A
The Challenge
Make a sentence like this:
Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Let us break it down and identify what the sentence does on a very basic level:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) But I say unto you, [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [if a particular act is done)
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) causeth her to commit adultery: [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now let us isolate what the parallel is supposed to do:
A) [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) [if a particular act is done)
2) [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now an example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) but I say to you:
1) whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".
Another example:
A) You have heard it said that if you need something at home, go ahead and take it, the boss won’t even know it’s gone
B) but I say to you
1) that whoever takes something
2) except with permission to borrow
3) causes their employer monetary loss
4) and whoever urges an employee to pilfer is an accomplice in the crime.
Another example:
A) You have heard it said that the spacesuits of our older comrades should be taken from them:
B) but I say to you that
1) anyone who takes a space walking spaceman’s spacesuit from him,
2) except in the case where he’s already dead,
3) will cause him to die
4) and anyone using the spacesuit taken from a spaceman will be deemed an accomplice.
The kind of sentence that Matt 5:32 is, doing what it has been shown to do on a very basic level, cannot make sense while having an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing, as established by A). In the first example about apples, the topic is obviously about apples in good condition. The exception clause does not give partial permission to put good apples on the hoods of cars. Rather, the exception clause jumps to what was not under consideration or even hinted at; rotten apples. In the second example, pertaining to a culture of pilfering by employees, the exception clause also does not give partial permission to take what is needed at home without permission. The exception clause jumps to something other than what the topic of the sentence is as established by A). In the third example, as well, the exception clause jumps to taking from a dead spaceman when the topic of discussion was about taking from a live spaceman. In these cases, if attempts are made to make the exception clause provide partial allowance concerning what the topic of discussion is, as established in A), then the sentence becomes literally non coherent. That is because such an attempt is in reality an attempt to force a sentence that can only accommodate a “nonessential” exception clause, (that jumps to a side point not under discussion) to accommodate an “essential” exception clause (that provides partial allowance of what is under discussion). It is impossible for this kind of sentence to have an exception clause that provides partial allowance for what is being discussed, as established in A), and at the same time to make literal sense.
Notice how the sentences in the three examples above have a reasonable flow of comprehension. They are coherent. It is not necessary to read and reread numerous times and speculate what the author was trying to convey and devise different theories concerning what was the intended meaning. But if the exception clause of these parallels were changed to possess an essential exception clause, providing partial allowance of what is being discussed, then there would be good reason to start speculating because there would not be a flow of comprehension. For example, in the last parallel; if the exception clause were to provide partial allowance by saying, “unless the astronaut is over 60 years old”, then the sentence becomes convoluted. So it is with Matt 5:31,32; the entire sentence makes no literal straightforward sense and is convoluted when it is assumed that Jesus is providing partial allowance to do what he is addressing, which is the post marital divorce. He is speaking of post marital divorces as per Matt 5:31 (referencing Deut 24:1), and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance of that kind of divorce; for her having committed adultery. Notice the convoluted mess it is when fornication is assumed to mean adultery:
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]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
If whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery as per 4), then how can the mechanics of the sentence simultaneously say that she that was divorced for adultery was not caused to commit adultery if divorced for that reason? If she that was divorced for stinky feet is caused to commit adultery, obviously because she becomes vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house, then isn’t the woman divorced for adultery likewise not caused to commit adultery, similarly, that she is not made vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house? The whole long sentence cannot be taken literally and make sense. Interjecting phrases and making complex deductions becomes necessary to arrive at theories what the author must have intended.
Now read the exception clause as NOT providing partial allowance, but rather as a nonessential exception clause that jumps away to touch on something other than what the sentence is centrally addressing, as established in A):
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 the premarital kind of divorce Joseph was about to do with Mary while only engaged, as revealed in Matt 1:18-24]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The wife divorced after this manner is not caused to commit adultery. That makes perfect sense, since she is still single, not having cleaved to her husband, from which status if she had entered, and thereby becoming joined together by God, only death could part. All divorces not after this manner, all post marital divorces, are wrong because they cause the wife to commit adultery. A frightful crime to be charged with in judgment before a jealous God. This reading, taking the exception clause as not providing partial allowance of what is under discussion, (the nonessential kind, the only kind of exception clause the sentence can accommodate), makes perfect sense and is in line with the rest of Matt 5 where Jesus is establishing kingdom commandments and identifying things derived from the law that under the new testament were to be no longer allowable. This particular prohibition in effect declares that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if it is a betrothed wife, which kind of divorce was identified for the common reason it was done, for “fornication”, not adultery. The exception clause, creating a comparison between the two different kinds of divorces, postmarital and premarital, completely eliminated the former on the grounds that it causes the wife to commit adultery, as well as identifying the man who marries that divorced woman as committing adultery with another man’s wife. That other kind of divorce, done premaritally, is not an offense to God. In their culture the man and woman who were engaged possessed the titles of “husband” and “wife” and the termination of the engagement was called a ‘putting away’, the same term used for divorce. The exception clause jumped to that other kind of divorce just like the 3 parallels above, whose nonessential exception clauses jumped to what was not the topic of discussion. The nonessential exception clause, the kind that jumps to something other than what is being addressed, is the only kind that can work in this kind of sentence. This kind of clause can also be omitted altogether from a sentence containing it and no damage occurs since it touches on a point the sentence is not directly addressing.
It is fitting that we give Jesus the last word on this. Notice how the straightforwardness of his words in Mark and Luke, which authors did not include the exception clause, fully agree with the understanding that the exception clause of Matt 5:32; 19:9 is “nonessential”, and therefore can be left out without disturbing the central thrust of the sentence, and therefore does not give partial allowance of what is under discussion. These easy to understand words, spoken in the context of a one-man-one-woman first time marriage, are to be taken at face value:
Mark 10:
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.
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.
Make a sentence like this:
Matt 5:
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Let us break it down and identify what the sentence does on a very basic level:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) But I say unto you, [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [if a particular act is done)
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) causeth her to commit adultery: [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now let us isolate what the parallel is supposed to do:
A) [Something the listeners are familiar with is brought to their attention, which identifies the topic of the sentence]
B) [An enlightenment or clarification or correction of some sort is forthcoming]
1) [if a particular act is done)
2) [unless done for a reason or under certain circumstances]
3) [causes whoever or whatever has been the recipient of that action to do something negative]
4) [a third party becomes involved and thereby becomes guilty of the same thing the recipient of the original action was caused to do.]
Now an example of a parallel that sufficiently performs after the manner required:
A) You have heard it said, that students, whose families own orchards, should be allowed to leave apples on the hoods of their cars at the beginning of harvest time in thankfulness to God.
B) but I say to you:
1) whosoever shall leave his apple on the hood of his car,
2) saving for the cause of rottenness,
3) causes a passing child to commit theft:
4) and whosoever takes an apple found sitting on the hood of another's car, committeth theft".
Another example:
A) You have heard it said that if you need something at home, go ahead and take it, the boss won’t even know it’s gone
B) but I say to you
1) that whoever takes something
2) except with permission to borrow
3) causes their employer monetary loss
4) and whoever urges an employee to pilfer is an accomplice in the crime.
Another example:
A) You have heard it said that the spacesuits of our older comrades should be taken from them:
B) but I say to you that
1) anyone who takes a space walking spaceman’s spacesuit from him,
2) except in the case where he’s already dead,
3) will cause him to die
4) and anyone using the spacesuit taken from a spaceman will be deemed an accomplice.
The kind of sentence that Matt 5:32 is, doing what it has been shown to do on a very basic level, cannot make sense while having an exception clause that provides partial allowance of what the sentence is addressing, as established by A). In the first example about apples, the topic is obviously about apples in good condition. The exception clause does not give partial permission to put good apples on the hoods of cars. Rather, the exception clause jumps to what was not under consideration or even hinted at; rotten apples. In the second example, pertaining to a culture of pilfering by employees, the exception clause also does not give partial permission to take what is needed at home without permission. The exception clause jumps to something other than what the topic of the sentence is as established by A). In the third example, as well, the exception clause jumps to taking from a dead spaceman when the topic of discussion was about taking from a live spaceman. In these cases, if attempts are made to make the exception clause provide partial allowance concerning what the topic of discussion is, as established in A), then the sentence becomes literally non coherent. That is because such an attempt is in reality an attempt to force a sentence that can only accommodate a “nonessential” exception clause, (that jumps to a side point not under discussion) to accommodate an “essential” exception clause (that provides partial allowance of what is under discussion). It is impossible for this kind of sentence to have an exception clause that provides partial allowance for what is being discussed, as established in A), and at the same time to make literal sense.
Notice how the sentences in the three examples above have a reasonable flow of comprehension. They are coherent. It is not necessary to read and reread numerous times and speculate what the author was trying to convey and devise different theories concerning what was the intended meaning. But if the exception clause of these parallels were changed to possess an essential exception clause, providing partial allowance of what is being discussed, then there would be good reason to start speculating because there would not be a flow of comprehension. For example, in the last parallel; if the exception clause were to provide partial allowance by saying, “unless the astronaut is over 60 years old”, then the sentence becomes convoluted. So it is with Matt 5:31,32; the entire sentence makes no literal straightforward sense and is convoluted when it is assumed that Jesus is providing partial allowance to do what he is addressing, which is the post marital divorce. He is speaking of post marital divorces as per Matt 5:31 (referencing Deut 24:1), and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance of that kind of divorce; for her having committed adultery. Notice the convoluted mess it is when fornication is assumed to mean adultery:
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]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
If whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery as per 4), then how can the mechanics of the sentence simultaneously say that she that was divorced for adultery was not caused to commit adultery if divorced for that reason? If she that was divorced for stinky feet is caused to commit adultery, obviously because she becomes vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house, then isn’t the woman divorced for adultery likewise not caused to commit adultery, similarly, that she is not made vulnerable to other men after being put out of her husband’s house? The whole long sentence cannot be taken literally and make sense. Interjecting phrases and making complex deductions becomes necessary to arrive at theories what the author must have intended.
Now read the exception clause as NOT providing partial allowance, but rather as a nonessential exception clause that jumps away to touch on something other than what the sentence is centrally addressing, as established in A):
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 the premarital kind of divorce Joseph was about to do with Mary while only engaged, as revealed in Matt 1:18-24]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
The wife divorced after this manner is not caused to commit adultery. That makes perfect sense, since she is still single, not having cleaved to her husband, from which status if she had entered, and thereby becoming joined together by God, only death could part. All divorces not after this manner, all post marital divorces, are wrong because they cause the wife to commit adultery. A frightful crime to be charged with in judgment before a jealous God. This reading, taking the exception clause as not providing partial allowance of what is under discussion, (the nonessential kind, the only kind of exception clause the sentence can accommodate), makes perfect sense and is in line with the rest of Matt 5 where Jesus is establishing kingdom commandments and identifying things derived from the law that under the new testament were to be no longer allowable. This particular prohibition in effect declares that the only way a man can divorce his wife is if it is a betrothed wife, which kind of divorce was identified for the common reason it was done, for “fornication”, not adultery. The exception clause, creating a comparison between the two different kinds of divorces, postmarital and premarital, completely eliminated the former on the grounds that it causes the wife to commit adultery, as well as identifying the man who marries that divorced woman as committing adultery with another man’s wife. That other kind of divorce, done premaritally, is not an offense to God. In their culture the man and woman who were engaged possessed the titles of “husband” and “wife” and the termination of the engagement was called a ‘putting away’, the same term used for divorce. The exception clause jumped to that other kind of divorce just like the 3 parallels above, whose nonessential exception clauses jumped to what was not the topic of discussion. The nonessential exception clause, the kind that jumps to something other than what is being addressed, is the only kind that can work in this kind of sentence. This kind of clause can also be omitted altogether from a sentence containing it and no damage occurs since it touches on a point the sentence is not directly addressing.
It is fitting that we give Jesus the last word on this. Notice how the straightforwardness of his words in Mark and Luke, which authors did not include the exception clause, fully agree with the understanding that the exception clause of Matt 5:32; 19:9 is “nonessential”, and therefore can be left out without disturbing the central thrust of the sentence, and therefore does not give partial allowance of what is under discussion. These easy to understand words, spoken in the context of a one-man-one-woman first time marriage, are to be taken at face value:
Mark 10:
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.
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.
