positions are very opposite. The one says divorce is absolutely allowed. The other says divorce is absolutely not allowed.
Since a competently written text (speaking of Matt 5:32)cannot be correctly read in two separate and opposing ways, one of these perceptions has to be violating the actual text. These opposite renderings from the same text of Matt 5:32 has to mean that there is fault with at least one of the conflicting perceptions. The text itself cannot be supporting two separate and opposite messages.
In this thread, examples have been made of the kind of function where a non essential aside comes in the form of an exception clause and is interjected within a similarly constructed sentence to matthew 5:32. These asides, even though in the form of exception clauses do not give allowance for what is under discussion. The sentences demonstrating this are grammatically competent.
No example of a sentence where the exception clause is a direct exception to the rule under discussion has been presented. [Except my modification of Homer’s example about trespassing, which proved that the message is totally different when the exception clause is omitted]. So there is no evidence in the form of a grammatical parallel presented on this thread so far that demonstrates that an exception clause can function after the manner that the divorce for adultery model asserts that it functions in Matthew 5:32.
Take Matt’s example about Michael Jordan. Since his exception clause is also non essential, the last clause has no bearing and cannot be mistaken to apply to the person doing what is allowed by the exception clause. Since the exception clause in Matt’s example serves the same function as Jesus’ exception clause when read to pertain to the betrothal divorce, it is unquestionably understood that the last clause does not at all apply to the man who hires Jordan because of a lockout. That is in agreement with the last clause of Matthew 5:32 when the exception clause is understood to be an aside relating exclusively to the betrothal divorce; the last clause has absolutely no bearing on the woman divorced in betrothal.
Since the adultery model makes the exception clause a direct exception to the rule of what is under discussion, [the exception clause is not a non essential aside under the adultery model] the last clause is uncertain in meaning and has to be determined by a direct connection with the exception clause. Does the last clause pertain to the woman divorced for adultery? The grammar, the actual wording in the sentence, does not provide the answer. She did the wrong, shouldn’t she be called an adulteress if someone marries her? If the last clause under the adultery model pertains to the innocent woman, it doesn’t seem fair. This is the kind of difficulty the text has with the last clause when the exception clause is interpreted to be essential, meaning it directly relates to the divorces under discussion.
Under Matt’s opinion the last clause does not pertain to the woman divorced for adultery; it applies to the innocently divorced woman. Many others say it has to be speaking of the woman divorced for adultery. The text doesn’t say, so Matt agrees that the words “not so” if inserted into the last clause (not so divorced) would correctly reflect what Jesus meant. That means the text is not competent. It lacked a very important clarifying phrase. The other opinion would say the last clause lacked clarification; that it is the woman divorced for adultery who is off limits, whoever marries her commits adultery, which is her punishment for committing adultery. So both opinions are basically admitting that the text is not competent as written.
The text of Matt 5:31,32 is just as competent as Matt’s example about Michael Jordan WHEN the exception clause is understood to pertain exclusively to the betrothal divorce. The meaning of the last clause is not questioned with regard to the connection it has to the exception clause because there is no connection between the last clause and the exception clause when the exception is a non essential aside.

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 Oct 09, 2011 12:30 pm

Homer wrote:AVoice,

You keep saying the grammar is incompetent. Looking at the Greek words and their English translations in an interlinear or Young's Literal translation I fail to see the problem you claim is there. In fact it seems straightforward to me. Adultery is a legitimate cause for divorce. Absent adultery, people who divorce and remarry commit adultery because God does not recognize the divorce.

It does not seem plausible to me that in a conversation entirely about actual married people that Jesus would interject an aside about people whom God had not joined together ("made one flesh") when He had just brought up the "made one flesh" Himself.

Perhaps if you take the text of Matthew and go through it word by word you can explain what you mean in an understandable way. Your position is very far from an obvious way to understand the text, and you do not help yourself with your wordy explanations.
Homer,
There is a difference between these two approaches:
1)finding a way to read it where you feel it is acceptable to mentally add a phrase in between the lines in the last clause
2)focusing on the actual words the author used and see if there can be an intended meaning that does not require mentally adding a phrase or changing a word in order for the sentence to make sense.

The last clause according to your model has to add words to make it grammatically competent.
But when you read it and add the words mentally and it then all makes sense to you, the sentence itself does not possess the words that you mentally added.
The words 'not so divorced' or 'not divorced for adultery' are added to the last clause when you read Matt 5:32.

You keep bringing up the same objection.
Perhaps if you take the text of Matthew and go through it word by word you can explain what you mean in an understandable way
I went to great lengths to provide an entire document on page 2 to illustrate by example how an exception clause can be merely a non essential aside that absolutely does not give permission with regard to what the sentence is addressing. I have directed you to that document. What do you not understand? I will answer your questions. Two practical reasons are also given concerning what purpose such an aside would serve. Are these reasons impractical? If you will not read a very clear explanation already given, why do you even ask for further explanation? Did you or did you not read the document on page 2 titled ‘what does the exception clause mean’?

Address that question to Matt's example concerning Michael Jordan. Why would that exception clause even be there? What purpose does it serve? The fact remains that the sentence is grammatically competent and no words are required to be inserted in order for it to be grammatically correct.

I am inserting into Matt’s example a qualifying equivalent to Matt 5:31 to establish the context, which clarifies that the exception clause Matt used is indeed non essential.

“It has been said that because of Michael Jordan’s extraordinary athletic abilities, he should quit basketball and play professional baseball.

But I say to you that”
If Michael Jordan quits basketball,

Except for the case of a league lockout/work-stoppage

and becomes a baseball player,

He is doing a disservice to the world of sports:

And whatever baseball team signs him is also doing a disservice to the world of sports
Homer,
The same question you have can be asked about Matt’s example when clarified by what I have added.
Obviously, the main thought had nothing to do with the side issue of a lockout. Yet such an exception clause was inserted anyway and the sentence is grammatically competent with no need to add the words “not so” to the last clause. The exception can be omitted altogether and the sentence would not change its meaning because the exception clause is a “non essential” part of the sentence.
So can you suggest a reason why a person would include that exception clause even though a work stoppage is not at all the focus of the sentence? If we could not think of a single possible good reason for the author to have included that exception clause about work stoppage, the fact remains that the sentence is still grammatically correct.
I can think of a possible reason for including that exception clause, a reason that would be very similar to the practical and wise reasons why Jesus probably included the exception of fornication that had nothing to do with the divorcing of a joined-in-marriage wife.
Your argument is basically stating that the betrothal model cannot be true because you cannot think of a reason why Jesus would include such an exception clause, even though the sentence is grammatically correct under this model. Instead, you have chosen a model wherein Jesus’ own words are grammatically incorrect, under which model you mentally add or change certain words to make sense of it.

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 Oct 09, 2011 12:58 pm

mattrose wrote:Avoice,

I have seriously tried to answer all of your questions. I think it is more the case that you don't like my answers than that I haven't given them.

If you can provide a list of questions that have remained unanswered, I'd be glad to get to them. I only ask that you ask them in 1 or 2 sentences.

I agree with you, though, that readers of this thread have been able to sift through the 2 views and have the necessary information to make a good decision.
A very practical ingredient that would greatly help those believing that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery, is for you to provide a grammatical parallel showing that language can indeed function after the manner you say it functions in Matthew 5:32; 19:9.
If you tell someone things to read in between the lines when they read the verses, then it is not the words in the verses themselves that are giving the message.
The facts introduced by this thread reveal the adultery model to be pure 'private interpretation'; the scriptures themselves that Jesus spoke add no support whatsoever to the divorce for adultery heresy.
Can you please provide a grammatical example where an exception clause is inserted after the format that would agree with Matthew 5:32? Your Michael Jordan example worked well to support my case even though it was moreso after the format of Matt 19:9. Please try to find an example where the exception clause is 'essential' as is the case when "for fornication" is interpreted to mean "for adultery". If language can indeed function after the manner it is claimed to function in a certain verse, a grammatical example of such a function should surely be able to be produced to demonstrate that function. In order for the exception clause to be 'essential' it must directly relate to the focus of the sentence. In the case of Matt 5:32; 19:9 post marital divorce is the focus of the sentence and the exception clause interpreted to be "for adultery" very directly relates, making it 'essential'.
Anyone reading this post is heartily welcomed to attempt to provide such a grammatical example.

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 Oct 09, 2011 1:58 pm

mattrose wrote:Avoice,

I have seriously tried to answer all of your questions. I think it is more the case that you don't like my answers than that I haven't given them.

If you can provide a list of questions that have remained unanswered, I'd be glad to get to them. I only ask that you ask them in 1 or 2 sentences.

I agree with you, though, that readers of this thread have been able to sift through the 2 views and have the necessary information to make a good decision.
Matt,
Let's say you have 20 brand new converts to Jesus, which have very little experience in the scriptures.
Someone comes to you and says, I am going to allow Jesus to teach them about divorce by reading to them the 4 main references where Jesus directly and thoroughly addressed the topic of divorce.
This person says, Matt, since you say you read the verses the same way, with or without the exception clause, I am going to leave it off and read to them all 4 references with the exception clause omitted from Matthew's gospel.

Matt 5:
32But 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.

Matt 19:
9And 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.

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.

Luke 16:
18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

After he reads these verses in their contexts especially Mark 10 and Matt 19 that focus on Genesis and Adam and Eve, he announces that this is to be trusted after how the plain wording appears to indicate what the plain meaning is. He doesn't explain or get into detail, he just says that what they have just read is the absolute truth from Jesus himself and should be trusted as written. There is hardly a question that cannot be answered by the authority in these words spoken by Jesus.

Most believers would say this man who just read to these new believers has evilly deceived them.
Why? Because, they will say, he didn't tell the truth that divorce is allowed. They will say this because they have been indoctrinated into believing that the exception of fornication is "for adultery". They are obviously declaring, that the exception clause interprted to mean an allowance for divorce for adultery is 'essential' to the verses in Matthew and absolutely essential to the overall doctrine.

The truth of the matter is that the reader of the verses has merely done what Mark did in 10:2-12 (Compare with Matt 19:3-9). He left out the exception clause to not create unnecessary uncertainty, since being a non essential aside, it does not pertain to the joined-in-marriage anyway.

Matt, how would you react?
Earlier you said this:
No. I would interpret the 4 passages exactly the same whether the exception clause were there or not because marriage is a covenant and covenants can (though they should not) be broken.
This suggests, as if it were concrete evidence for the adultery model, that since marriage is a covenant and covenants can be broken, therefore marriage can be broken. This is a failed argument that I think Steve also uses to some extent. I think this might qualify to be called a 'non sequitur'. Shouldn't you have said many covenants are breakable and you believe marriage is one of those types of covenants that can be broken?

I responded to this:
It depends on the covenant.
With Noah the covenant concerning the rainbow cannot be broken as though mankind can effect it. It is one sided.
The same with marriage, it is patterned after the first marriage therefore the terms are not detemined by the individual parties involved as if one can break it. Like the rainbow covenent, it stands under its own terms between God and married couples; as the rainbow covenant stands between God and mankind. God determined in the beginning that death and death only can terminate a marriage even if the married couple are unaware of the reality of their situation.
Whether or not they are believers is irrelevant. Since it is patterned after Adam and Eve, under which situation it was impossible for the one flesh status to have ended while they both lived, that fact dictates the terms of the covenant of marriage as ordained by God. In short, "till death do us part" are the terms. He stands on one side and has stated the reality of their situation, they stand on the other side and are obligated by the dictates of truth to abide under the natural 'till death do us part" pattern established by the first couple, something their God given conscience should easily agree with.
Any response to your 'covenants-can-be-broken argument?

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”