a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

[AVoice]

If the bible is impossible to understand why does anyone continue to read it? Jesus says that it is not permissible to remarry except for grounds of adultery but it turns out that He didn't really mean this after all.

He did not say that. That is assumed.
This is what he said:

Matt 5:
[SUP]31 [/SUP]It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[SUP]32 [/SUP]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.

The words adultery and fornication are very different. In the NT they are seen listed side by side 3 times, (besides being seen together in both Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9), indicating a difference between the two words. The big 'teller' is that when it is assumed that the exception for fornication was meant to be an allowance to divorce for adultery, then the texts in Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19;9 contradict themselves AND each other. But when it is acknowledged that they had a strange-to-us divorce, literally for fornication (not for adultery) after one of its available definitions, which definition identifies exclusively the premarital sexual act, then the texts in both Matt 19:9 as well as Matt 5:31,32 DO NOT exhibit self contradiction, neither do they contradict each other. So what makes more sense,
1) acknowledge that a different kind of divorce existed, and when that kind of divorce is understood to be a side point the exception clause refers to, then that makes the entire complex sentences in Matt to function literally and coherently, or
2) maintain the normal hasty assumption that "fornication" must mean adultery in that context, and ignore that that assumption makes the sentences (Matt 19 and 5) to contradict themselves and each other?

The purpose of the challenge is to get people to make a parallel after the same format of Matt 5:31,32. What they discover is that on whatever topic they choose, the exception clause will ALWAYS be pointing to something off to the side, a side point. It is impossible for that sentence format that Jesus chose, to be providing permission for the specific kind of thing being addressed. The normal post marital divorce is being addressed and the exception clause under the divorce-for-fornication-while-betrothed explanation jumps to an aside; true to form for how that sentence functions. But under the divorce-for-adultery explanation of the exception clause, the exception clause is assumed to provide partial allowance for the specific thing under discussion! Then why cannot any sentence on any topic be created that can demonstrate that function while many sentences can be produced that demonstrate the function of the exception clause jumping off to a side point?
It is because the sentence format forbids it.
There was designed by God a built in mechanism within the texts of Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9 to prove that the exception clause CANNOT be providing permission to put asunder what God has joined together.

 

[AVoice]

If you had a man and women who split in a marriage , an say, both had fault in it.

If at least one truly repented, that person is new . If there was any sin as a result of that divorce, Christ is Able, to forgive that. They are new. The former things are passed away.

If you believe Christ forgives as I do, then both parties are allowed to even remarry . They are new. The former things are gone. Christ sets us free. Christianity does not put you in bondage.

Wouldnt matter what the situation was, if they repent in Christ name, they are forgiven .

You are making two major errors.
First you assume that the first lawful marriage can be designated as a sin, and thereby be forgiven. this directly contradicts what Jesus said about divorce as established in the garden and under which every subsequent marriage is patterned.
Second, you are ignoring that Jesus identified remarriage to be adultery and that adultery is defined as asexual sin that violates an existing lawful marriage.
Thirdly, based on the second error, you are assuming that adultery can continue (they can continue to have sex as a husband and wife) under the excuse it has been forgiven while you are unable to cite any other sin that is allowed to continue after "forgiveness". Repentance means to acknowledge wrong and take whatever steps possible to cease from that behavior.

 

[Agricola]

If we follow what you say, then in this day and age that means hardly anyone would get married and not have sex and therefore no kids and humans would die out.

 

[AVoice]

You ARE confused, and you SEEM stupid.
You never did rebut post 6. I brought scripture. You rebut it with scripture-or pipe down. The simple fact remains that Paul taught you and I about divorce and Christ talked to jews in a covenant relationship with God about it. That simple fact makes your argument completely and utterly nonsensical.

You want bible on divorce and marriage? If both are believers, here is what Paul said: Don't divorce your mate. For anything, if he/she is willing to stay. If your mate insists on leaving, let him/her leave. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. "Not under bondage"......If you weren't free to remarry you would still be under bondage to the first mate, that first contract of marriage.
How believers deal with divorce is completely different than unbelievers. Unbelievers view of that is none of our business and we shouldn't concern ourself with it unless asked. How new testament believers deal with it is not the same as old testament believers. They had the law. We are free from the law. That was fulfilled on the cross.

You are building a false doctrine on a bunch of unfactual points.

You are the one who refuses to take the challenge, which is designed for you to be able to prove that I am wrong.

I answered your interpretation of 1 Cor 7. You seem unwilling to engage responsibly in this discussion. I asked you a question that you apparently chose to not answer:

So it was the OT that allowed divorces. It is from the NT that we get the phrase, 'till death do us part.'
So do you need to correct your former statement suggesting that I am trying to enforce an OT law that is not for NT believers? Please answer this question. I will answer whatever question you have for me.

You also apparently refused to answer another question I had for you:

Let's say we agree to answer each others questions on the topic. Whatever question I ask, you are obligated to answer, first with a straightforward yes or no, if the questions requires that, before expounding further. I will show the same respect toward you. Do we have a deal?

 

[AVoice]

If we follow what you say, then in this day and age that means hardly anyone would get married and not have sex and therefore no kids and humans would die out.

No, it means that the divorced grow up and repent and go back to their first and true spouse. If circumstances exist where that is not possible, then yes, they are to bear that individual cross and be faithful till death as the NT admonishes us.

 

[AVoice]

So..question..say you get divorced and then remarried while your say an atheist...so now you and your new husband find God together..are you saying that Jesus does not want you and will not recognize your marriage?

The first lawful marriage is identified as that which God has joined together that man is not to put asunder. It is established that in the case of such a lawful marriage that a subsequent divorce and remarriage is in fact the committing of adultery, sexual sin that violates a marriage.

If that remarried couple truly find God then they will take steps to terminate their adultery and will each seek reconciliation with who God says is one flesh in marriage with them until death.

 

[ladylynn]

I'm not sure I fully understand your position (it is rather long and technical in expression).

But tell me if this is it:

Your argument is that it cannot be an exception clause in terms of actual marriage in 5:32, because the structure of the first clause does not otherwise hint at the content of the third 'exception' clause. The topic of the extension clause is fornication pre marriage, where A) only discuss post marriage. In the same way, the apples example is only discussing good apples, whereas the exception clause there deals with 'rotten' apples. Therefore, the subject of the topic under discussion, and the subject of the exception clause, are entirely different things, and the exception clause does not involve a discussion of the topic at hand.

Am I with you so far?

I still don't understand what you said LOL or what the man with the chainsaw said for that matter. How can the average new Christian understand??

Divorce and remarriage is a hot topic with some Christians and one that has sought to keep fellow brothers and sisters in Christ under a yoke not meant to be carried.

I am very thankful God has not put that kind of mixed up confusing religious yoke on us when He said He has and will forgive us AND also admonishes us to come BOLDLY to the throne of grace and find mercy in time of need. Hebrews 4:16 We can only do that because of Jesus Christ. The boldness comes from a trust in Christ and His finished work, NOT on our merit. Without Him we stand naked and shameful.

I do know that NO sin is unforgivable except the sin of unbelief and that unbelief is rejecting Jesus Christ and what He did for us on the cross.

Also, I do believe that if a person has been divorced and remarries and the new couple has received forgiveness, they are not condemned to be "in sin" because they are married with a divorce in their past. No matter how anyone here tries to cut it, our sins are forgiven and forgotten as far as the east is from the west.

To condemn yourself or your divorced brothers and sisters is not in keeping with the forgiveness offered by Jesus sacrifice when He paid for ALL,not some but ALL our sins.
GRACE (unconditional) forgiveness and restoration is what God has offered us and I suggest we take it with a full heart. Thank YOU Jesus!

 

[Angelmommie]

The first lawful marriage is identified as that which God has joined together that man is not to put asunder. It is established that in the case of such a lawful marriage that a subsequent divorce and remarriage is in fact the committing of adultery, sexual sin that violates a marriage.

If that remarried couple truly find God then they will take steps to terminate their adultery and will each seek reconciliation with who God says is one flesh in marriage with them until death.

So you are saying that God would want this couple to get a divorce and try to get back together with there first spouses? I am going to go with God know we all make mistakes, even in marriage and so Jesus Christ came to earth to be our sacrifice and if we have Him in our hearts we can be forgiven for even this..Jesus can forgive anything!

 

[AVoice]

For all the semantic argumentation and extremely literalistic analysis, this is what your entire argument boils down to. I believe your theory, as exhaustive as it is, stands or falls on this one point, and this point is less semantic and more presuppositional, and exegetical.

Your argument in regards to the spaceman discussion was that taking a spacesuit from a spaceman that is alive cannot allow any exception clause that allows the very thing the rest of the discussion is designed to prevent.

However, the point of the exception clause in Matthew 5 is surely that one does not cause a woman to commit adultery via divorce, in the case in which she is already an adulteress?

In other words, the construction states that divorce causes the partner to be an adulteress, except in those circumstances in which she is already one.

I do not see a contradiction.

If there existed no explanation that makes both Matt 5:31,32 and Matt 19:9 very literal and coherent, then we would be arguing about 2 convoluted texts (Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9) into which we have to try to decipher and extrapolate out, to try to make sense of it.

That is what happens when the exception of fornication is assumed to be a divorce for adultery. The texts are convoluted, which leads to completely re wording what is assumed must have been intended since there is no literally coherent sense to be made of the actual literal texts.

You wrote:

However, the point of the exception clause in Matthew 5 is surely that one does not cause a woman to commit adultery via divorce, in the case in which she is already an adulteress?

See how the literal words Jesus used are incompatible to the text when fornication is assumed to mean adultery? You are indirectly admitting that Matt 5:31,32 is NOT literally coherent under the assumption that "fornication" means adultery.
This is an example of what it SHOULD have looked like if it had been competently and literally expressed as you assume was the intended meaning:
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) unless she is already an adulterous
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Even then the sentence is not literally competent. The last clause identifies the man who marries her as committing adultery, while the effect of the exception says she is NOT caused to AFTERWARD commit adultery if divorced for adultery. So his divorcing her did not effect her becoming vulnerable to another man marrying her after the divorce?
Your assumption that divorce for adultery has to be a reasonable understanding of Jesus' intention, has already necessitated the changing of clause 2 as demonstrated above. Please modify the text further to deal with this inconsistency concerning the last clause and how it clashes with that she was NOT caused to commit adultery by being divorced for adultery. Let me help you by also modifying the 3rd clause so there is created a reasonable flow of coherency:
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) unless she is already an adulterous
3) will not be charged with causing her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Notice what happened? The contradiction has been eliminated. It can now be acknowledged that, yes, she does in fact commit adultery by remarriage after being divorced for adultery, but even though the man's choice to divorce her plays a role in her remarriage afterward, he is not charged with causing her to commit adultery. In other words, the change of text has contradicted he original text. Originally, under the divorce for adultery theory (before modifying the text,) he does NOT cause her to commit adultery by the relationship between clauses 1-3 (when she is divorced for adultery) while simultaneously she does commit adultery if she gets remarried, which in itself is a literal contradiction. After the modifications she IS caused to commit adultery by having been divorced for adultery, it is just that her husband is now not charged with causing her to do so. He causes it but is not charged with causing it.
Doesn't it make more sense to accept an explanation that does not require all that ducking and diving and subtle manipulation of the texts? Doesn't it make more sense to accept an explanation that makes it so the verses in Matt can be read very literally, as literally as demonstrated in the reading of the parallels in the OP?
And more importantly in my opinion, doesn't it make more sense to embrace an explanation of the exception clause that does not contradict Jesus' statement "let not man put asunder"?


You said you do not see a contradiction. I can agree how you can say that. You do not see a contradiction when reading into it what makes it reasonable to you. But the actual literal text is another matter. The explanation of the exception clause I am presenting does NOT face the difficulties your explanation faces. The literal parallels in the OP show a straightforward and simple and coherent meaning that need no alteration as you have found you need to do. The divorce-for-fornication-in-betrothal explanation functions the same way as the parallel in the OP function. When the exception clause is assumed to be an allowance for divorce then the function of the sentence is dramatically different. A comparison between two post martially divorce women comes into play; one divorced for adultery one divorced for something else. That complication creates conflict with the last clause. The divorce-for-fornication-in-betrothal explanation does not face that dilemma because the exception clause under that explanation is non essential as is the case with the parallels in the OP.

 

[AVoice]

So you are saying that God would want this couple to get a divorce and try to get back together with there first spouses? I am going to go with God know we all make mistakes, even in marriage and so Jesus Christ came to earth to be our sacrifice and if we have Him in our hearts we can be forgiven for even this..Jesus can forgive anything!

I am sure you are not aware and do not agree that what you are saying is a form of blasphemy. What God has deemed as holy and that which he has joined together, that no man should separate, you are relegating into the dustbin of "sin". Sin is what is forgiven. What is holy and undefiled and binding till death, is not forgivable. When you assert that the first and lawful marriage, which God says he joined together, is "sin", that wickedness falls into the same category of falsely labeling things for the sake of allowing the flesh to do what it wants. Do you also define "forgiveness" to provide permission to continue in the very thing professed to have been repented of?

 

[AVoice]

To condemn yourself or your divorced brothers and sisters is not in keeping with the forgiveness offered by Jesus sacrifice when He paid for ALL,not some but ALL our sins.

You are saying, in effect, that married people have the ability to label their lawful marriages as sin, if they so choose. So at any time they choose they can get a divorce for whatever, ask for forgiveness for their divorce and lump their marriage along with the divorce in a nice little package and say everything is OK because they have been forgiven of the marriage as well as for the divorce.
That is perversion.

 

[AVoice]

Sorry, but, I'm not following your logic. You're comparing two different classes of apples, Jesus isn't. Also, just because Mark and Luke don't mention the exception doesn't mean it wasn't said. Remember Mathew was a disciple of Jesus, Mark and Luke weren't. Mathew traveled with Jesus for three years, Mark and Luke didn't. I think if any of the three had a more full understanding of what Jesus taught it was Mathew.

That is what the challenge is designed to do. When someone takes the challenge and starts making sentences that are similar in function to Matt 5:31,32, they discover an interesting fact. Whatever exception clause they choose to insert between the actiin done and what that action causes (that makes sense), they discover in EVERY case the exception clause has to jump to what was not the topic of discussion. This does as you say, it creates a comparison between two things. In the OP about apples the topic was exclusively about good apples: the exception clause jumped to rotten apples making a natural comparison between the two kinds of apples. The parallel about the astronauts, the topic was exclusively about taking the suits from living astronauts; the exception clause jumped to taking from the dead, again establishing a natural comparison between the two. The other parallel does the same thing.
The challenge is for you to make a parallel where the exception clause does NOT jump to something else and therefore does NOT create that effect of making a comparison between two things. By doing this, by creating such a sentence, then you will vindicate the idea that divorce for adultery works within that sentence format.

Sorry, but it doesn't. The fact that no sentence can be created that can demonstrate that function of allowing partial allowance for the topic under discussion, is absolute proof that Jesus did NOT make adultery a grounds for divorce.

 

[ladylynn]

You are saying, in effect, that married people have the ability to label their lawful marriages as sin, if they so choose. So at any time they choose they can get a divorce for whatever, ask for forgiveness for their divorce and lump their marriage along with the divorce in a nice little package and say everything is OK because they have been forgiven of the marriage as well as for the divorce.
That is perversion.

AVoice,
This understanding of God's Grace is not proper or correct. AVoice and others like you try to custom God's forgiveness and grace for the motivated "sinner" it just doesn't work as you can see.

Grace is not FOR the motivated sinner. First - Grace is for the repentant sinner in salvation, then it is for the motivated saint in his or her sanctification. We know that we have His forgiveness because of Jesus Christ IN us. The person who has experienced the forgiveness of Christ and become born again is not looking for ways to sin as you guys keep pointing out.

The born again child of God who understands what grace is is not looking for a loop-hole or crack in the unmerited favor and grace of God to them. They are on their knees in thankfulness that God has so generously poured out His love towards them and in that knowledge seek to please their Father. They seek to live soberly and righteously in this present world.

We NOW live in RESPONSE to God's Grace not in opposition to it.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men

12. INSTRUCTING TEACHING us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in this present age.

13. looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts.... to live soberly righteously and godly in this present world.

The grace of God does NOT teach us to sin as you and some other Christians have accused.
Taking the wonderful message of Grace and turning it into something worldly.

It is OTHER WORLDLY and God is not mocked. Grace does it's job wonderfully when seen from a repentant heart. But someone who doesn't have an understanding of grace, they cannot fit it into their minds.,it makes no sense.

How many scenarios can man come up with to try and trump God's grace?? More than I can count and even remember.

Any time a teaching comes up and tries to delete the Grace of God in His forgiveness it must be denied.

No matter how much worldly sense it makes it goes against the Grace message of Jesus coming to die for sinful men and women. All doctrine must come under this truth that God so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. God has made a way without man adding to His grace. Salvation is undeserved yet God in His love gave His Son. All of Him nothing of us.

Jesus paid it all from start to finish. All sin is paid for and we go before God in Jesus Christ our Savior and Advocate. Sins past, present AND future are forgiven because no sin can be in God's presence. Jesus covered our sins with His blood. The cleansing fountain as it's been called.

If you don't understand this, it is very difficult to go to God without feeling condemned.
Romans 8:1
Knowing there is now NO condemnation to those who are IN Christ Jesus... (no added sentences after that) There is now no condemnation no adjudging guilty of wrong for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 5:6
Romans 5:9
While we were yet in weakness powerless to help ourselves at the fitting time Christ died for in behalf of the ungodly
.10, 11
We are acquitted.,made righteous, brought into right relationship with God by Christ's blood.
it is much more certain now that we are reconciled that we shall be saved daily delivered from sin's dominion through the resurrection life. His resurrection life.

In Him we now receive and enjoy our reconciliation., Jer. 9:24 Using the grace of God is never a perversion, it is a life line God gave us to Himself In Christ.

 

[phil112]

I still don't understand .....................what the man with the chainsaw said for that matter. ..........................

Made me laugh!
The man with the chainsaw said obey Christ when He is talking to you, not when He is talking to someone else. The op, like the Sabbath keepers and law keepers on this site, rejects the apostle Paul as being an authoritative source of the gospel.

Galatians 1:15, 16 & 11,12 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood..............But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

1 Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."


Christ told Paul what we need to know about this subject and the op, along with catholics, likes to pretend Paul didn't exist.

 

[Kerry]

The bible is clear that a habitual violator is reason for divorce. Paul even gives reason for divorce if your spouse will not accept Christ.

 

[AVoice]

The bible is clear that a habitual violator is reason for divorce. Paul even gives reason for divorce if your spouse will not accept Christ.

Then why do the two verses that are interpreted to make adultery a grounds for divorce contradict themselves and each other when the exception of "fornication" is assumed to be a divorce for adultery?
Why can you not take the challenge and prove me wrong?

Paul said the wife is bound for as long as her husband is alive. If while he is alive she gets married again that is adultery. You misunderstand the part where he spoke of not being in bondage. If that means free to marry then Paul very miserably contradicted himself. But he didn't because he was only referring to not being in bondage to have to continue to live with the unbeliever. Remarriage is adultery. Paul was speaking to those who had foundation in the basics. Without a proper foundation people can read all kinds of things into Paul's writings as Peter warned us.

 

[Butch5]

That is what the challenge is designed to do. When someone takes the challenge and starts making sentences that are similar in function to Matt 5:31,32, they discover an interesting fact. Whatever exception clause they choose to insert between the actiin done and what that action causes (that makes sense), they discover in EVERY case the exception clause has to jump to what was not the topic of discussion. This does as you say, it creates a comparison between two things. In the OP about apples the topic was exclusively about good apples: the exception clause jumped to rotten apples making a natural comparison between the two kinds of apples. The parallel about the astronauts, the topic was exclusively about taking the suits from living astronauts; the exception clause jumped to taking from the dead, again establishing a natural comparison between the two. The other parallel does the same thing.
The challenge is for you to make a parallel where the exception clause does NOT jump to something else and therefore does NOT create that effect of making a comparison between two things. By doing this, by creating such a sentence, then you will vindicate the idea that divorce for adultery works within that sentence format.

Sorry, but it doesn't. The fact that no sentence can be created that can demonstrate that function of allowing partial allowance for the topic under discussion, is absolute proof that Jesus did NOT make adultery a grounds for divorce.

I'm sorry but I don't think you logic is correct here. Please explain who comparing good apples to rotten apples is comparable to exception clause. I don't see it in your post. Jesus isn't talking about good marriages and rotten marriages or good divorces and rotten divorces.

 

[Kerry]

Abraham, King David. Enough said

 

[AVoice]

a mistake-----

 

[AVoice]

I'm sorry but I don't think you logic is correct here. Please explain who comparing good apples to rotten apples is comparable to exception clause. I don't see it in your post. Jesus isn't talking about good marriages and rotten marriages or good divorces and rotten divorces.

You misunderstand the challenge. Please read the OP.