a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

[AVoice]

First of all, I want to point out that none of what you posted has anything to do with why I posted that syllogism. I'm assuming by the fact that you've moved the discussion on to another point without dealing with that one means that you agree with me on the point I was addressing - that the exception clause cannot be reasonably read to mean that a woman divorced on the grounds of porneia can freely remarry in a way that a woman divorced on any other grounds cannot.

The thread cuts right to the heart of the matter because it provides a very straightforward way to vindicate the 'divorce for adultery' explanation of the exception clause. I am glad that you have gotten back on track by attempting to vindicate that explanation by providing a parallel.
But back to this point concerning how the mechanics of the sentence operate.
The divorce in betrothal explanation functions the same way as the parallels function that have been previously presented and as your parallel will also be shown to function. Those former parallels [along with yours (to be shown)], function very differently than how they should function in order to vindicate the divorce for adultery explanation.
So lets get back to this point later. For now I expect you to agree that the mechanics operate to state that when divorced for "fornication" she is NOT caused to commit adultery, but when not divorced for fornication, she is caused to commit adultery. Both sides of the argument [yours that believes fornication means adultery, and mine that disagrees] must agree to that basic function. The 'having been caused' versus 'not having been caused'. She that was divorced after the manner allowed is not caused to commit adultery, while she who was divorced not after the manner allowed is caused to commit adultery.
Let's leave that there for now since I understand we both agree on that basic function of the sentence.

 

[AVoice]

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
E) except if their lives are in danger,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.


The backstory is a commonly understood norm for a bicycle gang. It has been tradition for many years to yell at people "if necessary", and most people interpreted this to mean that "necessary" meant "if people were on the road".

However, one of the people actually says that this is not right, and that all people who yell at others on the street, except if that yelling was to prevent loss of life, were implicated in wrongdoing, and doing something that was actually UNnecessary. In fact, it was so bad that even those who were not instigators, but simply joined in, were just as guilty.

Again, I think this is a sideshow, but have at it

It is not a sideshow because a very main point the challenge makes is that when the specific topic of discussion is identified, as established in clause A, then the exception clause CANNOT be providing partial allowance to do that specific action. The sentence format forbids it.
So the background story brings clarity on what kind of yelling was being done. It obviously was not the kind of yelling where they were roaming the streets on their bikes looking for people who were in danger with the express purpose to yell at people in that kind of situation.
So let's add that critical information to clause A

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street, and laugh when you see them get aggravated"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
E) except if their lives are in danger,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.

Notice that when clarified what specific kind of yelling was done, (with the purpose to aggravate) then clause E can be omitted altogether and the sentence doesn't suffer by its absence:

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street, and laugh when you see them get aggravated"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.

Your clause E jumped off to a side point, a kind of yelling (the responsible kind) that the topic of discussion was not about.

Your parallel has vindicated the divorce in betrothal explanation. It has not vindicated the divorce for adultery explanation.
It did not provide partial allowance to do the same thing that clause A establishes to be the specific topic of discussion.
[Try now to change the exception clause to provide partial allowance to yell irresponsibly, and see what happens].

Your exception clause was "non essential". Therefore it can be omitted altogether and not take away from the central message being made with regard to the central topic of discussion. That is exactly how the exception clause functions under the divorce in betrothal explanation.

Please try again.

 

[AVoice]

A When it rains on the grass, the grass becomes wet.

B (neg A) When it is not raining on the grass, the grass does not become wet.

Jesus did not use that sentence format. He is speaking of something done and a specific negative thing which that action causes. With an exception clause in that kind of sentence then there are two situations. In the one case the negative thing is caused and in the other case the negative thing is not caused. Make a sentence using the actual sentence format Jesus used to disprove it. You used a totally non appropriate syllogism.
The fact remains, the woman divorced in the case of "for fornication" is not caused to commit adultery afterward as the result of having been divorced for that. Likewise, the wife divorced for what is not recognized as the allowable divorce IS caused to afterward commit adultery as the result of that divorce.

We may ask a very reasonable question concerning her that was divorced not after the manner allowed: how is she caused to afterward commit adultery as the result of having been divorced? She is vulnerable to other men. She has lost her safe haven of her home that she enjoyed before the divorce. The divorcer brought that predicament upon her. He thereby causes her to commit adultery afterward as the result of the divorce. I suppose both of our positions will agree with this explanation how she is caused to commit adultery.

But now let us ask the same kind of question concerning the woman divorced for adultery under your 'divorce for adultery' explanation: How is that woman not caused to commit adultery afterward as the result of having been divorced? Hasn't she also lost the safe haven of her home which she enjoyed before the divorce? Explain how she is not caused to commit adultery.
A person may say because the divorce has terminated the marriage, which is why he can marry afterward and it is not adultery as per Matt 19:9.
The problem exists there because the innocently divorced (under your explanation, which creates a comparison between two divorced women) is off limits because whoever marries her commits adultery, but the guilty is free to remarry because that divorce terminates the marriage.
This is in itself a contradiction because the whole underlying premise of allowing divorce for adultery in the first place is about the assumed "right' the man should have to divorce her if she committed adultery. It is seen as a just and fair thing for him to be able to divorce and remarry due to her wrong against him. All of a sudden the shoe doesn't fit the other foot: when the tables turn and the innocent one is the wife who was divorced, then where is the right of the innocent to remarry? That is why Jason asserts that the last clause must pertain only to the wife divorced for adultery. So there is ambiguity there, Jason is focused on the fair treatment of the innocent and therefore he asserts the last clause cannot pertain to her because she would be getting punished while the guilty is free. You see it differently, while the actual text gives a blanket statement suggesting any divorced woman after the manner established by clause A, is off limits, whoever marries her commits adultery. Whether she is divorced for something much worse than adultery, or for adultery, or for something less than for adultery, the fact remains that whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery.
Jason's explanation of the last clause is much more embarrassing than yours, but they both fail miserably. You both hold to the divorce for adultery explanation.
The divorce in betrothal explanation does not suffer such textual embarrassment.

 

[AVoice]

The things you are missing are a proper formula, and an understanding of WHY it causes adultery.

The issues in your formula:

"A" must begin with the same clause as "1".
The exemption in "2" must be a negative term related to the negative judgement in "3" and "4".

Your examples have far to many object/verb relation issues to properly justify your line of reasoning.

The reason it causes adultery has nothing to do with the woman being "used goods", but has to do with the vow taken.
If she did not break the vow, then anyone who marries her is causing her to break her vow, thus being an adulterer.

If she has already broken her vow, and is released from the vow by her husband, then someone who takes her as a wife is free from guilt (although the woman is not free from guilt, but that is not dealt with in this passage).


Take FROM the Scriptures. Do not ADD to them.
Presuppositions are very dangerous when teaching the Word.

Solid, this is the parallel that Nick provided:

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street, and laugh when you see them get aggravated"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
E) except if their lives are in danger,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.

Clause 1 reiterates what clause A says like in Matt 5:31,32, as you pointed out.
What is faulty with Nicks attempt?

If what I am saying is a presupposition then it will be very easy to show that I am wrong. I am saying that the sentence format Jesus used CANNOT have an exception clause that provides partial allowance for the specific topic under discussion.
You are claiming that to be a presumption. I am claiming it to be a fact and inviting anyone on the planet to disprove it. All you have to do to disprove it is to provide a sentence on any topic after the format of Matt 5:31,32 that can function the way the divorce for adultery folks say it performs. They say it performs by the exception clause providing partial allowance for the same thing that clause A establishes to be the topic of discussion.
Please help Nick with his parallel.
It is urgent that I get straightened out on this if I am wrong. Please do not neglect my pleas for your help.

 

[AVoice]

It is not a sideshow because a very main point the challenge makes is that when the specific topic of discussion is identified, as established in clause A, then the exception clause CANNOT be providing partial allowance to do that specific action. The sentence format forbids it.
So the background story brings clarity on what kind of yelling was being done. It obviously was not the kind of yelling where they were roaming the streets on their bikes looking for people who were in danger with the express purpose to yell at people in that kind of situation.
So let's add that critical information to clause A

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street, and laugh when you see them get aggravated"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
E) except if their lives are in danger,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.

Notice that when clarified what specific kind of yelling was done, (with the purpose to aggravate) then clause E can be omitted altogether and the sentence doesn't suffer by its absence:

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street, and laugh when you see them get aggravated"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.

Your clause E jumped off to a side point, a kind of yelling (the responsible kind) that the topic of discussion was not about.

Your parallel has vindicated the divorce in betrothal explanation. It has not vindicated the divorce for adultery explanation.
It did not provide partial allowance to do the same thing that clause A establishes to be the specific topic of discussion.
[Try now to change the exception clause to provide partial allowance to yell irresponsibly, and see what happens].

Your exception clause was "non essential". Therefore it can be omitted altogether and not take away from the central message being made with regard to the central topic of discussion. That is exactly how the exception clause functions under the divorce in betrothal explanation.

Please try again.

Nick took the challenge and provided a parallel sentence to Matt 5:31,32.
As he probably realizes now, I knew exactly what would happen if he took the challenge and provided a parallel sentence.
That is because he would naturally provide a sentence that makes sense. That is the death knell for his attempt to succeed because when fornication is assumed to mean adultery in Matt 5:31,32, the sentence does NOT make sense. So he was being challenged to make a sentence that conforms to his explanation that Jesus allows divorce for adultery, which means he has to make a sentence that is nonsensical! But of course he made a sentence that was sensible. And being sensible the exception clause HAS TO BE a non essential clause, the ONLY kind of exception clause which that kind of sentence format can accommodate. That is the kind of exception clause we see in Matt 5:31,32 when the divorce in betrothal explanation is embraced, and wherein the sentence has a straightforward sensible meaning.

 

[phil112]

..........

 

[AVoice]

..........

phil,
You behave as if you are knowledgeable and confident and can defend what you believe.

Here is Matt 5:31,32 broken down in its 6 parts to be easily identifiable in order to be able to discuss it.

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication [read as 'adultery' by the divorce-for-adultery folks]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Notice the last clause, clause 4.
Does this apply to the woman divorced for adultery, the woman divorced for something other than for adultery, or does it apply to both? Here is your chance to defend the divorce for adultery belief and show that the text literally supports it.

 

[AVoice]

Here is another parallel that was made to try to vindicate the 'divorce for adultery' explanation:

Harvest time has passed in the north and they are now sorting apples in the warehouse. The weather has changed and it is getting down below freezing at night. The workers are saying that there is no concern in leaving the apples outside because rumour has it that there is a certain amount of naturally occurring salt in the apple that will prevent it from freezing if left out unprotected. The boss finds out that they intend to not bring the apples inside. He has a meeting with the employees and says:
A) You have heard it said that leaving apples outside of the warehouse should be OK
B) But I say to you
1) whoever leaves apples out at night
2) unless placed in some kind of adequately insulated container
3) causes financial loss due to ruined product
4) and whosoever is found to have encouraged such will be held guilty of the same

This makes sense. That means the exception clause functions as a "non essential" clause.
Under the 'divorce for adultery' explanation the exception clause functions as an "essential" clause. Two entirely different ways of functioning.
So in answer to the enquiry, how did the parallel fare, the answer is that the parallel failed because the exception clause in that parallel did NOT provide partial allowance for the same thing under discussion (leaving apples out unprotected). That exception clause jumped off to what was not the specific topic of discussion, the same way Matt 5:31,32 works under the 'divorce in betrothal' explanation. So the parallel vindicates my understanding instead of the 'divorce for adultery' understanding.

The 'divorce for adultery' position is assuming the verses (Matt 5:31,32) make it necessary that fornication there has to mean adultery. But there is an alternative explanation what fornication means there as it would apply to their different kind of cultural divorce done BEFORE marriage, while only betrothed, (a form of engagement). In that case the exception clause is read as disconnected from the rest of the verse as it simply identifies a different way to divorce that would not cause the divorcee to commit adultery. [The above parallel provided an entirely different way of leaving the apples outside].
What has been discovered is that that kind of clause (that jumps out of context to some degree) to touch on a side point is called a "non essential clause". We have all used these in numerous sentences throughout our lives. But because we are not aware in Western and modern society with that weird OTHER kind of divorce [done premaritally for fornication, not for adultery] it is hard for us to re-adjust our mindset to see it in that way they were able to see it more clearly in the first century.
Notice I pointed out that when Matt 5:31,32 is read with this understanding the exception clause becomes disconnected, it becomes a "non essential" clause.
Amazingly, it is proven that the particular sentence structure in Matt 5:31,32 can ONLY accommodate a 'non essential' exception clause. That means God chose a sentence structure that Jesus used in Matt 5:31,32 that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that adultery was NOT given as a grounds for divorce. When "fornication" in that sentence is assumed to mean adultery then the sentence falls apart grammatically; it becomes convoluted because then the exception clause is "essential", when in reality that particular kind of sentence can ONLY accommodate a 'non essential' exception clause.

 

[secularhermit]

At the end of the day, it wasn´t Jesus the one who had children another man placed in a woman a man married. At the end of the day, it wasn´t Jesus the one who felt hurt or humilliated when a man or a woman was disloyal and a cheater. At the dawn of a new day, after a person gets divorced, he or she knows what were theirs fights and no one is called to be in the bondage you´ve mentioned (adultery or fornication).

I don´t care what Paul might have suggested or adviced, because I have to give an account (to God) for the life I´ve lived gropingly, when I lacked a sure voice to warn me what to do or what to avoid and I myself messed it up. No one else to blame: It was just me.

 

[AVoice]

At the end of the day, it wasn´t Jesus the one who had children another man placed in a woman a man married. At the end of the day, it wasn´t Jesus the one who felt hurt or humilliated when a man or a woman was disloyal and a cheater. At the dawn of a new day, after a person gets divorced, he or she knows what were theirs fights and no one is called to be in the bondage you´ve mentioned (adultery or fornication).

I don´t care what Paul might have suggested or adviced, because I have to give an account (to God) for the life I´ve lived gropingly, when I lacked a sure voice to warn me what to do or what to avoid and I myself messed it up. No one else to blame: It was just me.

If a person has messed it up to the point of having become remarried into adultery, then it is a continuation of that mess-up to not get out of that adulterous relationship. Like being in a burning house and deciding to not get out. Adulterers shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and the light of the NT has identified remarriage as being the sin of adultery.
It will be shocking to those who by civil authority and general opinion believed they lived a decent life but to find out at judgment they were sexually immoral by having lived in what God says is adultery.

 

[secularhermit]

If a person has messed it up to the point of having become remarried into adultery, then it is a continuation of that mess-up to not get out of that adulterous relationship. Like being in a burning house and deciding to not get out. Adulterers shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and the light of the NT has identified remarriage as being the sin of adultery.
It will be shocking to those who by civil authority and general opinion believed they lived a decent life but to find out at judgment they were sexually immoral by having lived in what God says is adultery.

God knows it better than any of us!

Jesus said: "Mat 19:8 Jesus answered, "Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you refused to accept God's teaching. But divorce was not allowed in the beginning. " I would dare to say: "It wasn´t needed" but today His eyes can see why and yet that sort of legalism can be used to "discouraged" those who want to inherit heaven, the way you said, sir.

Those days of the Lord His people also said: "Mat 19:10 "If that is the only reason a man can divorce his wife, it is better not to marry." " so, is it fornication the way? No! not even a messy life stubbornly lived. But those days people were asked and were raised to live virginity out so, a married woman who resulted the opposite way gave that man a chance to divorce (to remarry) but who knows better than GOD what a man or a woman has in her mind?

Sexual immorality isn´t only in the body, but also in the mind.

If God chooses to cast me into the Hell, He does it right.

 

[AVoice]

God knows it better than any of us!

Jesus said: "Mat 19:8 Jesus answered, "Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because you refused to accept God's teaching. But divorce was not allowed in the beginning. " I would dare to say: "It wasn´t needed" but today His eyes can see why and yet that sort of legalism can be used to "discouraged" those who want to inherit heaven, the way you said, sir.

Those days of the Lord His people also said: "Mat 19:10 "If that is the only reason a man can divorce his wife, it is better not to marry." " so, is it fornication the way? No! not even a messy life stubbornly lived. But those days people were asked and were raised to live virginity out so, a married woman who resulted the opposite way gave that man a chance to divorce (to remarry) but who knows better than GOD what a man or a woman has in her mind?

Sexual immorality isn´t only in the body, but also in the mind.

If God chooses to cast me into the Hell, He does it right.

"My people are destroyed through lack of knowledge".
By being uncertain and gambling with your soul supposing he will let you slide into heaven if in reality his word shows you are unworthy: is a very unwise choice to make.
If his word shows you are living in adultery by being involved with a woman who by Jesus' words is not your actual lawful wife in God's eyes, then by all means get out of that adultery. Eternity is not worth ANYTHING this temporal life has to offer.
Jesus did not make adultery a grounds for divorce. That is a delusion effecting many to live in adultery and thereby forfeit eternal life.
Adulterers shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Be assured of that. Make your decision wisely and in the fear of God.

 

[phil112]

phil,
You behave as if you are knowledgeable and confident and can defend what you believe.

Here is Matt 5:31,32 broken down in its 6 parts to be easily identifiable in order to be able to discuss it.

....................

I have given you scripture. Very clear scripture. Truth is immutable. God is truth. He gave me that truth and I stand on it. Of course I am confident.

................... having lived in what God says is adultery.

So you don't believe that Paul is from God. You don't believe that God chose Paul from his mothers womb. You don't believe that Christ told Paul what to teach. Tell me, how is that you sift out part of the bible as fiction and not the rest? Do you have some knowledge that you should be sharing so that we might all benefit from the truth that only you seem to possess?

 

[AVoice]

I have given you scripture. Very clear scripture. Truth is immutable. God is truth. He gave me that truth and I stand on it. Of course I am confident.

So you don't believe that Paul is from God. You don't believe that God chose Paul from his mothers womb. You don't believe that Christ told Paul what to teach. Tell me, how is that you sift out part of the bible as fiction and not the rest? Do you have some knowledge that you should be sharing so that we might all benefit from the truth that only you seem to possess?

I explained how 1 Cor 7 can be clearly understood to not contradict the 5 places where Jesus said remarriage is adultery. Paul affirmed the same thing twice. Hence 1 Cor 7:15 can be easily seen to NOT support the permission to get remarried and commit adultery. See 1 Cor 7:39. Being free to be separate without it being sinful, and being free to get married again are two entirely different things. I believe you have wrongly assumed that the freedom to be separated, without it being a sin, is the freedom to get married again.

There you go, slandering me again:

So you don't believe that Paul is from God. You don't believe that God chose Paul from his mothers womb. You don't believe that Christ told Paul what to teach.

Please respond appropriately. You know full well that we have a difference of opinion of what Paul was saying in its context. To slander me by saying the things you said above is simply not acceptable here. I believe Paul is from God. I believe God chose Paul from his mother's womb. I believe that Christ told Paul what to teach.

Your slander seems to have no limit. Your accusations are just horrible:

Tell me, how is that you sift out part of the bible as fiction and not the rest?

I do not regard any of the Bible as fiction. I take the Bible very seriously. I believe you need to repent from very childish behavior.

Earlier, I asked you some questions that would enable you to defend your belief that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery.
Am I correct that you simply dismissed those questions; that you choose to not answer?

 

[jeff_peacemkr]

That's kind of an unfair question here, as you may know, because no one can truthfully defend their own divorce and remarriage stance in the usa, even if they had 20 theological schools behind them.

However, the point isn't that it is or isn't a fair or unfair question, but as long as people depend on anyone or anything other than the Creator Himself for Truth Revelation in Yahushua Hamashiach, they will simply go along thinking 'they have it right' , without ever having had it right in the first place.

I think Jesus put it something like "forever learning, and never getting to knowledge of the Truth".... which goes on and on and on ("forever")..... UNTIL SURPRISE! Salvation comes! .... ..... (hope in Yhvh for His Mercy in Christ Jesus).....

i.e.
less than 1% of people so far(out of thousands met in the last several decades, in person and online and 'by the hearing thereof') admitting openly and/or confessing openly Yahushua as Master , Jesus as Lord,
keep on seeking Him to get to the Truth of the matter. most everyone seems to settle for way less than second best......

 

[Kerry]

I don't know I have never been divorced and married 24 years and still loving it. Praise God.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Well, that was some read.

After 7 somewhat tedious (at times) pages of reading, I'm still right where I landed many years ago after having had the Lord thoroughly teach me on this topic.

Yes, despite hoping, nay, BEGGING, to be wrong and despite having read multiple books on the topic, articles galore and despite having either viewed or directly partaken in many, many discussions on this topic (or both), I'm still faced with the seemingly inevitable conclusion:

That "AVoice's" position is correct...and not solely for any "sentence structure" reasons.

I can easily refute so much of the nonsense which was brought in the form of counter-arguments here, even if begrudgingly (in that I was hoping that somebody would convince me contrary to what I know to be the truth...especially since I personally know many, many people who are "remarried"...a.k.a. living in adultery), and also offer additional scriptural insight here and I suppose that I eventually will.

Right now, after so long a read, I just need to give my brain (and my troubled spirit) a rest.

 

[phil112]

......................There you go, slandering me again:



Please respond appropriately. You know full well that we have a difference of opinion of what Paul was saying in its context. .................................

slander

• [h=5]n.noun[/h]
  • Oral communication of false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another.
    
    
  • A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
    

There you go lying. I said nothing false about you.
Your opinion is worthless if it contradicts scripture, and your opinion contradicts scripture. The bible is clear and that is exactly what I brought. Christ was talking to jews in a covenant relationship with God. When He said something for you and I, He told Paul to tell us. He couldn't, seeing as those jews He was trying to save murdered Him.
You sit at your keyboard and try to make yourself out to be a physical jew - at least it seems so since you want a doctrine meant for them to apply to you.

That's kind of an unfair question here, as you may know, because no one can truthfully defend their own divorce and remarriage stance in the usa, even if they had 20 theological schools behind them.........................

Why do you disregard Paul's teaching on divorce and marriage? Why is Paul so wonderful to you people....that is right up until he gives doctrine on that subject?

You folks better wake up and smell the coffee. You all claim to believe the bible, claim to accept the gospel, right up, that is, until it contradicts something you have been taught in error. If you don't believe Paul, you might as well throw your bible in the trash. If you think Paul's teaching is false, then none of it can be trusted, unless, as I put to voice, you care to clue the rest of us in about your secret. You know, how you tell Paul is lying and the other scriptures aren't.

 

[jeff_peacemkr]

Good, JesusistheChrist, over a long time, verifying and holding to the Word of God , Truth.
Some little children, rare as they are, who learn from Jesus, learn easily and simply and comparatively quickly the same thing, as God Teaches His children the Truth Perfectly.

as to those who misread and misquote and mistranslate Paul, there's nothing to do for them. Paul was taught by Jesus, and Taught what Jesus said to Teach. Men got hold of it and twisted it for the last 2000 years,
so it's not surprise that so many are confused.

Well, that was some read.
After 7 somewhat tedious (at times) pages of reading, I'm still right where I landed many years ago after having had the Lord thoroughly teach me on this topic.
Yes, despite hoping, nay, BEGGING, to be wrong and despite having read multiple books on the topic, articles galore and despite having either viewed or directly partaken in many, many discussions on this topic (or both), I'm still faced with the seemingly inevitable conclusion:
That "AVoice's" position is correct...and not solely for any "sentence structure" reasons.
I can easily refute so much of the nonsense which was brought in the form of counter-arguments here, even if begrudgingly (in that I was hoping that somebody would convince me contrary to what I know to be the truth...especially since I personally know many, many people who are "remarried"...a.k.a. living in adultery), and also offer additional scriptural insight here and I suppose that I eventually will.
Right now, after so long a read, I just need to give my brain (and my troubled spirit) a rest.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Fortunately I am not a Jew so that doesn't apply to me.

Hi, Agricola.

Matthew 5:31-32 doesn't apply to you because you're "not a Jew"?

How about Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12? Do they apply to you as a non-Jew?

Matthew chapter 19

[1] And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
[2] And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He 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.
[9] And 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.
[10] His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
[11] But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
[12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Mark chapter 10

[1] And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
[2] And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
[3] And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
[4] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
[5] And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
[6] But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
[7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
[8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
[9] What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
[10] And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
[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.

When the Pharisees came to Jesus and "tempted Him" (they were always trying to catch Him in His Words that they might accuse Him) by asking Him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Matthew 19:3), Jesus responded to their question with a question of His Own, namely this, "What did Moses command you?" (Mark 10:3). Of course, the Pharisees responded to Jesus' question with a precept of Moses from Deuteronomy chapter 24, a precept which Jesus informed them had only been given them "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Matthew 19:8, Mark 10:5), but this is not the type of answer that Jesus was looking for. You see, whereas "Deuteronomy" literally means "second law"...

Online Etymology Dictionary

Deuteronomy (n.)

5th book of the Pentateuch, late 14c., from Late Latin Deuteronomium, from Greek Deuteronomion, literally "second law," from deuteros "second" (see deuterium) + nomos "law" (see numismatics). A mistranslation of Hebrew mishneh hattorah hazzoth "a copy of this law" [Deut. xvii:18]. The book is a repetition, with comments, of the Decalogue and most of the laws of Exodus. The title was translated literally into Old English as æfteræ, literally "after-law."

...Jesus was looking for what Moses had commanded them in relation to what God had ordained "from the beginning" (Matthew 19:8) or, more fully, "from the beginning of the creation" (Mark 10:6). IOW, Jesus was looking for what Moses had commanded them in Genesis:

Online Etymology Dictionary

genesis (n.)

Old English Genesis, first book of the Pentateuch, from Latin genesis, adopted as title of first book of Old Testament in Vulgate, from Greek genesis "origin, creation, generation," from gignesthai "to be born," related to genos "race, birth, descent" (see genus). As such, it translated Hebrew bereshith, literally "in the beginning," which was the first word of the text, taken as its title. Extended sense of "origin, creation" first recorded in English c.1600.

Yes, the proper answer to Jesus' question, "What did Moses command you?", is found here:

Genesis chapter 2

[20] And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

According to Jesus (and we'd be wise to listen to Him), "from the beginning of the creation", GOD ORDAINED that marriage ought to be between a "male and female" (Matthew 19:4) or "a man" and "his wife" and such potentially leads to them becoming a "father" and a "mother". I'm sorry, but with this world in which we presently live being so opposed to both God and His original creation design, I felt the need to mention the same. IOW, God will NEVER sanction a "marriage" between either two men or two women. No, a God ordained marriage is between a "male and female" or "a man" and "his wife" and the same is a "one flesh" union which ought not be "put asunder" or separated. IOW, those who have now been made "one flesh" ought not seek to become two or "twain" again...with the exception of "the exception clause" which I'll address in a future post.

Anyhow, tell me/us, Agricola, when Jesus answered His Own question as to what "Moses had commanded" in relation to "putting away" or divorce by reminding His hearers that "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder", how many "Jews" was He talking about?

Was Adam "a Jew"?

Was Eve "a Jew"?

Neither one of them could have possibly been "Jews" because the word "Jew" is derived from Jacob's/Israel's fourth son, "Judah", and he wasn't born until about 2,000 years later on the other side of Noah's flood:

Online Etymology Dictionary

Jew (n.)

12c. (in plural, giwis), from Anglo-French iuw, Old French giu, from Latin Iudaeum (nominative Iudaeus), from Greek Ioudaios, from Aramaic jehudhai (Hebrew y'hudi) "Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," literally "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced Old English Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah."

Seeing how neither Adam nor Eve were "Jews" and seeing how "from the beginning of the creation" GOD ORDAINED that "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder", does this teaching "apply to you" as a non-Jew? You'd better believe that it does in that it applies to every single person, whether Gentile or Jew, who has ever been born or every single descendant of Adam and Eve.

Anyhow, that was merely an introduction to this whole nonsensical "Jew vs. Gentile" excuse and I'll deal with it much more directly in future posts as both God and time allow me to.

Btw, seeing how I can already hear the objection, "Yeah, that pertains to what 'GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER', but what about people who were unsaved when they got married?", I'll address the same from scripture in a later post when I have more time available to me to do so. Also, I know that I didn't address "the exception clause" in this post, but I will address the same directly somewhere down the line as, again, both God and time allow me to.

P.S.

I might as well quickly address Moses' precept from Deuteronomy chapter 24 since it came up in this post. Moses wrote:

Deuteronomy chapter 24

[1] When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
[2] And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
[3] And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
[4] Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Under Moses' precept which, again, was only given "because of the hardness of their hearts", a wife who had been given "a bill of divorcement" could not return to her former husband. Again, it was "the hardness of their hearts" which prompted such a precept in that such a precept does NOT properly reflect the heart and mind of God. No, instead, we read:

"They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 3:1)

Here, while speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, "the LORD" revealed His true heartset and mindset in relation to divorce which we know that He "hates" (Malachi 2:16). Yes, here, "the LORD", while referring His hearers back to Moses' precept in Deuteronomy chapter 24 which, again, was only given "because of the hardness of their hearts", told the "put away" or "divorced" wife who had since gone to "become another man's" wife to "RETURN AGAIN TO ME". IOW, seeing how marriage or the natural union between a man and his wife was originally ordained and designed by God to reflect the spiritual union between Christ (the Bridegroom) and His church (the bride) as Paul explained in Ephesians chapter 5 and seeing how God is repeatedly depicted in scripture as seeking to woo back His Own wayward "wife" or the one who was "espoused" to Him, ought not husbands be earnestly seeking and desiring the same in relation to their own wives? Yes, they ought to...if they want to properly reflect Christ, that is. What about wives? I mean, seeing how their role as a wife was ordained by God to reflect the proper response of the church (the bride) to Christ (the Bridegroom), ought they not be seeking to be reconciled unto their own husbands or ought they to rather be teaching the world by analogy that it's perfectly fine for Christians to "divorce" Christ and then to join themselves to another?

Well, like I said, this was just an introduction...