a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

[AVoice]

I'm not being disrespectful at all. I simply can't answer a question such as "Then why is the sentence literally self contradictory?" or "Will you answer my questions that serve to identify the literal convolution?" any way other than I have already done: I DO NOT SEE A CONTRADICTION.

Your questions are loaded questions, that assume what we are discussing (whether the traditional reading of the passage is inherently and plainly self-contradictory), and it is an assumption I simply don't agree with at this point. If there is another question that does not carry that assumption, I am happy to answer. However, it's simply wrong to assume I'm being 'disrespectful' for not essentially agreeing with your argument I'm not, nor am I trying to be, so I'd appreciate it if you do not insinuate that I am.

Perhaps we can wind back a little bit, and try to clarify the respective positions. Can you please reiterate why you think there is a contradiction, and try to do it in less than a paragraph? So far, when I have attempted to interact with parts of your argument, you have told me I've either misunderstood, or am responding to things that aren't your actual argument. I am not the only person in this thread who appears to have that problem.

Now, I'm willing to accept that I've simply misunderstood, and the problem is all me, but if you're genuinely interested in a discussion, and bringing people to new understanding, it would be helpful if you could restate why you believe there is a logical contradiction in the sentence if we take the exception clause to be pertaining to marital divorce.

Do I have a commitment from you that you will answer my questions and in return I will answer yours?

When I asserted that there are contradictions then the natural response is to ask what they are, instead of just denying that that could be the case. OK, so you are finally asking.

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 by you as adultery]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.



Jason believes that the last clause about another man marrying her that is divorced, he believes the woman divorced in that last clause must pertain to the wife who was divorced for adultery. Under that explanation there are some very clear contradictions with the texts as I highlighted in my questions to him.
I understand that you believe the woman the last clause refers to is the wife divorced for something other than adultery (under your assertion that fornication means adultery).
There too there are problems within the actual text itself.

Take this sentence:
whoever tips over the water bucket
causes it to spill on the floor

Now put an exception clause:
whoever tips over the water bucket
unless the lid is on securely
causes it to spill on the floor

In Matt 5:31,32 there is an action done and what is caused by that action.
The divorcing of a wife and that causes her to commit adultery.
When putting the exception clause for fornication, not adultery) then we see that a divorce can occur under those circumstances or reason and it does NOT cause her to commit adultery. Like the bucket of water, when the lid is on what would be normally caused is then NOT caused.

This causes a comparison between two women. The one divorced for adultery (who is then not caused to commit adultery) and the woman divorced for something else (who is caused to commit adultery).

An immediate contradiction is visible in the last clause that asserts that whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery. Wait a minute, the effect of the exception clause says she that was divorced for adultery (under that assertion) was NOT caused to commit adultery. But the last clause says whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery. Then a person will say, hey the last clause was intended to point only to the woman divorced for something OTHER than adultery. That means the text is not literally correct. A person has to read in between the lines that the last clause refers to only one of the two women which the text makes a comparison between.
This perspective makes it that the effect of the exception clause necessitates reading into the text that the last clause has to be referring to the innocently divorced wife.
If the exception clause was not there then there would be no basis to assume it pertains to an innocently divorced wife. It would mean very literally as is written; marrying a divorced woman is adultery. So we have in Luke 16:18 the same last clause but no exception clause. So how can the last clause there be saying something completely different than in Matt 5:31,32? Same last clause but with different interpretations depending on whether or not the exception clause is there. That is not sensible.
The interpreting of the last clause in Matt 5 to pertain to the innocently divorced wife creates a moral quagmire. The wife divorced for adultery is free to remarry, no problem, but he that marries the innocently divorced wife commits adultery. So she is punished while the adulteress is free to remarry. This gets messy, she will naturally do whatever she can to become free also. She will have sex, (commit adultery), and then try to benefit from the assumption that the marriage is dissolved by her adultery and then seek another husband. In other words, anything goes.

Under the divorce in betrothal explanation the last clause is literally correct. No need to add to it to try to make sense of it. Any woman divorced from a joined marriage, regardless of why she was divorced, is off limits, whoever marries her commits adultery.

4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It means exactly what it says under the divorce in betrothal explanation of the exception clause because the topic of discussion as established in Matt 5:31 is the normal post marital divorce. Whoever marries a divorced woman from that kind of divorce commits adultery. It is forbidden.
The kind of divorce Jesus referred to in the exception clause was NOT the same kind of divorce that Matt 5:31 establishes to be the topic of discussion. The exception clause jumps to an entirely different kind of divorce. They had a cultural PREMARITAL divorce we see Joseph was about to do to Mary. Therein the word fornication literally means 'fornication' after its premarital definition.
Read the OP. Whenever a sentence is made that conforms to the sentence format of Matt 5:31,32, the exception clause HAS TO jump off to a side point. It is impossible for the kind of sentence Jesus used to accommodate any other kind of exception clause. Therefore the divorce in betrothal explanation literally works, while the divorce for adultery explanation does not work. Your explanation causes you to change many things as I demonstrated in an earlier post.

 

[AVoice]

I think he was actually right, and refuted the basic premise of the OP.
It was a very appropriate response.

Solid, this is what he said:

It's not. Obviously, you don't see a contradiction when the exception clause is not there. When it is there, I don't see how that can possibly introduce a contradiction, when it is an exception to the situation already under discussion by the rest of the sentence.

The premise of the OP serves to prove that whenever a sentence is made after the same format of Matt 5:31,32, it is discovered that the exception clause does NOT behave as anticipated.
Nick is basically saying, since we see an exception clause in Matt 5:31,32 therefore since it is an exception then it has to be providing partial permission to do the same thing the topic of discussion is about.
But when any sentence is made that conforms to the sentence format of Matt 5:31,32, then its exception clause, regardless of what topic is chosen to make the sentence, does NOT provide partial allowance to do the same thing being discussed.
You imply that you read the OP before you made your comment.
If you had read it then you would not have asserted that Nick refuted the basic premise of the OP.

In order to refute the basic premise of the OP, all you have to do is produce one sentence after the format of Matt 5:31,32 that can function the way you say the exception clause functions under the divorce for adultery explanation of the exception clause.
How does the exception clause function under the divorce for adultery explanation? It provides partial allowance for the specific thing under discussion. The specific thing under discussion is the normal post marital divorce, (Matt 5:31) and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance to do that kind of divorce, if she commits adultery.

So make any other sentence on any other topic that can demonstrate that function. In the OP there are 3 examples of attempts that were made. Also the OP breaks down what all the clauses are doing in Matt 5:31,32.
This is what the OP is about, which you apparently were not aware of. If Matt 5:31,32 functions the way the divorce for adultery folks say it does, then at least one sentence on whatever topic should be able to be produced that can demonstrate that assumed function.
Go ahead, try it. Let's see what happens.

 

[SolidGround]

Solid, this is what he said:


The premise of the OP serves to prove that whenever a sentence is made after the same format of Matt 5:31,32, it is discovered that the exception clause does NOT behave as anticipated.
Nick is basically saying, since we see an exception clause in Matt 5:31,32 therefore since it is an exception then it has to be providing partial permission to do the same thing the topic of discussion is about.
But when any sentence is made that conforms to the sentence format of Matt 5:31,32, then its exception clause, regardless of what topic is chosen to make the sentence, does NOT provide partial allowance to do the same thing being discussed.
You imply that you read the OP before you made your comment.
If you had read it then you would not have asserted that Nick refuted the basic premise of the OP.

In order to refute the basic premise of the OP, all you have to do is produce one sentence after the format of Matt 5:31,32 that can function the way you say the exception clause functions under the divorce for adultery explanation of the exception clause.
How does the exception clause function under the divorce for adultery explanation? It provides partial allowance for the specific thing under discussion. The specific thing under discussion is the normal post marital divorce, (Matt 5:31) and the exception clause is assumed to be providing partial allowance to do that kind of divorce, if she commits adultery.

So make any other sentence on any other topic that can demonstrate that function. In the OP there are 3 examples of attempts that were made. Also the OP breaks down what all the clauses are doing in Matt 5:31,32.
This is what the OP is about, which you apparently were not aware of. If Matt 5:31,32 functions the way the divorce for adultery folks say it does, then at least one sentence on whatever topic should be able to be produced that can demonstrate that assumed function.
Go ahead, try it. Let's see what happens.

Sorry, but in your OP you distorted the meaning of the original sentence structure.

Legalese doesn't make your problem go away.

Have you researched this verse from a historic-grammatical hermeneutic, or just elementary English substitution?

Read some commentaries before trying to create an exege, and look at a few translations.

It is obvious that your opinion was formed before reading the verse rather than the verse forming your opinion.

Bias is a strong enemy. Keep it in check.

 

[phil112]

.........................If you ask me questions I will answer. ......................

And I asked this yesterday:

1 Corinthians 7:15 "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases"

Simple question: Why do you dismiss what Paul said here?

When you say you will answer questions we are supposed to understand you didn't really mean it. Okay. See, I didn't realize that at first, but now I know not to believe what you say. Thanks for putting that out there for us.

 

[SolidGround]

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.

 

[Nick01]

I understand that you believe the woman the last clause refers to is the wife divorced for something other than adultery (under your assertion that fornication means adultery).
There too there are problems within the actual text itself.

...

In Matt 5:31,32 there is an action done and what is caused by that action.
The divorcing of a wife and that causes her to commit adultery.
When putting the exception clause for fornication, not adultery) then we see that a divorce can occur under those circumstances or reason and it does NOT cause her to commit adultery. Like the bucket of water, when the lid is on what would be normally caused is then NOT caused.

This causes a comparison between two women. The one divorced for adultery (who is then not caused to commit adultery) and the woman divorced for something else (who is caused to commit adultery).

An immediate contradiction is visible in the last clause that asserts that whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery. Wait a minute, the effect of the exception clause says she that was divorced for adultery (under that assertion) was NOT caused to commit adultery. But the last clause says whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery. Then a person will say, hey the last clause was intended to point only to the woman divorced for something OTHER than adultery. That means the text is not literally correct. A person has to read in between the lines that the last clause refers to only one of the two women which the text makes a comparison between.
This perspective makes it that the effect of the exception clause necessitates reading into the text that the last clause has to be referring to the innocently divorced wife.

It sounds like you're arguing that it's not obvious, and more importantly not grammatically necessary, to read the last clause of the passage as discussing the main subject, and not the scenario brought about by the exception.

I simply disagree. There's no reading in between the lines. That's simply the plain reading of the text (and if you read the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, it becomes even plainer. I revisit this a little later on). The final clause, about the person who marries a divorced women committing adultery, is clearly only focused on the main subject matter, that is, a person who sends his wife away per divorce in every other circumstance and in which the spouse is not otherwise 'at fault' in a way that would necessitate a divorce (i.e. is 'innocent'). It's not reading between the lines at all., that just seems to be the obvious and grammatically necessitated way of reading the three passages.

If the exception clause was not there then there would be no basis to assume it pertains to an innocently divorced wife. It would mean very literally as is written; marrying a divorced woman is adultery. So we have in Luke 16:18 the same last clause but no exception clause. So how can the last clause there be saying something completely different than in Matt 5:31,32? Same last clause but with different interpretations depending on whether or not the exception clause is there. That is not sensible.

No, I interpret both Luke 16 and Matthew 5, at this point, in the same way - marrying a divorced woman implicates that third person in the adultery. I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea that I interpret them differently. It is plain in Luke and Mark, and therefore also in Matthew, that the woman is presumed innocent, because the exception clause is the only verse in this teaching that puts any wrong doing on the part of the divorcee (as opposed to divorcer) - the whole point of Jesus teaching here is that the men can't simply absolve themselves of any guilt by issuing a divorce certificate.

The interpreting of the last clause in Matt 5 to pertain to the innocently divorced wife creates a moral quagmire. The wife divorced for adultery is free to remarry, no problem, but he that marries the innocently divorced wife commits adultery. So she is punished while the adulteress is free to remarry. This gets messy, she will naturally do whatever she can to become free also. She will have sex, (commit adultery), and then try to benefit from the assumption that the marriage is dissolved by her adultery and then seek another husband. In other words, anything goes.

No, I don't agree that this problem somehow makes it 'all good' for the adulterous woman to remarry. Just because the verse says adultery has further effects when the woman is innocent does not at all imply that the reverse is true, and that adultery has no further effects when the woman is an adulterous herself. This is true both in terms of examining what it is that Jesus is actually discussing, and also in terms of raw logical syllogism.

For instance:

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.

The first sentence is obviously true, but the second sentence is obviously false, or at least it is without further qualification. The grass could equally become wet because I watered it, or left a large block of ice on it, or because I licked the blades of grass. In any case, just because A is true does not mean A in the negative is also true.

In the same way, you can't negatively/oppositely render v32 and somehow make that proof that it is ok for an unfaithful/porneia woman to remarry - she may not be allowed to remarry for grounds that are beyond the scope of what Jesus is immediately discussing (implications of divorce instigated by the man), and would require further qualification to substantiate. For what it's worth, I think the adulterous woman already has bigger problems than worrying about whether it would be a sin to remarry, but hey

Also worth pointing out that the exception is more concerned with the guilt of the man, than the guilt of the woman. Rather, the point Jesus is addressing is - what adulterous affects flow from the man initiating divorce? He does not inflict adultery on his spouse in this scenario if she herself has already been unfaithful, but that says nothing else beyond that.

Under the divorce in betrothal explanation the last clause is literally correct. No need to add to it to try to make sense of it. Any woman divorced from a joined marriage, regardless of why she was divorced, is off limits, whoever marries her commits adultery.

4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

It means exactly what it says under the divorce in betrothal explanation of the exception clause because the topic of discussion as established in Matt 5:31 is the normal post marital divorce. Whoever marries a divorced woman from that kind of divorce commits adultery. It is forbidden.
The kind of divorce Jesus referred to in the exception clause was NOT the same kind of divorce that Matt 5:31 establishes to be the topic of discussion. The exception clause jumps to an entirely different kind of divorce. They had a cultural PREMARITAL divorce we see Joseph was about to do to Mary. Therein the word fornication literally means 'fornication' after its premarital definition.
Read the OP. Whenever a sentence is made that conforms to the sentence format of Matt 5:31,32, the exception clause HAS TO jump off to a side point. It is impossible for the kind of sentence Jesus used to accommodate any other kind of exception clause. Therefore the divorce in betrothal explanation literally works, while the divorce for adultery explanation does not work. Your explanation causes you to change many things as I demonstrated in an earlier post.

The main problem with your betrothal theory as it currently stands and has been articulated is that its strengths rely entirely on whether you think the traditional reading is flawed. This is because (as I discussed earlier) there is no inherent exegetical basis for concluding the exception clause in the passage is speaking exclusively about betrothal/engagement divorce. The only way to make that point would to conclude that fornication does not include marital adultery in this passage. The fact that it obviously DOES include this sense in other places makes it less likely Jesus uses it technically here. If you want to revisit the exegetical argument, I'm happy to

In other words, your argument is mostly based on the assumption that the alternate reading makes no sense (which, if I haven't been clear, I dispute ), and therefore we need another reading, and this one might as well be it. I would simply say that is not enough to make your case - you would have to argue that the actual TEXT would specifically and exclusivly refer to betrothal divorce on its own terms, and that that is how the text would have been understood by its original audience. It's not enough simply to substitute an alternate theory because it is an alternative.

 

[seekingknowledge1225]

Ok I have read over all of this. Some makes sense and some does not. Either way I have to say I disagree. What God has brought together let no man tear apart. An individual has free will and choice. I don't believe all marriages are brought together by God. Hence our own will that can be a clouded judgement. There are many who marry to young. Or make bad decisions and get divorced. It happens. So a woman is being beat up and what she stays married because hey til death do them part right? No God has also called us to live in "Peace", and most importantly "LOVE"... There are situations where people just end up bad for each other.. If that is going to cause them to go to hell for it, guess what we will all see each other there! We all sin! Get over yourselves and and be apart of the solution and not the problem!! Solution being edifying one another and not tearing them down. If you cannot do that then let "The Author of the word", teach you! Knowing the Scriptures are one thing knowing the "Author" of them WAY BETTER! ! Good luck and God Bless..

 

[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.

Ok, then make a sentence to vindicate how you say Matt 5:31,32 works. You say the exception clause provides partial allowance of the specific thing under discussion. The specific thing under discussion is the normal post marital divorce and you say the exception clause provides partial allowance for that, if she commits adultery.
So the challenge is easy, make a sentence after the format of Matt 5:31,32 that can function the way you say those verses function by providing partial allowance.
Easy, I expect you to provide a parallel quickly.

 

[AVoice]

Ok I have read over all of this. Some makes sense and some does not. Either way I have to say I disagree. What God has brought together let no man tear apart. An individual has free will and choice. I don't believe all marriages are brought together by God. Hence our own will that can be a clouded judgement. There are many who marry to young. Or make bad decisions and get divorced. It happens. So a woman is being beat up and what she stays married because hey til death do them part right? No God has also called us to live in "Peace", and most importantly "LOVE"... There are situations where people just end up bad for each other.. If that is going to cause them to go to hell for it, guess what we will all see each other there! We all sin! Get over yourselves and and be apart of the solution and not the problem!! Solution being edifying one another and not tearing them down. If you cannot do that then let "The Author of the word", teach you! Knowing the Scriptures are one thing knowing the "Author" of them WAY BETTER! ! Good luck and God Bless..

What I have gotten over, is expecting believers to accept that Jesus meant what he said. Remarriage is adultery. He said that 5 times. But most believers refuse to accept that. 'Adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God'. Just forget that, there is no way that can be accepted. Hell is a horrible place. Don't allow the temporary pleasures of the sin of living in adultery by remarriage cause you to lose your soul. God can grant grace to do what needs to be done to stop the sexual sin of adultery which occurs in remarriage.

 

[AVoice]

And I asked this yesterday:When you say you will answer questions we are supposed to understand you didn't really mean it. Okay. See, I didn't realize that at first, but now I know not to believe what you say. Thanks for putting that out there for us.

I don't dismiss. I come from understanding what Jesus said to be literally true in Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 as plainly worded. So when I come to 1 Cor 7, I assume Paul is speaking with those who have that basic firm foundation based on the first marriage in which ONLY death could make them no longer one flesh in marriage.
Verse 15 is addressing the believer not being in bondage to think they are doing wrong by not abiding with their spouse. They are not in bondage to have to dwell with their spouse who has left. The immediate context is the Christian obligation for the believer to continue with their unbelieving spouse for the purpose to win them to Christ. They have not failed that obligation just because the unbeliever has departed. They are not under bondage to continue living with him or her. Paul is referring to an entirely different kind of freedom than what is presumed. He is NOT referring to the freedom to commit adultery by remarriage. In finalizing the chapter in verse 39 it is emphasized that the wife is in fact bound to her husband as long as he lives. Remarriage is adultery as Jesus identified 5 times and Paul twice. To anyone loving the truth; that should mean something.

 

[AVoice]

For instance:

For instance:

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.

Just make a sentence after the format of Matt 5:31,32 that can vindicate how you understand the verses. You can add an elaborate background story, explanations why certain things were done, an old way verses a new way, etc.. Whatever it takes, make a foundational story and then make the parallel sentence so that when reading the sentence (formatted after Matt 5:31,32), it will be obvious and make sense.
This will prove I am wrong.
If you cannot vindicate the way you read the verses, then that will prove I am right. That is because many sentences can be created that function similarly to how Matt 5:31,32 functions and in every case they vindicate the divorce in betrothal explanation of the exception clause. Not one sentence can be made that vindicates the divorce for adultery explanation for the exception clause.

Really, what I am waiting for you to do is to actually make a parallel. The parallel will as a matter of fact have its exception clause JUMP to a side point: something OTHER than what was the specific topic of discussion as established by clause A. When you make that sentence I will point out that your parallel vindicated what I am saying, and does NOT support what you say the verses do.

 

[AVoice]

This is because (as I discussed earlier) there is no inherent exegetical basis for concluding the exception clause in the passage is speaking exclusively about betrothal/engagement divorce.

But there is a basis, proven by your inability to provide a parallel that can vindicate how you read Matt 5:31,32.
That basis is that the sentence format God chose to use through the mouth of his Son makes it impossible for an "essential" exception clause to be used and make sense. When fornication is assumed to mean adultery then the exception clause is "essential". The fact that the sentence structure can ONLY function literally and sensibly when the exception clause JUMPS to a side point (non essential), is damning evidence in and of itself.
So the question you really have to answer is this: since it is proven beyond any shadow of any doubt that the exception clause in that sentence format HAS TO JUMP to something not directly related to the specific topic under discussion: then what do you suggest it jumps to? The betrothal explanation is available because that termination was identified as a divorce (a putting away). Also in that situation the man and woman bare the titles of "husband and wife" even though they had not left and cleaved and therefore not become bound together by God.
Please answer the question:
Since it is proven, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that the exception clause in that sentence format HAS TO JUMP to something not directly related to the specific topic under discussion, (a non essential exception clause): then what do you suggest it jumps to?

 

[AVoice]

What will happen if a Christian gets divorced simply because he has grown apart from his wife , then married another Christian, who is also divorced for same reason?

They must face God in judgment for living a lifestyle of adultery. They violate the sanctity of their first and binding marriage in God's eyes.
Marriage is a privilege based on the first marriage in which situation it was impossible for the wife to be no longer one flesh with her husband until one of them was dead.
The arrogant putting of a puny man's face in God's face and say, 'I want a wife no matter what', is a damnable act. Dying in that rebellion will put the person in hell.

 

[AVoice]

I think these are the two most important sections of what you have written to the present discussion. Again, I think I can boil down your argument to two simple principles.

You are arguing that:

a) fornication (πορνεία) cannot mean adultery (μοιχεύω)
b) clauses 3 and 4 relate directly to the scenario created by the exception clause, not to the scenario that would be at play WITHOUT the exception clause.

The first point is easily responded to: fornication in the Greek is usually used as a catch all for sexual immorality, whether in marriage or outside of marriage. It's hard to make a hard and fast rule about the use of terms, but porneia tends to focus on the act itself, while moicheuo tends to emphasis the covenantal/legal transgression. However, porneia will often include moicheou, or give rise to moicheuo, even in marriage (cf Jeremiah 3:9 LXX). There is not need to, on the basis of the terms, see the two terms as describing seperate contexts.

As to your second point, it seems obvious to me that clause 3 and 4 are addressing the primary subject, while the exception clause functions exactly as it should - an exception to the otherwise discussion scenario. You however, seem to read 3 and 4 as addressing the exception clause, when they are obviously not, and there is no grammatical reason why they should be.

In other words, the plain reading of the text is:

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife,

(except on the ground of sexual immorality)​

makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Please go back and read that which I wrote again. You completely misunderstood.
What you say I am arguing is not at all what I am arguing.

 

[Apostol2013]

1 Cor 7 10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart fromher husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? I would think Paul, the Apostle to the gentles has the last word

the rules apply to all jews and gentiles alike but people that are unholy in discernment and action are making a mockery of the true Gospel of Christ in erroneuous theologies and analogies there is only one God one rule { 1Co7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing , but the keeping of the commandments of God }

 

[Apostol2013]

and other sheep I have wich are not of this fold :them must I also bring { joh10:16 and they shall hear my voice ,and there shall be one fold ,and one shepherd.}

 

[Nick01]

Just make a sentence after the format of Matt 5:31,32 that can vindicate how you understand the verses. You can add an elaborate background story, explanations why certain things were done, an old way verses a new way, etc.. Whatever it takes, make a foundational story and then make the parallel sentence so that when reading the sentence (formatted after Matt 5:31,32), it will be obvious and make sense.
This will prove I am wrong.
If you cannot vindicate the way you read the verses, then that will prove I am right. That is because many sentences can be created that function similarly to how Matt 5:31,32 functions and in every case they vindicate the divorce in betrothal explanation of the exception clause. Not one sentence can be made that vindicates the divorce for adultery explanation for the exception clause.

Really, what I am waiting for you to do is to actually make a parallel. The parallel will as a matter of fact have its exception clause JUMP to a side point: something OTHER than what was the specific topic of discussion as established by clause A. When you make that sentence I will point out that your parallel vindicated what I am saying, and does NOT support what you say the verses do.

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.

I think this is quite destructive for your overall argument (you repeatedly asserted when we discussed analogies earlier that treating the clause as an exception clause necessitates reading that the exception somehow causes the non adulterous woman to then become an adulteress, when I argued it doesn't in my previous post), but as you have not addressed it, I can't conclude anything else.

I did give you a sentence earlier. This is the one we agreed to work with:

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.

I've relabelled the clauses above to better demonstrate what I see to be the logical flow.

Now, you rejected this as fitting your 'challenge' because there was no back story. But much of your argument has focused on the literal coherence of the sentence - does it make sense, is it consistent, and does it avoid contradiction on its own terms. That being the case, constructing a back story is irrelevant - a backstory is not necessary to establish literal coherence in the above case. I can plainly understand what is mean by the above sentence.

My worry is that having to construct a backstory for whatever analogy we come up with will make it useless as an analogy (because it obviously can't and won't conform to the historical and exegetical context of Matt 5:32), if what you're really arguing about is not literal coherence but context. I could do so for the above bike story, but I fear it would just be a waste of time, not least because we would end up arguing over the same presuppositions in the analogy that we would be for Matt 5:32

With that in mind, here is a provisional context of the above:

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

 

[SolidGround]

Ok, then make a sentence to vindicate how you say Matt 5:31,32 works. You say the exception clause provides partial allowance of the specific thing under discussion. The specific thing under discussion is the normal post marital divorce and you say the exception clause provides partial allowance for that, if she commits adultery.
So the challenge is easy, make a sentence after the format of Matt 5:31,32 that can function the way you say those verses function by providing partial allowance.
Easy, I expect you to provide a parallel quickly.

Why would I waste my time making a parallel sentence?
If you read my post, I made my point very clear. Why would I use YOUR false method of Biblical interpretation to make a true point?
I see clearly why you are here. You made that clear in this following post:

What I have gotten over, is expecting believers to accept that Jesus meant what he said. Remarriage is adultery. He said that 5 times. But most believers refuse to accept that. 'Adulterers shall not inherit the kingdom of God'. Just forget that, there is no way that can be accepted. Hell is a horrible place. Don't allow the temporary pleasures of the sin of living in adultery by remarriage cause you to lose your soul. God can grant grace to do what needs to be done to stop the sexual sin of adultery which occurs in remarriage.

You do not accept the Gospel.
You hold all men as still under the Law, and reject the work of Christ.
God hates divorce, but He loves His Son infinitely more than He hates anything. As the Bride of Christ, Believers have gained that same love.

Accuse the brethren all you want, they will be vindicated on the Last Day.

 

[Nick01]

But there is a basis, proven by your inability to provide a parallel that can vindicate how you read Matt 5:31,32.
That basis is that the sentence format God chose to use through the mouth of his Son makes it impossible for an "essential" exception clause to be used and make sense. When fornication is assumed to mean adultery then the exception clause is "essential". The fact that the sentence structure can ONLY function literally and sensibly when the exception clause JUMPS to a side point (non essential), is damning evidence in and of itself.

It's actually not. This is exactly what I mean - this is not an exegetical argument, and has nothing to do with the actual language Jesus via Matthew uses.

The fact that (in your mind) the pre-marital fornication definition is the 'last one standing' still does not constitute positive proof that porneia EVER connotes purely pre-marital sexual immorality, let alone that that is the plain sense here. The reality is, people have tried to argue that porneia means exactly what you assert here, but they run into problems when they look at the lexical evidence - porneia, while it often includes betrothal unfaithfulness, NEVER EXCLUSIVELY means it.

It seems highly unlikely that anyone's mind would jump instantly to the highly specific area of betrothal unfaithfulness at the exception, when Jesus is otherwise speaking more broadly about sexual infidelity, and porneia fits with that broader application. Unless we conclude that Jesus was being deliberately cryptic with his choice of words, or unless you are willing to pit your logic against the actual language of the gospel of Matthew.

So the question you really have to answer is this: since it is proven beyond any shadow of any doubt that the exception clause in that sentence format HAS TO JUMP to something not directly related to the specific topic under discussion:

Ha.

then what do you suggest it jumps to? The betrothal explanation is available because that termination was identified as a divorce (a putting away). Also in that situation the man and woman bare the titles of "husband and wife" even though they had not left and cleaved and therefore not become bound together by God.

I find it interesting that you argue this. Do you believe a betrothed couple can commit adultery? Do you believe a betrothed couple can be divorced?

Please answer the question:
Since it is proven, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that the exception clause in that sentence format HAS TO JUMP to something not directly related to the specific topic under discussion, (a non essential exception clause): then what do you suggest it jumps to?

Again with the loaded questions. I simply reject your question, because in it you assume the very thing that is under debate.

 

[Zmouth]

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:

But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Luke 20:35

Can't say you weren't warned.

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 2 Tim 2:11

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. Mark 12:25


For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. Col 3:3

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Rom 6:8


For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Eccl 9:5