I'm going to make this my post in this thread, because I feel we're really just circling back around onto the same points again. When I simply start copying things out of my earlier posts repeatedly, I'm about done.
Nick, please do not abandon me. You are way too valuable in this discussion.
We have had almost 2600 visits to this discussion. If only 1 percent are consistent repeat visitors, that means you have a dedicated audience of almost 26 persons. Don’t let them folks down. You get back here right now, you hear me?
I had intended to answer the more effective arguments you had presented earlier but because I started work this past week, I have not been able to focus on that task. I wanted you to identify one problem that you admitted exists under the divorce explanation, which you believe also exists under the betrothal explanation of the exception clause. I asked for one because I did not have time to go back and find and decide what was your best shot. The idea was for you to bring forth your best objection so I could focus on that, since I was limited in time and since you presented more than one possibility.
I'll also add to this explicitly (this is what I was referring to in my most recent scenario) - if you apply the same standard to your own reading as you do mine, a man cannot divorce a fiancee who is trying to kill him, though he may divorce her for porneia. So, if there is a problem as you claim, it seems as much your problem as anyone else's, at least if we're otherwise consistent in how we read both interpretations.
And AGAIN, this problem still exists in your reading. As your argument stands on the basis of this passage, a person in a betrothal could not divorce their fiancee if said fiancee was trying to kill him.
Nick, what you have written above is simply not true.
The mistake you are making is assuming that the above line of argument, which
is valid against Matt 5:31,32 under the divorce for adultery explanation, can
also apply to Matt 5:31,32 under the betrothal explanation. The two explanations, one where the exception clause is an essential clause, (for adultery) and the other where it is non essential, (in betrothal) demonstrate two very different behaviours in how each sentence functions overall.
The reason the challenge requires others to make a parallel is because the same parallels or versions thereof become useful in explaining this kind of argument. This, in reality, is extremely basic. This is not complicated or technical.
So let us take the version of your parallel, whereby the exception clause functions the way it functions in Matt 5:31,32 WHEN it is understood to be referring to the betrothal divorce and apply the same line of argument you used above and see if it works.
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 exception clause above functions the way the exception clause in Matt 5:31,32 functions under the betrothal explanation. This is because the exception clause above jumps away to an entirely different kind of yelling than what Line A establishes to be the topic of discussion. It jumps away from the irresponsible kind to the responsible kind. Under the betrothal example the exception clause jumps to a completely different kind of divorce. Agreed?
So let us use the same line of reasoning you used:.
1) a man cannot divorce a
fiancee who is trying to kill him, though he may divorce her for porneia.
2) A gang member riding his bike cannot yell loudly at a person on the street to let them know their house is in on fire or if their child is getting raped, though he may yell if their life is in danger.
The accusation of number 2, which claims that is what the sentence is literally saying cannot be made. Why? Precisely BECAUSE the exception clause is only a non essential clause and does NOT function the same way as does an essential clause. That accusation in number 2 cannot apply to the non essential clause in the above parallel about yelling anymore than can your assertion in number 1 apply to the exception clause under the betrothal explanation.
The exception clause in the parallel above, since it is jumping away to what is not even the specific topic of discussion anyway, carries with it an air of “you know what I mean” or “for example”:
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,
[‘for example’, ‘you catch my drift’, ‘you know what I mean’]
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.
This kind of non essential clause naturally carries with it and takes upon itself that liberal connotation by virtue of the fact that it is only an added bit of extra information, not critical to the rest of the sentence. It is understood to be a disconnect, an aside. It can be completely omitted without any damage to the main points being made. It gives NO partial permission to do what Line A is specifically talking about.
In another forum a poster offered another parallel, which was modified, and we see the same thing:
First a background story: Harvest time has passed in the north and they are now sorting apples in the warehouse. The weather has changed and it is getting down below freezing at night. The workers are saying that there is no concern in leaving the apples outside because rumour has it that there is a certain amount of naturally occurring salt in the apple that will prevent it from freezing if left out unprotected. The boss finds out that they intend to not bring the apples inside. He has a meeting with the employees and says:
A) You have heard it said that leaving apples outside of the warehouse should be OK
B) But I say to you
1) whoever leaves apples out at night
E) unless placed in some kind of adequately insulated container
2) causes financial loss due to ruined product
3) and whosoever is found to encourage such will be held guilty of the same
A person naturally reads into Line E that it serves only as an example how the action can be done and the negative result will not occur.
E) unless placed in some kind of adequately insulated container,
[‘for example’, ‘you catch my drift’, ‘you know what I mean’]
That is the natural and literal way of reading it by virtue of the fact that it is only an aside to begin with.
To demonstrate how that kind of disconnected clause is naturally taken only as an example in that particular sentence format, show the two parallels to someone who is not aware of this discussion (do not include what is in brackets about it being an example) and ask them:
In the parallel about yelling, if the gang member yells loudly at a person on the street to let them know their house is in on fire or if their child is getting raped, does that cause unnecessary anguish?
In the parallel about apples, if someone leaves rotten apples outside, does that mean they have caused financial loss?
That line of questioning is inappropriate to Matt 5:31,32
when the betrothal explanation is held because the sentence overall functions very differently because the exception clause functions very differently.
However, that line of questioning
is appropriate to Matt 5:31,32
when the divorce for adultery explanation is held because of the very serious role the exception clause is assumed to be taking; providing partial allowance to do the same thing Line A is talking about.
