a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

[AVoice]

Nick,

I asked :
To what woman does line 3 pertain to?
I) The wife divorced for adultery,
II) the wife divorced for something not sexually related,
III) or does it pertain to both?


You answered:

It refers to the woman who is divorced under grounds other than the exception clause.

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

Remember, I am responding as if your assertion that ‘fornication’ means adultery in Matt 5:31,32 were true and therefore carrying it to its obvious conclusion.
You said:
It refers to the woman who is divorced under grounds other than the exception clause.

In other words the last clause pertains to her that was divorced for something OTHER than for adultery, something not sexually related. You chose II).
The most basic mechanics of the verse, as demonstrated in other sentences after the same format, is that the exception clause makes it so that when divorced for what it provides for, then the wife is not caused to commit adultery. But when divorced for something other than what the exception clause provides for, then she IS caused to commit adultery. Since that is who you say clause 3 pertains to, (and not to the other, and not to both), that is what we will focus on. Your pick identifies her who was caused to commit adultery.
Since whoever marries her (who you say line 3 is addressing) commits adultery, then such a man by marrying her has to be sexually violating an existing marriage. That is what adultery means. He would be violating her existing marriage, committing adultery with her and against the husband who divorced her wrongfully. (Assuming, as does your understanding, that there is a rightful divorce). So if anyone who marries her commits adultery with her, then obviously she must likewise be committing adultery with him and against the same person; her husband who divorced her.
So she is the innocent party in this unjust divorce, (again, assuming as you do, that there is such a thing as a just divorce). I thought the whole idea concerning the man being able to divorce his wife for adultery was to show how the man doesn’t have to tolerate that. It is not fair for him to have to remain married to her who has done such a bad thing. He is innocent, and therefore he should be able to divorce and get married again.
OK, now the shoe doesn’t fit the other foot. So in the same verse, the innocently divorced wife is off limits. She is not free to get remarried because by so doing she commits adultery and the man who marries her commits adultery. She is innocent, but unlike the man who divorced his wife for adultery, she cannot get married even though she is also innocent. Two innocent persons, who after a divorce, the one can remarry but the other cannot.
Please make sense of this. This is what the literal text says assuming that fornication means adultery in Matt 5:31,32.
This is an example of how the sentence implodes upon itself when fornication is assumed to mean adultery. There are also other points of inconsistency in meaning but for now answer this one point.

 

[Utah]

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.

Troll. Fool. LOL! I've been called to share God's grace that we have in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. You seem to think what Jesus did on the Cross was not good enough for those of us who love the Lord yet know we are sinners and fall short of His glory. And how do you respond to my sharing His grace? Elitism. Arrogance. Cussing. Name calling. Go right ahead, I won't stop you. I'm a child of the Living God and for that I shall always rejoice!

Legalists. What a sad joke! You're modern day Pharisees who shut out the Kingdom of God against man. You don't go in yourselves nor do you let others enter. Blind guides!

 

[JesusistheChrist]

But note, as well, Jeremiah 3:6-9:

6 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot[eporneusan] there. 7 I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw that for all the adulteries[emoicato] of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. 9 Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.

If you look at these verses in the LXX, you'll quickly note that the english harlot here corresponds to porneia, and the use of adultery corresponds to moicheio. Both words are used to describe the same actions by the same agents in the same relationships.

Hi, Nick01.

I'm going to post a fuller version of Jeremiah chapter 3 with some surrounding verses to place what you cited in a fuller and better (in my estimation and I'll explain why before I'm through with this post) context and then I'll hopefully make some points while addressing your actual comments in the process. Here we go:

Jeremiah chapter 3

[1] They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
[2] Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.
[3] Therefore the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain; and thou hadst a whore's forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed.
[4] Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, My father, thou art the guide of my youth?
[5] Will he reserve his anger for ever? will he keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest.
[6] The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.
[7] And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
[8] And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
[9] And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.
[10] And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.
[11] And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.
[12] Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
[13] Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
[14] Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
[15] And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

The first and most important thing (in my estimation and I believe in God's estimation as well) that we need to recognize here is that even though "backsliding Israel" (Jeremiah 3:6, 8, 11-12, 14) was guilty of BOTH "harlotry/whoredom" (Jeremiah 3:1-3, 6, 9) or "fornication" AND "adultery" (Jeremiah 3:8-9), "THE LORD" WAS STILL CALLING HER BACK UNTO HIMSELF!

"...but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 3:1)

"And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me." (Jeremiah 3:7)

"Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever." (Jeremiah 3:12)

"Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you..." (Jeremiah 3:14)

IOW, even if "harlotry/whoredom" ("fornication") or "adultery" OR BOTH were justifiable causes for "putting away" or divorce in relation to "the exception clause" which we're presently studying and discussing, then "THE LORD" STILL SOUGHT RECONCILIATION! Yes, your partial quote of Jeremiah chapter 3, when expanded, actually begins with "the LORD", through the prophet Jeremiah, reminding His hearers of the precept which Moses had given their forefathers...

Deuteronomy chapter 24

[1] When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
[2] And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
[3] And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
[4] Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

...a precept which forbade a wife who had been "put away" and joined unto another to return to her original spouse and a precept which, according to Jesus Christ, was given solely "because of the hardness of their hearts...BUT FROM THE BEGINNIING IT WAS NOT SO" (Matthew 19:8)! In spite of said precept, "THE LORD" STILL SOUGHT RECONCILIATION! IOW, unlike those who were "hardened in heart", "The LORD's" heartset was and still is one of RECONCILIATION. Again, God's original design and intent, "FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION" (Mark 10:6), in relation to marriage was that those who had become "one flesh" would "NO MORE (and "NO MORE" means "NO MORE") be twain, but one flesh" (Mark 10:8) and/or that "what therefore God has joined together, no man would put asunder" (Mark 10:9) or separate. I mean, do we ever REALLY stop and pause to consider those words?

"What GOD has joined together..."

"Let not MAN put asunder."

IOW, are MAN'S desires and intents greater than GOD'S desires and intents?

To look at this world, one would have to conclude that in most cases man truly does consider his own desires and intents to be greater than those of God...but there is a day of reckoning coming.

Anyhow, seeing how "THE LORD" HIMSELF, even though He had justifiable cause, whether in relation to Israel's "harlotry/whoredom" ("fornication") or "adultery" OR BOTH, to "put her away and give her a bill of divorce" (Jeremiah 3:8), STILL SOUGHT RECONCILIATION, ought not every husband, even if he has justifiable cause, whether in relation to "fornication" or "adultery" OR BOTH, to "put away" or divorce his own wife SIMILARLY SEEK RECONCILIATION? Again, when God ordained marriage "FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION" (Mark 10:6), His intent was that the natural union between the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, would mirror or typify the spiritual union between the Ultimate Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, and the ultimate bride, the church. Yes, even as Paul taught the Christians at Ephesus, this is "a great mystery":

Ephesians chapter 5

[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
[23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
[24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
[27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
[28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
[30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Is Christ, the Ultimate Bridegroom, anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce His bride, the church?

Is the church, the ultimate bride, anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce her Bridegroom, Christ?

I know that the answer to the first question is a resounding "NO!", but, quite frankly, from what I've observed in my own lifetime in relation to much of the professing church, I cannot, with certainty, answer the second question in the same manner. IOW, in many cases, it does seem that the church is anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce Christ in that she refuses to submit to His authority and truly reverence Him. Anyhow, my point is this:

In my estimation (and I believe in God's estimation as well), any husband who is anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce his own wife, EVEN IF HE HAS JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE TO DO SO IN RELATION TO "THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE", as opposed to actively seeking RECONCILIATION WITH HER, EVEN AS "THE LORD" HIMSELF DOES WITH HIS OWN "BRIDE" OR "WIFE", is teaching THE WORLD, by analogy, that Christ, the Ultimate Bridegroom, is anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce the church.

Similarly, in my estimation (and I believe in God's estimation as well), any wife who is anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce her own husband, EVEN IF SHE HAS JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE TO DO SO IN RELATION TO "THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE", as opposed to actively seeking RECONCILIATION WITH HIM, EVEN AS THE CHURCH OUGHT TO ALWAYS SEEK THE SAME WITH HER OWN "BRIDEGROOM" OR "HUSBAND", is teaching THE WORLD, by analogy, that the church, the ultimate bride, is anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce Christ. Of course, in relation to the bride of Christ, we never really have justifiable cause to "put away" or divorce Christ in that He is the perfect Bridegroom, but I'm just seeking to make a point here.

Let's be real...

Among those who have been divorced (estimations are that somewhere between 40% to 50% of marriages presently end in divorce here in the United States), what percentage, would you say/guess, of these divorcees actually assertively seek RECONCILIATION with their spouse, AS "THE LORD" HIMSELF DOES, and what percentage, would you say/guess, are more than happy to be done with their spouse? Also, let's keep in mind here that many of said divorces aren't even related to "the exception clause" to begin with.

Regardless of the actual percentages, anyone who doesn't actively and assertively seek RECONCILIATION with their spouse is misrepresenting God and His original (and it hasn't changed) design and purpose for marriage...in my estimation...and I believe in God's estimation as well.

Now, somebody might say, "Are you kidding me? What about examples of abuse, etc.?!?" Even in extreme circumstances (our sins are EXTREME in God's sight, are they not?), the heartset and mindset of any spouse ought to be first and foremost a heartset and mindset which seeks RECONCILIATION. Is such always going to be possible? No, it is not and even "The LORD" Himself gave the following prerequisite for RECONCILIATION:

"Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed..." (Jeremiah 3:13)

When such "acknowledgement" of "transgression" is TRULY made ("The LORD" Himself is opposed to those who return "feignedly" and not "with their whole heart" - Jeremiah 3:10), then what should the returning party expect? The answer is found here:

"I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful..." (Jeremiah 3:12)

Am I saying that it is easy to show mercy to one who has transgressed against us and who truly acknowledges such a transgression? Maybe not, but it is required, nonetheless. Again, my own marriage is anything but "a day at the beach", but I endure many things so as to not possibly bring a reproach upon the name of Christ, the Ultimate Bridegroom, by my own actions which typify His. Also, again, keep in mind that many divorces have NOTHING to do with anything even remotely related to "the exception clause".

Anyhow, I'll now turn my attention to your actual comments, but, PLEASE, let's not any of us miss the aforementioned heartset and mindset of "the LORD" which I just covered and let's not any of us miss the reality that our own heartsets and mindsets ought to mirror His if we truly belong to Him and if we truly are subject unto Him. Before I address your actual comments, I do need to "set the stage", as it were. Please consider the following with me:

"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (II Corinthians 11:1-2)

Did you catch that?

Here, the Apostle Paul, while writing to THE CHRISTIANS or to THE CHURCH at Corinth or while writing to those who comprise part of the overall BRIDE OF CHRIST, reminded them that they are only in THE ESPOUSAL PERIOD! Yes, we, like they, have only been "ESPOUSED to one husband", Christ, and as Paul desired that they might be "presented AS CHASTE VIRGINS TO CHRIST", we, likewise, ought to be seeking to be presented unto Him in exactly the same manner:

Revelation chapter 19

[7] Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
[8] And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
[9] And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

AS CHRISTIANS, we've been "called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb", but, again, we're really only yet in THE ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD of our relationship with our own Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. As such, as with any natural bride, we should be "making ourselves ready" for our wedding day and part of said "making ourselves ready" is in making sure that we are truly found to be "CHASTE VIRGINS" in that we haven't committed "fornication" during our ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD, spiritually speaking. Again, those verses which I cited from Deuteronomy chapter 22 and Matthew chapter 1 in relation to "fornication" DURING THE ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD have all the more relevancy when we recognize that we are presently only "ESPOUSED to one husband" (II Corinthians 11:2), namely Christ. Yes, when we read of how we're to be presented unto Christ as "CHASTE VIRGINS", then, spiritually speaking, we better have our own "tokens of virginity" or we better be able to prove that we haven't been "fornicating", spiritually speaking, during our own ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIODS. Which leads us back to your quote from Jeremiah and your corresponding comments...

What we read in Jeremiah chapter 3 in relation to Israel's "harlotry/whoredom" or "fornication" was written in relation to THEIR OWN ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD. Yes, like us, even though "the LORD" referred to them as being "married" (Jeremiah 3:14) unto Him, they were really only still in THEIR ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD. Is this significant? Yes, I fully believe that it is. Again, those verses from Deuteronomy chapter 22 and Matthew chapter 1 have a lot more relevancy to us than you seem to presently believe that they do and they also have plenty of relevancy here in relation to "backsliding Israel" who herself was only in THE ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD.

With such a reality before us, with Whom/whom was "backsliding Israel" committing her "harlotries/whoredoms" or "fornications" and were said "harlotries/whoredoms" or "fornications" LITERAL or FIGURATIVE? Let's turn to our text for the answers to these most important questions:

"Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where thou hast not been lien with. In the ways hast thou sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness." (Jeremiah 3:2)

Again:

"Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 3:13)

"Backsliding Israel" was guilty of "going up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath she played the harlot" (Jeremiah 3:6). IOW, her "harlotries/whoredoms" or "fornications" were FIGURATIVE in that as a "harlot" would sit by the way to summon her lovers unto herself, "backsliding Israel" was summoning "strangers" (Jeremiah 3:13) unto her idolatrous practices which were transpiring "upon every high mountain and under every green tree" (Jeremiah 3:6). Yes, it was these "strangers" who, FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING, were "lying with her" ("and see where thou hast not been lien with" - Jeremiah 3:2) in that they were joining her in her idolatrous practices. IOW, her "harlotries/whoredoms" or "fornications" FIGURATIVELY spoke of her interactions WITH MEN during her ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD.

(Continued in next post)

 

[JesusistheChrist]

(Continued from previous post)

Well, what then of her "adulteries"? I mean, you claimed the following:

If you look at these verses in the LXX, you'll quickly note that the english harlot here corresponds to porneia, and the use of adultery corresponds to moicheio. Both words are used to describe the same actions by the same agents in the same relationships.

Is what you stated, in fact, true?

IOW, although "the same agents", "backsliding Israel", committed BOTH "harlotry/whoredom" or "fornication" AND "adultery", did BOTH "describe the same actions" and did BOTH pertain to "the same relationships"? The answer to both of these questions is, "NO, THEY DID NOT!". IOW, whereas "backsliding Israel" was guilty of committing "harlotries/whoredoms" or "fornication" WITH STRANGERS, her "adultery" was directly related to her IDOLATRY itself and not related to the STRANGERS who partook with her in the same, but rather directly related to "THE LORD" HIMSELF in that her IDOLATRY was basically the sin of "having other gods before Him" (Exodus 20:3-6). In relation to this, we read:

"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks." (Jeremiah 3:8-9)

Again, whereas "backsliding Israel" commited "harlotry/whoredom" or "fornication", FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING, with "the strangers" who had "lien with her" or with the men (and possibly women, too, I suppose) whom she had summoned unto her idolatrous practices, her "adultery" was "committed with stones and with stocks" or with "false gods" and was therefore directly committed against "the LORD" Himself. As such, I really don't see how "both words", that which signified her "harlotry/whoredom" or "fornication" and that which signified her "adultery", "are used to describe the same actions" (Again, one action was towards "the strangers" whereas the other action was towards "the LORD") or are used in relation to "the same relationships" (Again, one "relationship" was with "the strangers" whereas the other relationship was with "the LORD") as you claimed they are.

Anyhow, again, my overall point here is that even in a situation where "the LORD" Himself had "put away" backsliding Israel "and given her a bill of divorce" (Jeremiah 3:8) DURING HER ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD, "THE LORD" STILL SOUGHT RECONCILIATION!

We'd all be wise to learn from the same...unless we couldn't give a damn about dishonoring "the LORD" before THE WORLD, that is.

Thanks for reading/prayerfully considering.

 

[AVoice]

In my estimation (and I believe in God's estimation as well), any husband who is anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce his own wife, EVEN IF HE HAS JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE TO DO SO IN RELATION TO "THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE", as opposed to actively seeking RECONCILIATION WITH HER, EVEN AS "THE LORD" HIMSELF DOES WITH HIS OWN "BRIDE" OR "WIFE", is teaching THE WORLD, by analogy, that Christ, the Ultimate Bridegroom, is anxious or desirous to "put away" or divorce the church.

This suggests that you believe the exception clause provides justifiable cause for a married husband to divorce his own wife. Was that a mistake?

Concerning Jer 3:8
Israel, an entire nation made of many people was used by this teaching method to make a point that God felt the way a husband feels when his wife has been unfaithful. That was not a literal husband and wife situation. Also the scripture basis for that lesson was Dt 24:1-4, a section from the OT that has been abolished under the greater NT.

Dt 24:1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts and was temporarily allowed for the hardness of their hearts only UNTIL the NT brought grace and truth. Name 1 thing that is absolutely 'good' that is allowed for the hardness of their hearts. It wasn't "good" but it was the better than other possible potential evils. It was the lesser of evils. That is how 'law' often works when dealing with the unregenerated. That law was surely available to be used to project a spiritual lesson even though now under the NT it is a sin to literally obey that obsolete law.

The underlying message, put forth by those trying to use Jeremiah 3:8 to justify literal divorce, is that if God divorced then we should be able to divorce. But God is not a flesh and blood person, neither does he have a literal flesh and blood wife. The pro divorce and remarriage crowd are using a parable-like teaching tool in Jer 3:8, (spoken to highlight a particular lesson) and assuming that it can be applied to the actual flesh and blood divorce of a real husband and wife. If it were true that since God 'divorced' therefore we should be able to literally divorce; then whatever else God used parabolically we can also use literally. He refers to himself having two wives in Ezekiel in a similar parabolic use of what they were familiar with to illustrate a point. So then if we carry that thinking to its conclusion then under the NT men should be able to have two wives, right?
Do those justifying divorce "because God divorced Israel" believe men are allowed to have two wives in the NT because God had two wives?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

This suggests that you believe the exception clause provides justifiable cause for a married husband to divorce his own wife. Was that a mistake?

Hi, AVoice.

Well, that depends upon what you mean by "a married husband" and "his own wife". Again, during the betrothal or espousal period, a man and woman were considered to be "husband" and "wife" even though they had not yet formally been married. As such, as I've painstakingly sought to explain, I believe that "the exception clause" pertains to this stage of the relationship or to the stage of betrothal or espousal and not to any stage after it.

Concerning Jer 3:8
Israel, an entire nation made of many people was used by this teaching method to make a point that God felt the way a husband feels when his wife has been unfaithful. That was not a literal husband and wife situation. Also the scripture basis for that lesson was Dt 24:1-4, a section from the OT that has been abolished under the greater NT.

Dt 24:1-4 was written for the hardness of their hearts and was temporarily allowed for the hardness of their hearts only UNTIL the NT brought grace and truth. Name 1 thing that is absolutely 'good' that is allowed for the hardness of their hearts. It wasn't "good" but it was the better than other possible potential evils. It was the lesser of evils. That is how 'law' often works when dealing with the unregenerated. That law was surely available to be used to project a spiritual lesson even though now under the NT it is a sin to literally obey that obsolete law.

The underlying message, put forth by those trying to use Jeremiah 3:8 to justify literal divorce, is that if God divorced then we should be able to divorce. But God is not a flesh and blood person, neither does he have a literal flesh and blood wife. The pro divorce and remarriage crowd are using a parable-like teaching tool in Jer 3:8, (spoken to highlight a particular lesson) and assuming that it can be applied to the actual flesh and blood divorce of a real husband and wife. If it were true that since God 'divorced' therefore we should be able to literally divorce; then whatever else God used parabolically we can also use literally. He refers to himself having two wives in Ezekiel in a similar parabolic use of what they were familiar with to illustrate a point. So then if we carry that thinking to its conclusion then under the NT men should be able to have two wives, right?
Do those justifying divorce "because God divorced Israel" believe men are allowed to have two wives in the NT because God had two wives?

I'm not sure if you addressed this to me as a confirmation of what I had written or as some sort of correction. In either case, as I stated in my previous post, I fully believe that the relationship spoken of in Jeremiah chapter 3 was FIGURATIVE and NOT LITERAL (even as you've stated) and I also went out of my way to state that God's heartset and mindset was and still is one of RECONCILIATION and that our heartsets and mindsets ought to therefore mirror His if we truly belong to Him. IOW, by no means whatsoever was I seeking to justify divorce which God Himself hates.

 

[AVoice]

Hi, AVoice.

Well, that depends upon what you mean by "a married husband" and "his own wife". Again, during the betrothal or espousal period, a man and woman were considered to be "husband" and "wife" even though they had not yet formally been married. As such, as I've painstakingly sought to explain, I believe that "the exception clause" pertains to this stage of the relationship or to the stage of betrothal or espousal and not to any stage after it.


I'm not sure if you addressed this to me as a confirmation of what I had written or as some sort of correction. In either case, as I stated in my previous post, I fully believe that the relationship spoken of in Jeremiah chapter 3 was FIGURATIVE and NOT LITERAL (even as you've stated) and I also went out of my way to state that God's heartset and mindset was and still is one of RECONCILIATION and that our heartsets and mindsets ought to therefore mirror His if we truly belong to Him. IOW, by no means whatsoever was I seeking to justify divorce which God Himself hates.

Thanks for clarifying. The context seemed to be the normal post marital divorce when you spoke of the allowable putting away so it was not clear. We often have to make ourselves super clear what particular kind of divorce we are referring to so people do not misunderstand; since the premarital divorce is often incomprehensible to many even after having been explained numerous times.
I posted that about Jeremiah in confirmation and because I felt what I had to share cut right to the point more clearly and needed more emphasis on the fact that Dt 24:1-4 is not the truth anyway, but was only a temporary law which God used in Jer. to make a point. [For example Jesus uses a parable about going to war to make a point but very literally war is prohibited for Christians]. Jer 3, about divorce was analogous and things analogous often have a point or two that the literal thing in the analogy is being used to point out. Like literal war by Jesus is used to teach the spiritual war and struggle we must face as Christians.


You declared plainly that you understand the exception clause to pertain EXCLUSIVELY to the premarital Joseph/Mary divorce we see in Matt 1. That is what I teach. I was however puzzled by one of your earlier posts wherein you identified an entirely different kind of divorce, what is called the "found her not a maid" explanation for the exception clause that uses Dt 22:23,24. I understand this well. It uses a situation that is not a divorce, to associate to divorce, identifying a way a man could divorce for fornication AFTER he marries her (is joined in marriage becomes one flesh). So he divorces her after becoming one flesh, (after becoming joined in marriage), for fornication she did before getting married. I know it sounds good at first until one begins to examine it more closely.
Anyway, since you included it and it is contrary to the betrothal explanation, just wondering why you included it since it could confuse someone since the two explanations (the 'betrothal' and the 'found her not a maid') are at serious odds with one another. There is a man on the internet by the name of Wilcox who teaches fervently against the divorce for adultery explanation and he says he supports the betrothal explanation. The thing is that he mixes in the 'found her not a maid'
explanation within the betrothal explanation as if they are one in the same (as I understand him). He writes as if there is no problem whatsoever; as if the one is in complete accord with the other when in reality they are incompatible.
So when you referred to the 'found her not a maid' explanation it raised doubts and I wanted to make sure you were not like Mr. Wilcox.
I realize I may simply have misunderstood your motive for including that other and different explanation.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Hi, AVoice.

I've never before really considered the difference which you just mentioned...probably because I always saw them both as centering around "fornication" which would have occurred BEFORE the marriage actually took place even though the one wouldn't have been recognizable until AFTER the marriage had formally taken place....but NOT NECESSARILY AFTER there had been any sort of sexual intercourse or "one flesh" bonding. I mean, I suppose that a man could rightly determine that his wife wasn't a virgin BEFORE they engaged in any sort of sexual intercourse of before they became "one flesh" in that he might have only checked to see if her hymen was still intact. Do you consider such a possibility and how would such a possibility affect your own beliefs? Also, seeing how such a realization would have more than likely taken place on their wedding night, is it really that much of a difference time wise? Anyhow, again, in all honesty, I never really considered the timing between the two until you just mentioned it, so I'll need to ponder the issue myself before the Lord before commenting any further.

 

[AVoice]

Hi, AVoice.

I've never before really considered the difference which you just mentioned...probably because I always saw them both as centering around "fornication" which would have occurred BEFORE the marriage actually took place even though the one wouldn't have been recognizable until AFTER the marriage had formally taken place....but NOT NECESSARILY AFTER there had been any sort of sexual intercourse or "one flesh" bonding. I mean, I suppose that a man could rightly determine that his wife wasn't a virgin BEFORE they engaged in any sort of sexual intercourse of before they became "one flesh" in that he might have only checked to see if her hymen was still intact. Do you consider such a possibility and how would such a possibility affect your own beliefs? Also, seeing how such a realization would have more than likely taken place on their wedding night, is it really that much of a difference time wise? Anyhow, again, in all honesty, I never really considered the timing between the two until you just mentioned it, so I'll need to ponder the issue myself before the Lord before commenting any further.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
[SUP]17 [/SUP]And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
[SUP]21 [/SUP]Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
That is how the blood was deposited on the cloth, by way of actually having sex with her.
So that is a post marital divorce for fornication she did BEFORE marrying him.
This is just one of many things done under the OT that would be a sin to observe under the NT.
Notice that after going in unto her and there was NOT evidence of virginity then she would be stoned. So when changing the stoning to divorce then what we have there is a sexual trial run for the husband. He puts asunder what God has joined together. It is a post marital divorce therefore it is not allowed.
The found her not a maid explanation needs to be condemned by all those who have been erroneously led to say it fits with what the exception clause allows.

Concerning "take a wife" in verse 13, consider Dt 20:7 and Matt 1:20,24,25.
To have a wife by betrothal and then to 'take' her appears to mean be joined as in living together. Of course that would mean the beginning of their sex life, normally speaking. In the case of Joseph he 'took' her but then the text informs us that he knew her not until after Jesus was born.

 

[Nick01]

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.

It is you who have read into the text your meaning, in making your addition. The addition is invalid insofar as being analogous to the situation in Matthew 5. Your addition sets out the circumstances in which the yelling is done (presumably to antagonise, given it aggravates the listener and precipitates laughter. Line A in matthew sets out no such circumstances - it only sets out the mechanics of sending a wife away (vis, providing a certificate of divorce). It does not specify under what circumstances the wife is sent away, which is precisely what Jesus then addresses, and what the discourse on Deuteronomy 24 at the time primarily concerned itself with (vis, what made a wife 'indecent'). Your addition does not match the circumstances of Matthew 5, and is invalid.

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.

The clause you have inserted in this latest example is redundant - if you remove it, it essentially says the same thing, as without the additional qualification, the reason is irrelevant, and therefore any reason is strictly speaking acceptable. Again, this is the thrust of at least one of the understandings of divorce law Jesus is challenging - that the only criterion for a legal divorce is the provision of a certificate.

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.

No, it is not, for the purposes the clause is being used. The fact of the matter is, the teaching has been abused (people yell at others on the street for whatever reason they like), and it is that abuse that is being confronted. The exception simply spells out that which is acceptable and excepted, but is nonetheless not the practice of those this challenge is being aimed at. Whether or not you want to discuss whether the exception is the only reasonable exception or not (i.e. to what extent the exception should be read literalistically and exhaustively or not) does not change the fact that there is an exception.

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.

I first want to point out the obvious - under YOUR reading of the text, this problem still exists. If there is NO exception at all (except in a bethrothal scenario), then your reading (in fact, especially your reading, because you require the text to be strictly literal and exhaustive) would still require a man to remain married to a wife trying to kill him, or who eats their children. There is, in fact, no possible circumstance in which divorce is permitted in a married situation.

Second, if we assume for the sake of discussion that Jesus strictly means that marital infidelity is grounds for divorce, but marital murder is not (on the basis that he does not specifically mention it), that is of itself not contradictory or non-sensical. It is just difficult to understand, and represents a different set of priorities to our own. That is par for the course in Scripture - God's thoughts are not our thoughts. So if that is indeed what Jesus intends, it might be DIFFICULT, and perhaps, in light of our own human understanding, IRRATIONAL, but it is not logically contradictory in a way that means the text does not literally make sense. These are two different things, and you are confusing your own understanding and priorities for logically coherence. They are not the same thing.

Thirdly, this is an issue that the church fathers themselves dealt with. Specifically, Origen, in his commentaries (specifically read part 24), addresses this very question, wondering whether Jesus is indeed saying that Jesus is permitting divorce for infidelity but not murder. He does not have a clear answer, but it is striking in the extreme that he nowhere questions whether or not Jesus is providing an exception that allows for divorce. He plainly believes, and indeed finds it uncontroversial and nowhere notes any other understanding of the text known to him, as he will often highlight if it has a bearing on his comments.

 

[Nick01]

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.

No, it has not. That porneia is used in a pre-marital context does not mean the word itself carries a technical usage pertaining specifically to pre-marital sexual infidelity, and therefore can carry that meaning in contexts that on all other grounds have no other relationship to betrothal context (which is what you're attempting to assert). Very different things.

That's like saying because I can use the word 'desire' to mean something like lust in a particular context, therefore it always carries that meaning in all contexts, and all desire is 'bad' on the merits of the word, rather than the context. It does not follow.

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've conceded before that the word potentially could carry that sense. But it does not follow that the word itself is enough to indicate a pre-marital context.

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.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. While they have not 'cleaved', certainly one could be punished by death for crimes against their betrothed by sleeping with another person. They are not 'completely single', as they are already in covenant with their betrothed, even if that relationship has not been consummated. I'm not at all sure one could just break off a betrothal in that sense.

But, again, I actually think Jesus could well be including betrothal porneia in his discussion and exception here. But I simply do not accept that he meant ONLY that kind of sin. I'm certainly not excluding it, though - it's irrelevant to my position.

 

[Kerry]

Look at us arguing the meaning of certain words, God help us

 

[Nick01]

Remember, I am responding as if your assertion that ‘fornication’ means adultery in Matt 5:31,32 were true and therefore carrying it to its obvious conclusion.

To clarify, I am not intending to mean fornication means ONLY adultery (whether or not it does in this instance doesn't affect my position, and so I'm prepared to leave it an open question), but it certainly includes it.

Since whoever marries her (who you say line 3 is addressing) commits adultery, then such a man by marrying her has to be sexually violating an existing marriage. That is what adultery means. He would be violating

her existing marriage, committing adultery with her and against the husband who divorced her wrongfully. (Assuming, as does your understanding, that there is a rightful divorce). So if anyone who marries her commits adultery with her, then obviously she must likewise be committing adultery with him and against the same person; her husband who divorced her.

Yep, that's about right. Though, again, the whole point of Jesus discussion is that the responsibility for this state of affairs rests fundamentally on the first husband, who caused his wife to commit adultery. It is against that first husband, flippantly throwing certificates around, that Jesus is aiming the barrage at.

So she is the innocent party in this unjust divorce, (again, assuming as you do, that there is such a thing as a just divorce). I thought the whole idea concerning the man being able to divorce his wife for adultery was to show how the man doesn’t have to tolerate that. It is not fair for him to have to remain married to her who has done such a bad thing. He is innocent, and therefore he should be able to divorce and get married again.

I think the point is more fundamentally about the covenant being broken than about fairness per se, but sure.

OK, now the shoe doesn’t fit the other foot. So in the same verse, the innocently divorced wife is off limits. She is not free to get remarried because by so doing she commits adultery and the man who marries her commits adultery. She is innocent, but unlike the man who divorced his wife for adultery, she cannot get married even though she is also innocent. Two innocent persons, who after a divorce, the one can remarry but the other cannot.

I don't think that's the point of the text. Worth noting that the text says the woman is caused to commit adultery simply by virtue of being divorced, before any other marriage. If you take the point of the text as a prohibition on people marrying wrongly divorced wives, then I think you're reading the text wrong, and I don't even believe that is what Jesus is saying. The point, again, is that the first husband is causing the adultery not only on his wife, but any future husband (the language is similar to "passing sin to the xth generation in the OT). Where does the blame fall in this passage? Squarely on the first husband.

In any case, whether or not the first husband can remarry in a legitimate divorce is actually a discussion requiring one to go beyond this text. Worth pointing out that all the marriage/divorce discussion in the NT (and almost all of it in the Old) is focussed on the men, and what they are permitted to do, which is par for the course for the time and cultures in which the Scriptures were written.

Also worth pointing out, again, that this perceived 'problem' still exists in your reading of the text. In other words, according to your argument, you must also believe that an innocently divorced woman (under any circumstances) cannot remarry, even though, on your argument, the man who legitimately divorces his wife for betrothal infidelity can.

 

[Nick01]

JesusIsTheChrist,

If I can summarise all of your discussion (I did read all your two posts, but don't feel I need to systematicall reply), it is that - whether or not an exception is permitted, whether or not porneia and moicheio overlap, we should pursue reconciliation before divorce.

I agree entirely. Please don't read what I have written as me trying to justify shotgun divorces once you 'get over the line' of legitimacy. I think the whole point of Jesus' teaching is to defend the seriousness of marriage. I think reconciliation is always preferable, precisely because our God, one the one hand uses divorce language of himself, but also pursues his adulterous wife (Israel, as the exemplar of humanity). But that does not change the fact that Jesus still provides an exception, and that the Scriptures, Old and New, provide avenues for people to leave marriages that have failed or unworkable. So I want to affirm your writing, but also just push back a little bit by saying that one can still fight for marriage, and fight for its purity, while still acknowledging human sin and the possibility of everything, even marriage, being imperfect and sometimes deeply flawed this side of heaven.

As to your comments on fornication and adultery, I think you are stretching things. Here is the crux of what you say:

What we read in Jeremiah chapter 3 in relation to Israel's "harlotry/whoredom" or "fornication" was written in relation to THEIR OWN ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD. Yes, like us, even though "the LORD" referred to them as being "married" (Jeremiah 3:14) unto Him, they were really only still in THEIR ESPOUSAL OR BETROTHAL PERIOD.

In other words, you are saying that even though the Scriptures themselves will refer to the Lord and Israel as being 'married', even though the Lord calls her 'wife', even though he uses the plain old word of 'divorce' to describe his relationship with her, he is actually meaning specifically a betrothed, non married state, in a way that has real, tangible impacts on our understanding of marriage and divorce in Matthew 5.

I would have some sympathy for this position if you weren't be so inconsistent with your use of biblical language. Earlier, you accused me of thinking that the Lord somehow mucked up with the words that he was using. Now, you expect me to agree that in Jeremiah, the language of marriage is used rather amorphously and freely, but in Matthew it is incredibly specific and exclusive.

And, again, I need to point out that your argument harms your own position. If the Lord sees fit to see betrothal and actual marriage as almost identical, and certainly semantically interchangeable (as your argument in Jeremiah requires), why do we expect him now to delineate so finely and so crucially in Matthew 5, let alone expect those who heard the message at the time to make the distinction, given their understanding of marriage was formed by the culture of the Torah?

It just doesn't ring true, to me, unfortunately. The only ways I can see for your position to become more consistant are either to hold to your understanding of Jeremiah 3 and thus concede that it is unlikely in the extreme that Jesus is only speaking of betrothal infidelity and divorce (excluding marital infidelity) in Matthew 5, or to hold to your current technical reading of Matthew 5 and admit that Jeremiah 3 militates against that reading. Either way still holds its own problems, in my view, but at least they are more consistent.

As for your specific references to whoredom and adultery, I think you're selectively defining the ways Jeremiah uses those words. Porneia is used in reference not just to fornication with strangers, but with the land (v. 2). It is precisely through her fornications that she commits the adultery with stones and rocks (v. 9). It should be obvious that in neither case does the Lord mean to refer to physical fornications or adultery with specific people (although that is included), but that both words are used to describe Israel and Judah's idolatry. Read the whole chapter in one go. Both words are used figuratively, both used of relationships to things and people, and both ascribed to Israel/Judah in the context of her being in a relationship with God, and him calling her back to him.

For what it's worth, I think Jeremiah 3 is a beautiful depiction of what you argued for in terms of reconciliation. I just think your use of it as a prooftext is selective, mistaken and reductionist.

 

[AVoice]

It is you who have read into the text your meaning, in making your addition. The addition is invalid insofar as being analogous to the situation in Matthew 5. Your addition sets out the circumstances in which the yelling is done (presumably to antagonise, given it aggravates the listener and precipitates laughter. Line A in matthew sets out no such circumstances - it only sets out the mechanics of sending a wife away (vis, providing a certificate of divorce). It does not specify under what circumstances the wife is sent away, which is precisely what Jesus then addresses, and what the discourse on Deuteronomy 24 at the time primarily concerned itself with (vis, what made a wife 'indecent'). Your addition does not match the circumstances of Matthew 5, and is invalid..

The challenge is a very liberal challenge, whereby the burden of taking it is easy because of how liberal it is. The challenge does not ask anyone to provide an analogy. The purpose of a background story is so that when it is time to read the 6 lines of the parallel, the six lines will fall into place and be sensible. Remember, the thrust of the challenge is that the person taking it can produce a parallel whose exception clause can provide partial allowance for the same thing line A establishes to be the topic of discussion.
The topic of discussion in Matt 5:31,32 is not just divorce, but more specifically post marital divorce. So there is a "kind' of the action being done. When you initially referred to a bike gang doing the yelling it was practical for me to assume that it was the irresponsible kind of yelling, such as to aggravate. So then, your parallel possesses a specific kind of the action being done, (like Matt 5:31) and then the exception clause jumps away to something else. The exception clause is found to be "non essential":

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.

This is exactly how Matt 5:31,32 functions under the divorce-in-betrothal explanation, concerning it being "non essential". It is immediately recognized as being disconnected so that other clauses are NOT dependent on what it says for their meaning to be grasped. The exception clause can be completely omitted and the rest of the sentence makes perfect sense, BECAUSE it is a "non essential" clause.

When that sentence format has a non essential exception clause the sentence explains itself to the point that the sentence is so easy to understand it becomes boring. Read again how that specific kind of irresponsible yelling has been identified and see how boring the non essential exception clause is. It is a no brainer.

When you made it clear that you intended Line A to include MORE than one kind of the action done, then you were more easily able to create an exception clause that was "essential". Its presence becomes critical for the rest of the sentence to function and other clauses become dependent on its meaning. The whole sentence becomes anything but boring. 'Anything but boring' to the point you concede that the problems that Matt 5:31,32 has under the adultery explanation, (that you say Origen identified) are also present in your parallel.

So your parallel has served to illustrate the difference between a non essential exception clause and an essential exception clause by virtue of there having been two versions made. I think you are able to see that the version with the non essential exception clause is quite literal and very competent to the point of being boring, while the other version has complications, which you acknowledge.
Likewise, the betrothal explanation for the exception clause is very literal and straightforward because the exception clause is non essential and can be completely ignored or left out without damaging the main points being made.

So when we parallel the two versions of your parallel with the two ways the exception clause is read in Matt 5:31,32 then we find the one with the non essential clause (the betrothal explanation) as being very literal and straightforwardly coherent to the point of being boring. The other version with the essential exception clause (divorce for a post marital sexual offense) as NOT being "very literal and straightforwardly coherent."

The choice is really simple; by what version would we have expected Jesus to have addressed this heaven and hell topic?
I understand, it is a little late, after it has been drummed into people that there was NO choice to make: that there was NO alternative, that the exception clause HAD to have been identifying a post marital sexual sin as grounds for divorce.
But now, since light is brought forth that makes Matt 5:31,32 very literal and straightforward in intention and meaning, (literally supporting the straightforward literal messages in Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 Rom 7:2,3 and Rom 7:39), how can anyone choose to stay in that old darkness?

Second, if we assume for the sake of discussion that Jesus strictly means that marital infidelity is grounds for divorce, but marital murder is not (on the basis that he does not specifically mention it), that is of itself not contradictory or non-sensical. It is just difficult to understand, and represents a different set of priorities to our own. That is par for the course in Scripture - God's thoughts are not our thoughts. So if that is indeed what Jesus intends, it might be DIFFICULT, and perhaps, in light of our own human understanding, IRRATIONAL, but it is not logically contradictory in a way that means the text does not literally make sense. These are two different things, and you are confusing your own understanding and priorities for logically coherence. They are not the same thing.

I am so glad, on this topic, that I do not have to resort any longer to these kinds of mental gymnastics trying to defend what I have misunderstood.

Specifically, Origen, in his commentaries (specifically read part 24), addresses this very question, wondering whether Jesus is indeed saying that Jesus is permitting divorce for infidelity but not murder. He does not have a clear answer, but it is striking in the extreme that he nowhere questions whether or not Jesus is providing an exception that allows for divorce. He plainly believes, and indeed finds it uncontroversial and nowhere notes any other understanding of the text known to him, as he will often highlight if it has a bearing on his comments.

Origin was just a man like you or I. You and I have both been in darkness before. Origin was clearly in darkness there. But I expect him to have been able to understand the difference between an "essential" and "non essential" exception clause. I expect him to have been able to listen to reason and to patiently have accepted a reasonable challenge.
I expect him to have been able to accept that he had been in darkness once light had been revealed.

I want to answer your objections etc., but I am back at work, so the weekends are more likely when I can.

 

[Nick01]

The topic of discussion in Matt 5:31,32 is not just divorce, but more specifically post marital divorce.

For what reason do you assert this? It is not necessary to assume that it is only talking about post marital divorce, especially if I take your point that the Scriptures are capable of having a prescrption for pre-marital (betrothal) divorce.

So there is a "kind' of the action being done. When you initially referred to a bike gang doing the yelling it was practical for me to assume that it was the irresponsible kind of yelling, such as to aggravate. So then, your parallel possesses a specific kind of the action being done, (like Matt 5:31) and then the exception clause jumps away to something else.

Again, I don't see why that is required. You might decide it is expedeient or reasonable or whatever to assume it is referring to only irresponsible yelling in the initial sentence, but it is by no means required by the actual lanague of Line A. In fact, it actually becomes less likely that it should be read so if the whole point of the quotation in Line A is so that i can be CHALLENGED. But we're simply going around in circles at this point - I simply reject your assertion that it is at all reasonable to force the text to only be referring to 'illegitimate' yelling in the original subject. The same goes for your following discussion of Matthew 5:31.

This is exactly how Matt 5:31,32 functions under the divorce-in-betrothal explanation, concerning it being "non essential". It is immediately recognized as being disconnected so that other clauses are NOT dependent on what it says for their meaning to be grasped. The exception clause can be completely omitted and the rest of the sentence makes perfect sense, BECAUSE it is a "non essential" clause.

Again, whether or not an exception clause is 'essential' or not has precisely nothing to do with whether the clause is required for a sentence to make grammatical sense. You're simply making up grammatical rules that have no real bearing on how language is actually required to work in actual usage. I have argued this before - If I say "I will happily eat any vegetable, except for carrots, for dinner," the exception is integral to a proper understanding of what is meant, and what is allowed or not allowed. If I take away the exception, the sentence still makes sense, but on a strict reading of the text, the meaning has changed. The question has nothing to do with grammatical coherence AT ALL.

When that sentence format has a non essential exception clause the sentence explains itself to the point that the sentence is so easy to understand it becomes boring. Read again how that specific kind of irresponsible yelling has been identified and see how boring the non essential exception clause is. It is a no brainer.

I think it is a no brainer as an essential exception as well. Just because you think one option is hard and one easier to understand is not in itself an argument for anything if someone disputes your understanding of 'difficulty' of 'simplicity'. It's simply an appeal to personal incredulity.

The whole sentence becomes anything but boring. 'Anything but boring' to the point you concede that the problems that Matt 5:31,32 has under the adultery explanation, (that you say Origen identified) are also present in your parallel.

And they are such 'problems' which, as I have pointed out, exist in your reading anyway. I don't have a particular answer, (I don't really need to), but I don't think the 'problems' are at all destructive to my reading of the text. Certainly, they do not magically make it self-contradictory. Whether something is boring or not to read or understand tells us precious little about whether a reading is correct or not.

The choice is really simple; by what version would we have expected Jesus to have addressed this heaven and hell topic?
I understand, it is a little late, after it has been drummed into people that there was NO choice to make: that there was NO alternative, that the exception clause HAD to have been identifying a post marital sexual sin as grounds for divorce.
But now, since light is brought forth that makes Matt 5:31,32 very literal and straightforward in intention and meaning, (literally supporting the straightforward literal messages in Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 Rom 7:2,3 and Rom 7:39), how can anyone choose to stay in that old darkness?

Again, I don't think your point is made, and you've had to reach to very extreme lengths to try and justify that which you consider a 'very literal and straightforward' reading of the text. You try to have your cake and eat it too, reaching for the false branch of 'simplicity as truth, truth is simplicity', while at the same time consistently relying on long, complicated posts composed of highly specific grammatical minutiae in order to make your point. It's fine to be complicated, or simple, or to argue for a complicated, or simple, approach. You just can't have both.

But at least I can agree with you to this point: I believe Jesus spoke in such a way that he was intending to be clear and comprehensible, instead of trying to be obtuse. Which is why I'm confused as to why you disregard the evidence of fathers like Origen on this matter. Origen, and several earlier fathers (eg. Clement, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus) who explicitly permit or otherwise assume divorce of married couples under the exception clause (i.e. that there is such a thing as permissible marital divorce). There are none who deny divorce outright, at least until a millennia or so later, even though there are differences of opinion about the possibility of remarriage.

In fact, it's striking that while the view on the permissibility of remarriage after divorce was argued quite often over the first four centuries of the church, there was never a similar argument about whether one could legitimately divorce. Is that what we would expect, given your argument that not only is your reading ('no marital divorce') the correct one, but is actually the SIMPLER one and the one that prima facie is more coherent?

It frankly doesn't matter if the Fathers could be mistaken or not (the church fathers I think often err on many issues). The point is it wasn't even a topic of contention. On most other controversial issues, you have at least SOMEONE putting forward a different view. But it appears most people simply read the text as virtually everyone has done until the the last century or two - it is a genuine exception to the prohibition on divorce (which at the very least includes actual consummated marriage), on the grounds of porneia/fornication

I am so glad, on this topic, that I do not have to resort any longer to these kinds of mental gymnastics trying to defend what I have misunderstood.

Hello, my name's kettle. What's yours?

Origin was just a man like you or I. You and I have both been in darkness before. Origin was clearly in darkness there. But I expect him to have been able to understand the difference between an "essential" and "non essential" exception clause. I expect him to have been able to listen to reason and to patiently have accepted a reasonable challenge.
I expect him to have been able to accept that he had been in darkness once light had been revealed.

Answer as previously in this post. I'm a little disappointed you seem to find Origen's thoughts so uninteresting, particularly in regards to how uninterested he appears to be in the controversy you have tried to cook up, but at least it makes for shorter replies.

 

[AVoice]

And they are such 'problems' which, as I have pointed out, exist in your reading anyway.

Name just one.

 

[AVoice]

I'm a little disappointed you seem to find Origen's thoughts so uninteresting, particularly in regards to how uninterested he appears to be in the controversy you have tried to cook up, but at least it makes for shorter replies.

There is no record of anyone having confronted him with the facts that I have presented. So you cannot speak on his behalf that he would not have been interested. Thinking charitably, I expect him to have smote himself on the chest saying 'how could I have been so blind to not have seen that on my own?'

Hello, my name's kettle. What's yours?

I am not the one who has presented the mental gymnastics of trying to justify how if a wife does something WORSE than adultery the man cannot divorce her.
Name one case of such sort of mental gymnastics I have engaged in.

The bottom line is that the sentence in Matt 5:31,32 under the betrothal explanation functions similarly as the version of your parallel when the yelling was identified as the specific irresponsible kind of yelling. The exception clause, being non essential, then jumps off to a side point. The parallel then has no problem with flow or meaning. No mental gymnastics are required.

When you clarified that the topic established in Line A included two kinds of yelling, the responsible as well as the irresponsible, (which Line A in Matt 5:31, does not include two kinds of divorce) even then your parallel became convoluted, the exception clause being essential. [Remember the FACT this challenge is establishing: the sentence format Jesus used CANNOT accommodate an essential exception clause and be literally sensible.]

A person may say, what matter does it make whether or not it is sensible, literally?
This is the matter it makes; the one explanation, the betrothal explanation, is literally coherent having the exception clause as a non essential and many other examples of that kind of sentence having a non essential exception clause are literally competent and coherent. So to choose the adultery explanation is the same as saying the explanation whereby the sentence is not literally coherent is the correct explanation while the explanation where the sentence IS literally coherent is the WRONG explanation.

Now we can talk about mathematical impossibilities.

 

[AVoice]

In fact, it's striking that while the view on the permissibility of remarriage after divorce was argued quite often over the first four centuries of the church, there was never a similar argument about whether one could legitimately divorce. Is that what we would expect, given your argument that not only is your reading ('no marital divorce') the correct one, but is actually the SIMPLER one and the one that prima facie is more coherent?

That is why this discussion should be exciting to you. In all of recorded history of theological discussion on this topic, as far as we know, not one author is known to exist to have discovered the fact that I am presenting here concerning Matt 5:31,32: That sentence is such that it CANNOT accommodate an essential exception clause and be sensible.
The other fact being presented here is that the betrothal explanation makes the exception to serve as a non essential clause, the kind of exception clause that makes the sentence function perfectly; very literal and competent.

You are being given a great opportunity here. Don't be on the wrong side of history.
All of the renowned theologians that we know of in history past missed it. It is not necessary for us to also miss it. Let us learn from their mistake. The truth speaks for itself regardless of whether or not anyone else has spoken up for it.

(I personally believe that many others discovered this truth, but we have no record of any of them, that we are aware of.)

 

[JaumeJ]

All too many seek to know abouit specific sin(s) expecially of others, when they should be seeking profound understanding of grace, and living in it.

Anyone may judge what is correct for himself: Think about this and live it in Jesus Christ, Yeshua..