The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[mattrose]

Boy, you are a wordy one! I have re-worded/re-arranged your most recent post so that others who are following this thread may have a bit more ease in understanding what you are asking me:

By including the premarital divorce along with adultery as what the exception clause pertains to, you have made the premarital divorce just as essential as the post marital divorce, and hence answerable to the above question Homer has presented, namely, "Do you say that no engaged couple today may end their engagement for any reason other than fornication?" I await your answer.

I do include both divorce for fornication (pre-marital sexual sin) and adultery (post-marital sexual sin) as valid applications of the exception clause (since, of course, they both are legitimate meanings of porneia).

As for Homer's question... No, I would not say that engaged couples may only break their engagement if fornication has occurred. The reason is simple, Jewish betrothal culture was recognized as binding. American engagement culture is not so recognized. Breaking a Jewish betrothal required divorce. Breaking an American engagement does not require a divorce. Jewish betrothal was, for all intents and purposes, considered a marriage. American engagement is not considered a marriage. There was no biblical command for the 'betrothal' period to carry the weight that it did. It was a cultural issue that has not carried over into our own culture.

I wouldn't mind if our culture adopted more of a betrothal model, but it hasn't.... so the biblical principles apply somewhat differently to our situation.

[AVoice]

Homer wrote:
AVoice,

Your argument is based on an assumption that a concise statement by Jesus about divorce contains all He intended teach.

Homer's argument is based on an assumption that the concise statements made by Jesus Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 do NOT contain all he intended to teach, as if the depth and power and absoluteness of his words, could not cover all that is necessary for us to know, in these relatively few words.

We should get down to the actual business of asking and answering questions of each other.

[mattrose]

Since other places can be found where undeniably reasonable exceptions can be thought of, which exceptions do not conflict with the particular text, does this automatically translate that all contexts must therefore have exceptions? Should not the particular contexts be individually tested to see if the statement made is absolute or not?
To make such a statement of the existence of reasonable exceptions in certain cases and extrapolate that to suggest that no absolute statements are possible within the scriptures would be an over generalisation. That is not sound doctrine.

The canon of Scripture*, in my opinion, makes it more reasonable to take this statement as a general principle with possible exceptions rather than as an absolute statement. Absolutely statements exist, this is simply not a good case for one (after all, it includes an exception clause!). You admit there is an exception here, I simply think you limit it to a degree that is poorly argued.

When I refer to the canon of Scripture guiding my willingness to allow for a broader interpretation of the exception clause, I have in mind things like Moses' allowance, God's own filing for divorce, and Paul's teaching.

[mattrose]

We should get down to the actual business of asking and answering questions of each other.

I am quite sure that is what we have been doing, but you are welcome to continue

I will be changing locations soon and may not be online again until late tonight. But feel free to throw some questions my way (hopefully concise, 1 sentence questions, haha).

[AVoice]

Boy, you are a wordy one! I have re-worded/re-arranged your most recent post so that others who are following this thread may have a bit more ease in understanding what you are asking me:

By including the premarital divorce along with adultery as what the exception clause pertains to, you have made the premarital divorce just as essential as the post marital divorce, and hence answerable to the above question Homer has presented, namely, "Do you say that no engaged couple today may end their engagement for any reason other than fornication?" I await your answer.

I do include both divorce for fornication (pre-marital sexual sin) and adultery (post-marital sexual sin) as valid applications of the exception clause (since, of course, they both are legitimate meanings of porneia).

As for Homer's question... No, I would not say that engaged couples may only break their engagement if fornication has occurred. The reason is simple, Jewish betrothal culture was recognized as binding. American engagement culture is not so recognized. Breaking a Jewish betrothal required divorce. Breaking an American engagement does not require a divorce. Jewish betrothal was, for all intents and purposes, considered a marriage. American engagement is not considered a marriage. There was no biblical command for the 'betrothal' period to carry the weight that it did. It was a cultural issue that has not carried over into our own culture.

I wouldn't mind if our culture adopted more of a betrothal model, but it hasn't.... so the biblical principles apply somewhat differently to our situation.

See, now we are getting somewhere. Questions are asked and answers are given.

This is Homer's question:
1. I think it must be admitted Jesus is addressing the application of the Law of Moses and establishing His law, which goes back to God's original intention. I believe He allowed divorce for immorality between actual married people. You say the provision for divorce applies only to those who are betrothed. Surely you must believe that Jesus' command regarding divorce applies today. Do you say that no engaged couple today may end their engagement for any reason other than fornication?

Matt, since you are including the premarital divorce along with adultery as what the exception clause applies to, the
question Homer asks applies to you as well. I have answered it.
Since you directly answered the question in the last sentence as it directly relates to today in America, this begs another related question:
By answering Homer's question by referring only to American engagements, you have evaded the question he asked as it would in effect also pertain to Jesus' hearers. So, since you are saying that Jesus was showing respect and in effect reinforcing a cultural issue that the scriptures gave no such weight to, the question still is valid if applied to Jesus' hearers:
Do you say that no engaged couple among Jesus' hearers could end their engagement for any reason other than fornication?

Homer is correct as he reads Jesus' teachings as being revelation of truth intended to apply from then until now:

I think it must be admitted Jesus is addressing the application of the Law of Moses and establishing His law, which goes back to God's original intention.

Your model, by NOT taking the exception clause as a totally separate, non essential aside, (exclusively referring to the cultural premarital divorce in betrothal) makes the betrothal divorce 'essential" and hence bear similar weight as the post marital divorce. So not only does Homer's question need to be aswered as it relates to Jesus' hearers, but the questions created by the implications the grammar creates under your model, also need to be answered.
Since your model lumps the post marital sexual sin equally together with the premarital sexual sin, as what the exception clause refers to, then doesn't the grammar indicate that terminating the betrothal for burning dinner, because it was not for a sexual sin, has caused her to commit adultery? And wouldn't the last clause also apply to the betrothed woman unjustly divorced? Wouldn't the grammar (since the betrothal divorce is essential and just as weighty as the post marital divorce) prohibit a man from marrying her after her divorce which took place before she was married?
Homer, don't you agree that we need some answers from Matt?
And Homer, why on earth would you think that the wives Jesus is directly addressing included the betrothed??
You wrote:

From the Pharisees' question and Jesus' response we recognize that the subject is actual wives, not just betrothed.

This is wrong. From the question and Jesus' response, the subject is EXCLUSIVELY actual wives! There is absolutely nothing indicating he was including the unmarried in his reference to divorce and wives.
This supports the claim that the exception clause was a complete aside, a non essential insertion possessing its own unique connotation and application as is the nature of such non essentials. Jesus is referring EXCLUSIVELY to the joined-in-marriage state and the exception clause is merely a non essential 'aside' interjected into the absolute teaching he is introducing.

The connotation or application, in this case, unique to such non essential 'asides'?
He was not going so far in his prohibition of husbands divorcing their wives as to also prohibit the premarital divorce, which divorce was commonly recognised as being 'for fornication'.
He was emphasising the extent of his prohibition of all post marital divorces by in effect stating that the only way a man can divorcre his "wife" is if he does it BEFORE he marries her.

[AVoice]

Since other places can be found where undeniably reasonable exceptions can be thought of, which exceptions do not conflict with the particular text, does this automatically translate that all contexts must therefore have exceptions? Should not the particular contexts be individually tested to see if the statement made is absolute or not?
To make such a statement of the existence of reasonable exceptions in certain cases and extrapolate that to suggest that no absolute statements are possible within the scriptures would be an over generalisation. That is not sound doctrine.

The canon of Scripture*, in my opinion, makes it more reasonable to take this statement as a general principle with possible exceptions rather than as an absolute statement. Absolutely statements exist, this is simply not a good case for one (after all, it includes an exception clause!). You admit there is an exception here, I simply think you limit it to a degree that is poorly argued.

When I refer to the canon of Scripture guiding my willingness to allow for a broader interpretation of the exception clause, I have in mind things like Moses' allowance, God's own filing for divorce, and Paul's teaching.

I assure you, if the actual foundational NT texts spoken by Jesus cannot support what you believe the exception clause means, then bringing in Moses is surely not going to help. The issue concerning "God's own divorce" has already been addressed. And the interpretation of Paul's writings in Rom 7 are normally made under the assurance that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery, which makes bringing Paul into it right now innapprpriate and circular. If your model cannot even get past the contexts of Matt 5 and 19 and Mark 10 and Luke 16, then appealing to other sources is a diversionary tactic.
The point of the thread was to reveal that the understanding that actually fits well within the actual texts and is not "messy", is the betrothal explanation
There is no exception to the married state. That is where the line is drawn. Jesus defines what God has joined together what man may not put asunder: it is those who have left and cleaved. The allowance to divorce premaritally is not in any way a sin. It is not in any way putting asunder what has been joined together by God according to Jesus. You appear to be blurring the two types of 'divorce". Their use of the words "husband" "wife" "divorce" and "married" when applied to the betrothed was purely an issue of grammar. We say husband and wife to be, they simply used the particular context to identify whether the husband and wife were joined-in-marriage or if they were not-yet-joined-in-marriage. What God has joined together that man is not to put asunder was not contradicted by Jesus, as if in the same breath he says, 'but man may in fact put asunder'.

Please show any single point wherein the betrothal explanation is "messy" with regards to the actual NT texts spoken by Jesus.

[mattrose]

So, since you are saying that Jesus was showing respect and in effect reinforcing a cultural issue that the scriptures gave no such weight to, the question still is valid if applied to Jesus' hearers: Do you say that no engaged couple among Jesus' hearers could end their engagement for any reason other than fornication?

Since the Bible doesn't tell me very much about betrothal policies, I don't have very much to go on. Based on the story of Joeseph and the exception clause, I would indeed guess that porneia was the only legitimate (in God's eyes) reason for a betrothed person to initiate a divorce.

Since your model lumps the post marital sexual sin equally together with the premarital sexual sin, as what the exception clause refers to, then doesn't the grammar indicate that terminating the betrothal for burning dinner, because it was not for a sexual sin, has caused her to commit adultery? And wouldn't the last clause also apply to the betrothed woman unjustly divorced?

Since the Bible doesn't tell me very much about betrothal policies, I don't have very much to go on. Based on the story of Joseph and the exception clause, I would indeed guess that porneia was the only legitimate (in God's eyes) reason for a betrothed person to initiate a divorce.

I have no reason to answer the last part of the question since you are using a poor textual tradition, but I will anyways since I don't feel the textual addition causes a problem. If betrothal really didn't count in that culture as a marriage, then ending it over burnt toast would be illegitimate, yes. They very well may have still been 'betrothed' in God's eyes (and His eyes are the ones that matter).

[mattrose]

I assure you, if the actual foundational NT texts spoken by Jesus cannot support what you believe the exception clause means, then bringing in Moses is surely not going to help.

The NT texts do support what I believe. You have failed to show that the more common interpretatio is impossible.

The issue concerning "God's own divorce" has already been addressed.

Yes, but you lost that part of the debate soundly. You failed to address it adequately.

And the interpretation of Paul's writings in Rom 7 are normally made under the assurance that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery, which makes bringing Paul into it right now innapprpriate and circular.

No, you are pretending to have the super-human ability to get inside your opponents mind again. Paul's teaching can stand on its own. Dismissing his teachings on this matter is inappropriate.

[mattrose]

If your model cannot even get past the contexts of Matt 5 and 19 and Mark 10 and Luke 16

It really doesn't matter how many times you state this, it isn't true until you actually demonstrate it!

then appealing to other sources is a diversionary tactic

The Bible is, in an important sense, one source. Your refusal to look at other biblical teachings is a diversionary tactic. It's not as if I'm refusing to address the passages at hand!

The point of the thread was to reveal that the understanding that actually fits well within the actual texts and is not "messy", is the betrothal explanation

I have already granted that the betrothal (or the incest) interpretation of the passage fits. It is a valid interpretation. But you have failed to demonstrate that the more typical interpretation doesn't fit. Every critique of it you have raised I have responded to. You have simply moved on to another critique and then, eventually come back to critiques we've already addressed. You have not shown that the traditional view is 'messy' in anyone's mind but your own. And even that messyness is only present b/c you insist on using an outdated text and reading the passage as an absolute statement.

[mattrose]

There is no exception to the married state. That is where the line is drawn. Jesus defines what God has joined together what man may not put asunder: it is those who have left and cleaved. The allowance to divorce premaritally is not in any way a sin. It is not in any way putting asunder what has been joined together by God according to Jesus. You appear to be blurring the two types of 'divorce". Their use of the words "husband" "wife" "divorce" and "married" when applied to the betrothed was purely an issue of grammar. We say husband and wife to be, they simply used the particular context to identify whether the husband and wife were joined-in-marriage or if they were not-yet-joined-in-marriage. What God has joined together that man is not to put asunder was not contradicted by Jesus, as if in the same breath he says, 'but man may in fact put asunder'.

I didn't blur them, Jesus did. Think about what you are saying. You are insisting that the verse is banning all post-marital divorce. You are also insisting that the exception clause applies only to pre-marital divorce. You are ALSO insisting that these two types of marriages/divorces should not be blurred together. Right? Now think about that. Why would Jesus even bring up the betrothal 'exception' if the context was a totally different type of marriage divorce? He blurred them together because they weren't thought of as 'two types'. They were just different stages of a marriage

Please show any single point wherein the betrothal explanation is "messy" with regards to the actual NT texts spoken by Jesus.

Now why would I do that? First, I don't have an insistance that truth not be messy, you do. Second, you are the one trying to prove something (that the common interpretation is deficient). Why should I have to prove your view deficient when you haven't given any good reasons to reject the more common view yet?