a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

AVoice · Dec 23, 2014

Let me refer to the OP in support of the enlightenment from Matt 1 concerning that there existed, among the people who Jesus was speaking to, an entirely other and different kind of divorce, which was for fornication, not for adultery:

JesusistheChrist,
You are right, I did not provide the actual OT references from Deut. that explain how the betrothal divorce works. I have been waiting for enquiry concerning how the premarital divorce works. The pertinent verses in Deut 22;23,24 and Deut 20:7 and Matt 1:18-24 are the key to understanding how the entirely different kind of divorce, done while still single, can be very sensibly understood in that context of Matt 5:31,32 to be what the exception clause was intended to identify.

If we had grown up in a culture where the terms 'husband' and 'wife' and 'divorce' had dual definitions, [applicable to both the betrothed as well as the joined in marriage], it would have been much easier for us to come to understand how the exception clause jumps off to identify that OTHER kind of divorce whereby that OTHER kind of husband divorces that OTHER kind of wife.
Therefore the terms they used in ancient time, the titles of "husband" and "wife" and the word "put away" (divorce) as they also applied to the couple not joined in marriage but only betrothed, greatly helps someone to understand how the exception clause was able to jump off to that other kind of divorce. Without that knowledge, people are understandably stuck in the hole of assuming, [by virtue of their limited knowledge], that the divorce referred to in the exception clause, for fornication, HAS TO BE the normal post marital divorce that we are all familiar with today.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 23, 2014

Nick01 said:

Hi, Nick01.

I didn't say that I would "cite further examples from Hebrews", but rather I said that I would give examples of some of those whom the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews had previously alluded to...namely "them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness" (Hebrews 3:17) IN RELATION TO FORNICATION which had occured "OUTSIDE the context of a marriage":

JesusistheChrist said:

IOW, I was referring to such an example as Paul alluded to elsewhere:

I Corinthians chapter 10

[1] Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
[2] And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
[3] And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
[4] And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
[5] But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
[6] Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
[7] Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
[8] Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
[9] Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
[10] Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
[11] Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
[12] Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Let's look at the actual account:

Numbers chapter 25

[1] And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
[2] And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
[3] And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
[4] And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.
[5] And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baal-peor.
[6] And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
[7] And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
[8] And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
[9] And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
[10] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[11] Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
[12] Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
[13] And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
[14] Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.
[15] And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head over a people, and of a chief house in Midian.
[16] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] Vex the Midianites, and smite them:
[18] For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.

Whereas Paul said that 23,000 were overthrown in the wilderness for "committing fornication" ("and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab" - Numbers 25:1), Moses lists the number at 24,000 and the seeming discrepancy is more than likely resolved in that Paul didn't include "the heads of the people" who were "hung up before the LORD" (Numbers 25:4). In any case, it's rather obvious that these men who "commited fornication" did so "OUTSIDE the context of a marriage"...unless you somehow believe that they got married to these women before Moses had them all slain or that these men who "committed fornication" already had other wives of their own . If that is your contention, then please provide some rationale for the same. If, however, you have no such contention, then you ought to recognize that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews had PREVIOUSLY ALLUDED to those who had been overthrown for the sin of fornication which had occurred "OUTSIDE of the context of a marriage" and that therefore he could have easily been referring to fornication "OUTSIDE of the context of a marriage" LATER ON in Hebrews 13:4...and I fully believe that he was. If such is indeed the case, then there's no "overlap" here as you allege.

"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)

Again, although the immediate context here leads you to believe that the writer must have been referring to "whoremongers" or fornicators "in the context of a marriage", when we look at the overall context of the epistle, then such definitely need not be the case. IOW, seeing how A PRECEDENT HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY BEEN ESTABLISHED in relation to fornication "OUTSIDE of the context of a marriage", it is perfectly consistent to suggest that the writer was here only reiterating the same.

Nick01 said:

Just so you know, I regularly use CAPITALIZATION strictly for EMPHASIS...so there's really nothing "emotive" about my use of the same.

Thanks.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 23, 2014

I am totally bummed...

I just spent about an hour and a half composing a very thorough response to Nick01's quote from Jeremiah and my Internet Explorer crashed and deleted the entire post just as I was about to post it.

If God grants me the grace, then I'll seek to rewrite it and post it sometime tomorrow. At the moment, I really am upset.

Nick01 · Dec 23, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

No worries. I stepped out for this thread for the better part of a month because it was going nowhere quickly and because I wasn't inclined to continue writing. Honestly, don't feel you're on a timer.

I relation to Deut 22...

The main reason I didn't address your comments about Deut 22 is because it isn't altogether relevant. I'm not arguing that porneia can't include non-marital sexual sin. But that's beside the point - what needs to be established is that Matthew 5 can be exclusively referring only to pre-marital fornification pertaining to one partner in a betrothal, and by definition cannot include any sexual act by a person who is already in a marriage, with someone other than their spouse. That's really the yardstick.

The other problem with your discussion of Deut 22 is that it cuts both ways. I agree - the OT law distinguishes very little between pre and post consumated union (i.e. marriage) between man and woman, at least in terms of punishment for indiscretions. Deut 22:22-24 is a prime example - both the married and betrothed women are executed, as well as the man in both instances, for violating his neighbour's wife (wife is the exact term used of the betrothed virgin).

That being the case, then what reason do we have to think that Jesus, contrary to the normal understanding and practice of the Law, would distinguish that finely between betrothal and marriage in this way in Matt 5? If executing a man for violating his neighbour's wife, even though they were not married, is just in the OT and is identical to the same scenario in a full marriage, why is it then permissible for the neighbour to divorce his betrothed in the exact same circumstance, but not in a post-consumated marriage, according to Matt 5? Even more pertinently, for what reason would we think that Jesus' listeners would have understood him this way, in contravention of the typical understanding of marriage?

Nick01 · Dec 23, 2014

AVoice said:

Agreed. I'm a very slow person

That is correct. Clause A is referring to all yelling. Your description of my words above is, however, different to what you previously described it as here: "You are admitting that the kind of yelling referred to in line A is the kind that makes someone guilty; the kind that is wrong." I have said nothing of the sort, as you seem to agree in your most recent post.

So that you're entirely clear: Clause A is referring to all kinds of yelling, not only the kind that is wrong.

How is it confusing? The exception clause relates to clause 1), not Line A. Yelling to preserve safety is excluded from the prohibition in 1), not from the "You have heard it said" (i.e. the subject of discussion) in line A.

No, you are incorrect. Line A is always referring to the same thing (a general statement about yelling). The prohibition in line 1 is always referring to the same thing (the counter general statement prohibiting yelling). The exclusion clause means that the reader reads the prohibition in light of the exception - contrary to popular belief, it is not acceptable to yell at people just because you find them on the street.

Instead, ALL such yelling is prohibited, EXCEPT yelling done to safeguard others. Both the prohibited and allowed kinds of yelling are both kinds that come under the umbrella of the popular beliefs about yelling described in A (because they are both acts that involve yelling at people on the street, which is what A describes). The reader would see both irresponsible and responsible yelling under the rubric of A both before and after reading the exception, and indeed both kinds were practiced under the popular belief before this revisionist teaching in 1) and all clauses following.

In other words, the meaning of line A doesn't change just because of the presence of the exception clause.

The rest of your post is meaningless until we come to an understanding on this section.

Nick01 · Dec 23, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

I don't see how it's at all obvious. It's quite possible that some of these men had multiple wives, given that there are actually allowances in the Levitical Law and in the practice of the patriarchs for men to have multiple wives.

But even if I ignore that, and we assume (because that is all we're doing, building arguments on imagined assumptions) that none of the 24000 were married. We must also assume that everyone of those men were betrothed, or fornicated with Moabite women who were all betrothed, if this, or the linked passages in 1 Cor or Hebrews 4, are to have any bearing at all on the discussion on Matthew 5. If it is reasonable to expect that what is being described here is just general sexual misconduct with no relation to a betrothed (or even married) status, it is destructive to your argument.

Again, for your argument on the technical usage of porneia to stand, we must be able to establish to a high certainty, first of all, that porneia can EVER be used only and exclusively to mean infidelity in the context of a betrothal. Second of all, it must be shown that it is used this way in the specific case of Matthew 5.

Again, not sufficient to support the reading of Hebrews 13, let alone Matthew 5. Hebrews 13 is specifically discussing correct marital conduct, "keeping the marriage bed pure", as it were. The judgements that follow could just as easily be inside a marriage as outside - there is nothing in verse 4 that precludes either scenario.

I'm interested, though - if someone had sex with a married woman, would they be committing adultery or fornication, or both, in your thinking? Would the other person have been fornicating, or adulterating?

Also worth pointing out that what the writer says in chapter 3 is potentially worlds apart in context from chapter 13, especially if you consider he does not discuss fornication in chapter 3, only general unbelief and sin in the wilderness, and also that many more Israelites died in the wilderness from other reasons and for more general reasons of unbelief than simple fornication. That makes the bearing of Numbers 25 on Hebrews 3, thence Hebrews 13, thence Matthew 5, almost tangential, in my opinion anyway.

As I said in my post, it's the painting of arguments you disagree with as 'ludicrous', more so than capitalisation. I am not convinced by such characterisations. In fact, I wasn't actually referring to capitalisation at all, so I'm not entirely sure why you thought I was. Go capital crazy, if you like.

AVoice · Dec 23, 2014

Nick01 said:

I numbered these two sentences to be able to more clearly respond.
In sentence 1) I have identified more precisely that when the exception clause provides partial permission to do the same thing Line A identifies to be the action under discussion. This agrees with and is very closely related to your "if read as being of the same topic as A)"

Let me take one of the parallels in the OP to answer your first question:
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,
E) except in the case where he’s already dead,
2) will cause him to die
3) and anyone using the spacesuit taken from a spaceman will be deemed an accomplice.

The exception clause does not provide partial allowance to do what line A is addressing, which is the taking of spacesuits from living spacemen, which will cause them to die. The exception clause is not "read as being of the same topic as A)"

Your own parallel also did not provide partial allowance to yell after the manner that line A identifies what particular kind of yelling A identified was the topic of discussion. Your exception clause was not "read as being of the same topic as A)"

It is impossible for an exception clause in that particular sentence format to be "read as being of the same topic as A" because the sentence is about an action causing someone to do something negative. The exception clause provides a reason or circumstance for that to be done whereby the same action will NOT cause the same result. Herein lies the problem. When "read as being of the same topic of A", then a mere reason for doing that very same action is assumed can somehow change what it causes.

That is why the exception clause HAS TO JUMP away to a side point. Take this sentence:
1) Whoever slams their heavy oak door directly onto the face of their neighbor
2) causes that neighbor to experience pain

When we insert an exception clause that functions the way you say Matt 5:31,32 functions, "being of the same topic of A", then we are providing a reason to do something that is supposed to NOT cause what would normally be caused. Since when can a mere reason for doing something all of a sudden change what that action causes?

So let's add that kind of exception clause in the above sentence:
1) Whoever slams their heavy oak door directly onto the face of their neighbor
E) Unless he deliberately ran over your dog
2) causes that neighbor to experience pain

The sentence becomes convoluted because what the action causes, pain, is not going to not be caused due to a mere other reason for doing it.
That is the wrong kind of exception clause for that particular kind of sentence. The only kind of exception clause that can function in that kind of sentence [where something is done resulting in a specific result] is the kind that jumps away to something unexpected.

1) Whoever slams their heavy oak door directly onto the face of their neighbor
E) Unless the slamming was only imaginary as in wishful thinking
2) causes that neighbor to experience pain

Now the sentence is not convoluted. It has a reasonable flow of coherency.

To manifest the convolution created in Matt 5:31,32 when the exception clause is assumed to refer to a post marital sexual offence, (the wrong kind of exception clause for that particular sentence) then your attempt to answer a few questions concerning what the text very literally says under that assumption, will begin to reveal how the text starts to unravel.

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,
E) saving for the cause of fornication [read as adultery]
2) causeth her to commit adultery:
3) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

To what woman does line 3 pertain to? The wife divorced for adultery, the wife divorced for something not sexually related, or does it pertain to both?
Answer this question and we can begin to see how the literal text is convoluted under the divorce for adultery explanation.

Your second question:
2) You will agree that carrots pertain directly to the subject matter of vegetables, so then why is that not contradictory when you argue Matthew 5 on the traditional reading is?
This questions relates to this sentence you provided:
"I love all vegetables, except for carrots"
The question is irrelevant because that sentence does not have an action done to someone, which results in a negative result for the recipient of that action, with an exception clause in the middle, whereby that result will not happen.
We are talking about a specific sentence format and how it can function or not function depending on what its exception clause is talking about.

The exception clause in the parallels in the OP all function the same way as the way the exception clause functions WHEN the betrothal explanation is embraced. That is the whole point of the challenge of the OP: try to make a parallel that does NOT function that same way. Your parallel also functioned the same way as when the exception clause in Matt 5:31,32 is read to be referring to that betrothal divorce. Please find someone who can provide a parallel of Matt 5:31,32 whereby its exception clause can be "read as being of the same topic of A".

phil112 · Dec 23, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

Fornication is simply sexual impurity. It does not require intercourse with another person. Neither Christ nor Paul stipulated that only fornication outside the context of marriage was their intent.

Nick01 · Dec 23, 2014

AVoice said:

The main problem, and I think it colours the rest of your discussion on this point, is that Line A does not require me to assume it is discussing living spacemen. It only specifies 'older spacemen'. This could include living spacemen (the kind otherwise prohibited by the counter teaching at line 1), but it could also include dead ones (the kind allowed by the exception clause). Both kinds are otherwise reasonably included by A. This is how my example functions (A. all yelling - 1 X all yelling, E. if done to safeguard people)

In the same way, Matthew 5 does not require me to assume A is referring to those people who are married, while the exception only concerns itself with bethrothal divorce, not under the purview of A. Instead, A refers to all divorces, line 1 prohibits all divorce, the exception clause excludes certain kinds of divorce from the prohibition under certain circumstances.

You could, of course, alter A to specify living spacemen, but then I would simply state that it actually moves the form away from the form found in Matthew 5.

The problem is not the form of the exception in the syllogism, but the content. Of course the reason for slamming a door in someone's face does not change their level of pain. But that is not what Matthew 5 is about. Matthew 5 is about covenant and justification, not ontological/physical impact. The state of adultery, I'm sure we can agree, is about adhering to the terms of covenant - one is an adulterer towards their spouse, and in the eyes, even towards!, God, if they fail to adhere to the terms of the covenant.

Hypothetically, if God had instituted different terms for the covenant of marriage (if, for example, he had said - in the words of Paul, "I'm out of my mind to talk like this!" - that you could have sex with another person one day a year and still uphold the terms of your marriage), then that would materially change whether you were an adulterer (i.e. whether the door slamming cause your face pain, or not).

This is where your circular reasoning is exposed. If, indeed, Jesus is providing a genuine exception regarding the terms of the covenant, than it materially CAN affect whether or not one is committing further adultery, in exactly the same way that the terms of a contract can materially affect whether or not one is liable or not. Your analogy to door slamming is, thus, invalid.

It refers to the woman who is divorced under grounds other than the exception clause. The question of whether or not someone marrying a woman divorced for adultery would themselves commit adultery is not one that is addressed by by the terms of Jesus' statement, but it's far from meaning that such a man is somehow shielded from committing adultery themselves. This is fleshed out more below.

It's not irrelevant, because it at least shows that one can provide a partial exception to an all encompassing general statement, without being incoherent or contradictory. I take it, at this point, were are agreed on that. So I'll move on.

Now, it's important to note the very particular formulation of line 2 (3 being a follow on from the disastrous effect of 2). In the circumstance of 2, the woman is caused to commit adultery by the first married man and his action of taking a divorce. That is the plain reading of the pericope, with or without the exception clause. Given that Jesus is primarily critiquing the actions of men rather than women here, it is plain the primary purpose of the exception clause is to provide a scenario in which the first man does NOT CAUSE his wife to commit adultery. Whether or not she is otherwise an adulteress is not the point of the pericope - the point is whether her status as such is as a result of her illicit divorce at the hands of her first spouse. The exception does not function in such a way to mean that one can not be categorised as adulterous if you are in a situation governed by the exception - that is an invalid negative inference that does not take into account other ways in which that status could occur.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'll use it again to demonstrate my point, with alterations to make the point clearer:

"When it rains on the grass, except when the grass is shielded, the rain causes the grass to become wet" - this is an accurate statement, with the bonus that it actually reasonably closely follows the form of Lines 1), E) and 2)

However, if we assume a scenario provided for by the exception clause occurs, we find that it is still accurate - the rain cannot cause the grass to become wet when it is shielded. However, that does not mean (logically or grammatically) that the grass cannot be wet at all. What if the grass had been watered, or if the water table rose? The grass being shielded does not mean the grass cannot be wet in toto.

In the same way, the exception serves only to prevent the scenario in which the first husband causes the adultery of his divorced spouse. She may otherwise still be guilty of adultery - that is slightly beyond the scope of what we're arguing here.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 23, 2014

Nick01 said:

Hi, Nick.

Just for the record, I've never stated, implied or even thought that "porneia can EVER be used only and exclusively to mean infidelity in the context of a betrothal". Instead, I believe that this is the manner in which Jesus used it in "the exception clause" for reasons which I've already stated.

Anyhow, overall, I agree with you that, to a degree, anyway, "all we're doing is building arguments on imagined assumptions" and, quite frankly, I have neither the time nor the desire to do so any longer. As such, Lord willing, I'll make one final post on this thread tomorrow in which I'll address your previous citation from Jeremiah chapter 3 and in which I'll give my final thoughts/advice on this topic. I don't imagine that it will be as thorough and lengthy as the post which I lost earlier today due to my computer related mishap, but I do trust that I'll address what I believe to the MAJOR TRUTH in all of this.

Good night.

Nick01 · Dec 24, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

That's unfortunate, then. If you can't demonstrate to at least a high certainty that porneia can ever used to describe specifically a kind of betrothal infidelity, then I feel like we're quite aways from being able to show any kind of probability that Jesus intended that meaning in Matthew 5, let alone that his words would have been understood in that sense by anyone listening.

That Joseph planned to divorce Mary before marriage, or that betrothal divorce was permitted in the OT in circumstances of porneia (i take it these are your reasons), is, I feel, a far cry from demonstrating that Jesus is permitting only betrothal divorce because of a specific term for infidelity bound to betrothal (vis. porneia)

I look forward to your Jeremiah post, although I may well not see it for a few days, because Christmas. As such, please feel free to take your time, don't stress - enjoy yourself

Merry Christmas.

AVoice · Dec 24, 2014

Nick01 said:

I think we have already been over this, in part. Remember I added to line A so that the text itself would make clear what A is speaking of when understood by deduction that A must be referring to a specific kind of yelling:

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.

The sentence, once the topic is identified to be referring to a certain thing, is competent and has a reasonable flow of understanding.
So now, let us insert into A what you are reading into it meaning A includes all kinds of yelling the good and the bad.

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street for whatever reason you want."
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.

So all I have done is insert what I understand what you are mentally reading into the text of A, as you have explained.
Line E then does indeed provide partial allowance of Line A and is then indeed also an 'essential' clause and NOT a "non essential" as the challenge requires. But the challenge has been asserting from the beginning that only a non essential exception clause can work and be LITERALLY sensible and complete as written. As pointed out, the challenge asserts that the sentence when possessing an “essential” exception clause (as you have now made) will cause the sentence to implode upon itself when anticipating it to be complete and very literally competent. Is the above sentence very literally competent? Look at it for a while and you can see its literal shortcoming. It is necessary to mentally add to the exception clause to make it complete and literally competent.

An essential exception clause is ‘essential’ because its presence in the sentence is critical for the main intent of the sentence to be understood. So the overall meaning, when looked at very literally means the exception clause is lacking detail to make perfect sense. The complete text then would very literally be saying that if someone was on the street and the biker yelled at them because their house was on fire or their car is being stolen or their child is being kidnapped or a whole host of other very important things, then such yelling would cause unnecessary anguish because it was not that specific thing named by the exception clause. Go back and look at you sentence again to grasp what I am saying. We are talking about being very literally competent. We see the same problem in Matt 5:31,32. Literally, accepting the text to mean exactly as is worded, then if she loses her mind, kills and eats the children and tries with all her might to kill her husband whenever in sight, he cannot divorce her for those things because that is not the specified single reason given for divorce by the exception clause. Under your ‘divorce for adultery’ explanation, such a prohibition from divorce for things much worse than adultery while allowing for only adultery means the text is non-sensical. But under the "till death do us part" understanding, everything is very consistent. While a spouse may need to separate, divorce is prohibited no matter what. So there is not that imbalance based on the assumption that the man is given the right to execute the punishment of divorce if she commits adultery.

In order for the text to be LITERALLY competent and complete, then it is necessary to read in between the lines into the exception clause something like this:

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

So is that how you also read the exception clause in Matt 5:31,32;
“saving for anything serious, such as for adultery” ?
If that is how you are reading it, in order for it to make complete literal sense, then the sentence format has been radically changed. Instead of the exception clause providing a single reason, (which the challenge requires) for doing the thing cited in A, a whole bunch of reasons are given. So your parallel has to violate the sentence format it is supposed to be paralleling in order to succeed.
Very literally, a single reason is given in Matt 5:31,32. Your challenge was to provide a parallel where, likewise, a single reason is given whereby the action can be done and not cause what is said to be caused.
Please try again. I suggest you can try to change what your parallel says what is caused in line 2. Or you may choose to change the background story for line A. Let us not give up.

AVoice · Dec 24, 2014

Nick01 said:

It has been demonstrated that porneia (fornication) is a word that is used in some contexts to identify exclusively the premarital sexual sin. Another pair of NT words, "thieves" and "extortioners", have also been shown to function the same way.

Seeing that:
1) the exclusive premarital use of fornication is established to exist in contexts that accommodate it.
2) that the divorce for fornication under the betrothal explanation pertains to a sexual sin done while single,

There is no ground to stand on, to assert that 'fornication', using the exclusive premarital definition that it also posseses, is not applicable to that cultural scenario.
I think you are trying to strain at gnats.
Or provide explanation: Since the divorce, under the divorce in betrothal explanation, was done for a premarital sexual act, what disqualifies the particular premarital definition of fornication from describing that sin? Though betrothed, they have not left and cleaved and are therefore still completely single. There is no mandated provision for not terminating that arrangement for anything. In other words it was completely cultural, having no weight to counter anything Jesus declares to be absolute truth.

The

Utah · Dec 24, 2014

Agricola said:

I've never been married so I have no dog in this fight -- yet, but I really share your sentiments regarding legalism. Jesus broke the bonds and loosened the chains, yet Legalists refuse to rejoice in the free gift of freedom He has given us.

The mere title of this thread reeks of arrogance.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 24, 2014

Utah said:

This thread is about what JESUS taught in relation to such things as fornication, adultery and divorce. Perhaps you believe that HE is a "legalist"?

Utah · Dec 24, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

Jesus IS Grace. Unfortunately self righteous people don't recognize grace even when it bites them in the backside.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 24, 2014

Utah said:

Oh, so now those who seek to understand what Jesus taught are not only "legalists", but self righteous, too?

Damn...and all this time I thought that I was a Christian...

Utah · Dec 24, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

And such a good Christian, using cuss words and failing to see the log in your eye. But you go right ahead and keep cussing while trying to take the speck out of everyone's eyes.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 24, 2014

Utah said:

I am "a good Christian"...which is precisely why I'm engaged in discussions such as this one in regard to "the exception clause". IOW, I want to not only know what Jesus taught for my own sake, but also for the potential sakes of others. You, on the other hand, are apparently here to just troll. Does that make you "good"? I think not. Also, I didn't "cuss"...unless you think that JESUS was "cussing" when He said:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)

???

Seriously, just go away before you make even a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 24, 2014

I apologize to those who have actually participated in this discussion for my recent feeding of the troll. I came back to this thread because I promised Nick01 a response to his Jeremiah 3 quote and, Lord willing, I'll post that some time tomorrow.

Good night.

a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

AVoice

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

AVoice

Guest

phil112

Guest

Senior Member

JesusistheChrist

Guest

Senior Member

AVoice

Guest

AVoice

Guest

Banned

JesusistheChrist

Guest

Banned

JesusistheChrist

Guest

Banned

JesusistheChrist

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest