A
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.
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.
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.