The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[AVoice]

But, granting the way I read it, there is no grammatical problem.

My interpretation is only blurry through your lens.

So, I think we are at an impasse. I read Jesus differently than you. I think it is a more consistent and less confusing way. I am sure you think the opposite. Both sides have been adequately argued above for any interested readers.

You don't get it.
You have to mentally read into the text a critical phrase into the last clause because of the two kinds of divorced women your rendering of the exception clause creates. Your model makes a direct connection between the exception clause and the last clause.
My view of your position is not blurry at all. I know exactly how you see it and know that the betrothal model does not need those who embrace it to mentally read into the text a critical clarifying phrase. The last clause under the betrothal model means exactly as it sounds and as the same clause means in Mark and Luke where there is no exception clause to create the comparison. All divorced wives are off limits. They are bound to their husbands til death parts them.

Find a language person and say you have a verse and the author has explained to you what it means. Explain its meaning under your model and then ask the language person if the author was competent. If Matthew meant what you say he meant, the grammar does not correspond. The language person will give no place to your ability to mentally read into the text. It is grammatically incorrect.
What grammatical incorrectness can be found in the betrothal model?

[mattrose]

Avoice,

I don't know how many times I can say the same thing. Based on your comment just now, it is clear that you still don't quite get where the differences exist between us. You continue to not grasp the fact that how a text 'sounds' to you is not necessarily how is 'sounds' to everyone.

The interpretation that you are saying is deficient does not depend on the exception clause to make the grammar work. You could take the exception clause completely out of Matthew 19:9 and I would still interpret it differently than you.

If the passage said this (and I'll even use your KJV preference):
Whosoever shall put away his wife
and shall marry another
committeth adultery
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

Even if Matthew 19:9 excluded the exception clause, as above, I would still know that passage is contextually about easy divorce and is reacting to that. I would still know, based on the whole canon of Scripture, that there are exceptions. I would still know the nature of covenants. I would still know OT history. I would still know Paul. Etc, etc.

Then, at the end of your post, you once again ask me to point out a problem with the grammar of your interpretation. How many times do I have to re-state that I think your interpretation is possible (Though unlikely). There are no grammar problems with your view in my opinion. There are no 'grammar' problems either way (except for when you force a certain hermeneutic on the traditional view, perhaps).

Sooner or later you should just admit that your point about the deficiency of the traditionally view is bankrupt. It's not a good point. It doesn't work. It isn't convincing. Now, this alone does not make your view wrong. It just means that your view is one of a number of possibilities. We have to learn to live with the reality that other mature Christians read things differently than we do.

I'm a pastor at two churches. I have never, in 8 years of ministry so far, recommended a divorce. If you're passionate FOR the marriage covenant (and not just passionate AGAINST divorce, which I fear is the reality for you), then you have bigger fish to fry, more important people to convince, then other conservative Christians.

I believe I have answered all your questions now. I also believe I have overlooked a number of times when you've ignored mine. That is fine. I encourage you to leave this topic for a year. Focus on growing in other areas of your discipleship and then, maybe, take a fresh look at it. I'd love to see you post on some threads that don't have to do with marriage/divorce.

[AVoice]

Avoice,

I don't know how many times I can say the same thing. Based on your comment just now, it is clear that you still don't quite get where the differences exist between us. You continue to not grasp the fact that how a text 'sounds' to you is not necessarily how is 'sounds' to everyone.

The interpretation that you are saying is deficient does not depend on the exception clause to make the grammar work. You could take the exception clause completely out of Matthew 19:9 and I would still interpret it differently than you.

If the passage said this (and I'll even use your KJV preference):
Whosoever shall put away his wife
and shall marry another
committeth adultery
and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

Even if Matthew 19:9 excluded the exception clause, as above, I would still know that passage is contextually about easy divorce and is reacting to that. I would still know, based on the whole canon of Scripture, that there are exceptions. I would still know the nature of covenants. I would still know OT history. I would still know Paul. Etc, etc.

Then, at the end of your post, you once again ask me to point out a problem with the grammar of your interpretation. How many times do I have to re-state that I think your interpretation is possible (Though unlikely). There are no grammar problems with your view in my opinion. There are no 'grammar' problems either way (except for when you force a certain hermeneutic on the traditional view, perhaps).

Sooner or later you should just admit that your point about the deficiency of the traditionally view is bankrupt. It's not a good point. It doesn't work. It isn't convincing. Now, this alone does not make your view wrong. It just means that your view is one of a number of possibilities. We have to learn to live with the reality that other mature Christians read things differently than we do.

I'm a pastor at two churches. I have never, in 8 years of ministry so far, recommended a divorce. If you're passionate FOR the marriage covenant (and not just passionate AGAINST divorce, which I fear is the reality for you), then you have bigger fish to fry, more important people to convince, then other conservative Christians.

I believe I have answered all your questions now. I also believe I have overlooked a number of times when you've ignored mine. That is fine. I encourage you to leave this topic for a year. Focus on growing in other areas of your discipleship and then, maybe, take a fresh look at it. I'd love to see you post on some threads that don't have to do with marriage/divorce.

It is not about how it sounds. It is about the fact that viewing the exception clause to reasonably be pointing exclusively to the betrothal divorce the grammar is technically correct.
From a pure grammatical viewpoint the grammar is competent and it works with no glitches. It fits perfectly with the verses indicating no exception.

Under your model you have to go for how it sounds and wrestle with what he must have meant because the grammar doesn't say.

So the the two models are very different. The one that is technically and actually a competent grammatical construction is deemed wrong while the one deemed right is not grammatically competent. I don't think you realize what a barrel you guys are over.
Consider the assumption: "well we have to do the best we can with what we've got because the text where Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is not so clear". The supposed concrete basic assumption that he allowed the termination of the joined marriage is what caused the entire uncertainty with the text to begin with!!
So after buiding a huge complicated wall of reasoning basically justifying that words don't mean what they say, when someone claims there is an understanding of the exception wherein the grammar of the entire verses mesh perfectly and hence the meaning should be respected, this is wiggled out of assuming that it can be no more sound than what you have as if I have go by "sound" and not actual complete grammatical competence.
The grammatical construction Jesus used cannot be duplicated with an essential exception clause and be grammatically competent. That is why the last clause doesn't fit grammatically, (I didn't say philosophically). It doesn't fit because the word fornication changed to pertain to the post marital sexual sin changes the actual 'non essential' into an 'essential' part of the sentence creating the grammatical incompetency.

I'm a pastor at two churches. I have never, in 8 years of ministry so far, recommended a divorce. If you're passionate FOR the marriage covenant (and not just passionate AGAINST divorce, which I fear is the reality for you), then you have bigger fish to fry, more important people to convince, then other conservative Christians.

Being passionate against divorce cannot be separated from being passionate FOR the marriage covenant.
Since so called conservative Christians are leading people to hell by desecrating the institution of marriage by misunderstanding the exception clause, is not preventing the disaster of hell coming upon a believer a worthy cause?

You did not respond to the post showing some covenants are one sided.
You did not answer concerning how polygamy cannot be allowed but divorce can, since God does both, allegorically in the prophets writings.

You have not presented a grammatical construction showing an essential exception clause performing what you say it can perform.

[Homer]

AVoice,

If adultery does not give ground for dissolution of the marriage bond, then a man may not divorce his wife if she has multiple lovers or even when his wife has abandoned herself to prostitution. This seems quite contrary to the principle of purity expressed by the apostle:

1 Corinthians 6:15-17
New King James Version (NKJV)

15. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16. Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” 17. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Wouldn't dissolution of the marriage bond be the proper means and, in some cases, the mandatory means of securing release from a bond that binds so uniquely to one who is thus defiled? To remain "one flesh" with one who is "one flesh" with many others surely would defile the husband, whose body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit". And what's more, this adulterous wife still has authority over her husband's body as long as the marriage bond remains! Your model in this case is absurd.

It must be remembered that divorce and remarriage, if there is no exception, is twice a sin. The divorce is a sin and the remarriage is a sin. And conversely if it is not a sin to divorce, it is not a sin to remarry.

[steve]

AVoice,
Please don't post any more on this topic. You have repeated yourself a hundred times, and you are clearly not able to follow a reasoned argument by anyone who disagrees with you, nor, apparently, to convince anyone of your exegetical prowess.

I do not know why this topic has become such a hobby-horse for you, but I am assuming you have alienated all of your real-life friends with your pharisaic obsession with this, and have had to come to the forum to find an avenue to ventilate. Well, you have done so quite adequately now, and you can let the keyboard cool down, or else take it elsewhere. One reason I have not interacted more with you here is that I find nothing of the Spirit of Christ in your combative attitude, nothing of love for the brethren, and no interest in learning anything.

[Homer]

AVoice,

You accuse others of being unwilling to learn while you do not respond to what others are saying. In fact you seem to pay little attention to what is written in response to you. I can hardly believe you wrote this:

Since the word porneia in Greek is also used as it is in English disproves the false claim that fornication can not mean the premarital sexual sin exclusively which is one unique definition it has.

That porneia can mean premarital sex has been acknowledged. But that it can mean that does nothing to establish your point of view. Have you ever noticed that when Jesus said "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder" he did not use the word that technically means "divorce"? The word translated "asunder" is chorizo:

Strong's Number: 5563 xwriðzw
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling:
Chorizo kho-rid'-zo

Definition:
to separate, divide, part, put asunder, to separate one's self from, to depart
to leave a husband or wife
of divorce
to depart, go away

Divorce is only one way to put what God has joined together "asunder". If a husband or wife runs away to live with someone else, the marriage has already been "put asunder", divorce or not. This does not preclude reconciliation, but the covenant has been broken.

[steve]

I deleted AVoice's last post (which preceded Homer's), because he ignored my request that he post no more on this subject. I suppose I would like for others to see his/her parting shot, so I will paste it below. Afterward, I will be deleting anything more he/she posts at this site. If anyone imagines that we need to hear further repetition of his/her arguments, and his/her refusal to deal with corrections, and that I should not delete his/her future posts, then I am open to others' opinions. I am doing it for the benefit of responsible users of the forum, not myself.

Here is what he posted:

The Lord rebuke you.
If God could afflict you with an illness that could be merciful, as it is written, he opens their ears in their affliction.

You are the one not answering my questions.
I take note that you are not able to prove that language can function after the manner your model makes necessary.
The fact that one sided covenants exist disproves the 'covenant' argument.
That God used polygamy to parallel his relationship disproves your "if God did it we can do it" hypothesis.
Since the word porneia in Greek is also used as it is in English disproves the false claim that fornication can not mean the premarital sexual sin exclusively which is one unique definition it has.

For a man apparently living in adultery, and hence condemned, to accuse another of having nothing of love for the brethren, well that is what defines Phariseeism. Speaking truth as opposed to speaking lies, the one is conducive to love, the other in line with Satan.

No interest in learning anything is what you appear to be bent on concerning this topic.

The Lord rebuke you.
If God could afflict you with an illness that could be merciful, as it is written, he opens their ears in their affliction.

The suggestion that some here have made "the false claim that fornication can not mean the premarital sexual sin" gives evidence that AVoice has heard nothing that has been written by others here. Who made this "false claim"?

As for the "man apparently living in adultery," I am not sure what man that is. Is there someone at this forum living in adultery? If so, I have not been informed of it. It sounds like he/she means me, but, since I am unmarried and celibate, I do not see how I would qualify as one "living in adultery." However, I have no qualms about remarriage, so it is possible that I will enter, in the future, into a marriage that AVoice would call "adultery."

To suggest that I disagree because I have "no interest in learning anything," fails to take into consideration the possibility that I am very interested in learning things, but that not everyone who wishes to teach me is capable of presenting a compelling biblical case. Being selective about whose arguments you find convincing is not the same thing as not wishing to learn anything.

[mattrose]

I think it was necessary to end this thread, as you did.

But I'd be glad to have Avoice continue on the site, so long as he posts on other subjects! He never posted on any subject beside this one. I googled 'Avoice' and it seems he's done the exact same thing on at least one other Christian message board.

[Paidion]

I agree with your action also, Steve. Indeed, I admire your patience in putting up with these posts as long as you did.