The deficiency of the assumption that Jesus allows divorce

[AVoice]

AVoice,

Sorry you misunderstand me. I understand very well what this is about. You wrote:

My argument does not allow the first clause, 'whoever divorces his wife', to pertain to the betrothed wife. Under my model, in accordance with how the rules of how language work, it works well to read the exception clause to pertain exclusively to the betrothal divorce. But you do not understand this. Ask Matt to explain it to you since he says he understands it. Ask someone you know to read the posts I referred to earlier and they may be able to explain to you what this thread is about.

Neither does my position allow for the first clause to apply to the betrothed. What I said was that you can not prove the second clause pertains to a betrothed woman. Whether it could is a different matter.

So Homer, you are in disagreement with Matt.

No, I am in complete agreement with Matt. My position is exactly as he stated in his most recent post.

But as I have demonstrated more than once, which you do not understand, a side point NOT directly related to the subject can be interjected. Since it is not directly related, it is known as a "non essential" part of the sentence.

No, I do understand and do not deny that can be done. But all the other clauses clearly are about real married people so your assumption is unlikely and unproven, nor can it be.

Separation is as far as what the NT allows, and it is reasonably allowed as Paul also touches on that.
Man is capable of putting asunder by way of divorcing.

Consider the following:

1 Corinthians 7:10-15
New King James Version (NKJV)

10. Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

Here we have Paul's instructions to Christian couples. If they separate, they are not to divorce, but are to remain unmarried or reconcile.

12. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

And here Paul addresses couples who are composed of a believing spouse and an unbeliever. He is speaking about a subject Jesus never addressed. But it doesn't really appear to be new but rather a reiteration of the Law:

15. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

Failure to fulfill marital duties by abandonment could end the marriage:

Exodus 21:9-11
New King James Version (NKJV)

9. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. 11. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

If the unbeliever is unwilling to live with the believer, and leaves, the believing brother or sister may divorce the unbeliever. The believing spouse is not under bondage (douloo a verb, to make a slave or servant, be put into bondage). One who is no longer a slave is set free of obligation; the people Paul wrote to certainly knew what being a slave meant. I know you reference v. 39 but if there is no exception Paul has clearly contradicted himself. And please do not bring up the issue of Jewish betrothal; Paul is speaking to gentiles.

If Paul in v.15 does not provide an exception to what he instructed in v. 10-11, then why did he say it? He clearly is giving different instructions to different groups.

Consider Jesus' words in Matthew:

Matthew 19:7-8
New King James Version (NKJV)

7. They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8. He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Now it might be assumed Moses was giving those hard hearted Jews who wanted rid of their wives a way out. As though he said "you guys are mean so I will allow you to get rid of any wife you do not like". I do not think this was the case at all. I believe this exception granted by Moses was for the protection of the woman: so they could escape being beaten, would have proof of their divorce, and could find a new husband who would provide for them. As in the passage in Exodus 21, the wife who was not treated properly must be set free. So Moses demanded she be properly divorced with legal papers as proof.

Now I would ask you to think: do you think really think Jesus is "meaner than Moses"? The Jesus who said His burden is light?

Regarding your challenge on the exception clause, I would offer you this:

The Smith family owns a property with an easement granting permanent access to a property behind theirs. This easement right gives the David family use of a lane which the Smith's also use for their driveway. Another neighbor, the Jeffry family, has been given permission the use the lane also. It adjoins their property. So Blackberry lane is used by three families. But other people have been tresspassing and causing problems by driving through the Jeffry's proprerty. The Jeffrys ask the Smiths for help with the tresspassers. So Mr. Smith put up a large sign at the entrance to the lane which says: NO TRESSPASSING - VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED. During the annual neighborhood picnic Mr. Smith informs all the neighbors "We have put up a no tresspassing sign on the lane; except for the Davids, Jeffrys, and any neighborhood families, and those having business with them, we will prosecute tresspassers".

Here are two examples of communication addressed to different groups. The intention of Mr. Smith is unchanged by either communication, although one contains an exception and the other does not.

Bear in mind that Mark and Luke are addressed to a different audience than Matthew. There is no contradiction; your betrothal exception is as unnecessary as it is unlikely.

As mentioned earlier, I choose to address 1 Cor 7 later. The betrothal explanation of the exception clause does not have any prblem with anything in 1 Cor 7.
The subject at hand is the grammar and whether language can function after the manner the divorce for adultery model says it must within the contexts.

NO TRESSPASSING - VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED

We have put up a no tresspassing sign on the lane; except for the Davids, Jeffrys, and any neighborhood families, and those having business with them, we will prosecute tresspassers.

The example you gave simply identifies the trespassers.
True, they both say the same thing but the exception clause is non essential, like how it is when the exception clause in Matthew is understood to pertain to the betrothal divorce.

You could have put it in the Matt 19:9 format to make the exception clause 'essential', which is what is being sought in this excercise. My modification of your example making the exception clause essential:

Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, commits an act of trespassing.
Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, except for those with permission, commits an act of trespassing.

The first is a complete prohibition with no hint that it is anything else, the second is not at all a complete prohibition, very clearly granting permission, howsoever limited that may be.
Here we have, as we have when comparing Matt 19:9 and Luke 16:18, two entirely separate and different messages, which is also what we have WHEN fornication is changed to mean adultery. When fornication is understood to mean fornication and thereby pertain to the betrothal divorce, the exception clause is 'non essential' and works just as well as your example above, two separte statements, one possessing an exception clause, the other not possessing that exception clause and yet both are in complete agreement.
The assignment is to create a similarly formatted sentence where the exception clause is essential as in my modification of your example above and yet independently the sentence without the exception and the sentence with the exception both say the same thing.
No one has yet to produce such a thing.

Can we insert an exception clause that is 'non essential' into my modified version of your example? So far we have it without an exception clause and then we have it with an exception clause that is essential. The third version will be with a 'non essential' exception clause that does not provide permission for that which the sentence is obviously referring to.

1) Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, commits an act of trespassing.
2) Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, except for those with permission, commits an act of trespassing.
3)Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, saving for its photographic desireability, commits an act of trespassing.

When fornication is changed to relate to the post marital offense (adultery) the exception clause is essential to the overall meaning of the entire sentence. When fornication is understood to possess its exclusive premarital definition and is thereby understood to pertain exclusively to the betrothal divorce, the exception clause functions similarly as in the 3rd version above; it jumps out of the apparent immediate context. This non essential exception clause, though applying to something not directly related, still grants permission: just not at all the permission that directly relates to what the sentence is actually talking about.

The request for a parallel to Matt 5:32 may prove more difficult because the format is not directly what the person does, but what he causes as it relates to someone else.
An acceptable parallel would simply be an action that causes something negative with an exception clause between the two statements. On page two of this thread, I posted a document called "What Does Jesus' Exception Clause Mean". There is such an example in that paper that relates to water flow on a farm situation. A prohibition is made, and an exception exists, but the exception relates to permission not directly related to the topic at hand. So there is absolutely no permission granted to what the topic is about and yet there exists an exception clause clearly indicating a kind of permission.
Such is the case with Jesus' exception clause.

Homer, you cannot prove that the post marital sexual sin is what Jesus' exception clause is pertaining to. But I can prove that it could not have pertained to the post marital sexual sin (adultery).

[mattrose]

Avoice,

I feel you are still misunderstanding your opposition.

Your entire argument rests on your belief that the exception clause is 'essential' for your opponents in this debate. But none of us believe the exception clause is essential to understand the rest of the verse(s). So you are, in essence, arguing with nobody. As I stated before, this boils down to your absolutist reading of the text. We read it as a different genre than you, and until that changes, no progress will be made in reaching agreement.

What you need to prove is the following
1) That this statement by Jesus is best interpreted as an absolute statement
2) That the exception clause isn't really an exception at all, since it doesn't apply to post-marital divorce at all

Of course, 2 naturally follows from 1. But so far in this discussion you've spent nearly all your time assuming #1 and arguing number 2. But we don't agree with your original assumption. After re-reading the entire thread, I think this is why you are so frustrated.

[AVoice]

Avoice,

I feel you are still misunderstanding your opposition.

Your entire argument rests on your belief that the exception clause is 'essential' for your opponents in this debate. But none of us believe the exception clause is essential to understand the rest of the verse(s). So you are, in essence, arguing with nobody. As I stated before, this boils down to your absolutist reading of the text. We read it as a different genre than you, and until that changes, no progress will be made in reaching agreement.

What you need to prove is the following
1) That this statement by Jesus is best interpreted as an absolute statement
2) That the exception clause isn't really an exception at all, since it doesn't apply to post-marital divorce at all

Of course, 2 naturally follows from 1. But so far in this discussion you've spent nearly all your time assuming #1 and arguing number 2. But we don't agree with your original assumption. After re-reading the entire thread, I think this is why you are so frustrated.

It being essential simply means that it is absolutely necessary to exist in order for the message to be correct.
If the 4 scriptures are all quoted without the two exception clauses,then the message would be entirely different than when the exception clause is present.

In Homer's example that I put into the 19:9 format, wherein also I inserted the exception as an essential, the two statements are very different. Without the exception the message is very plain, no permission is granted. With the exception, permission is granted. That is what we see when comparing Matt 19;9 and Luke 16;18.
Your assertion that fornication can be interpreted to pertain to the post marital offence in that context necesitates it as essential, it directly relates to the topic at hand. The only way to try to manipulate the exception clause to appear as non essential is to change and expand its meaning far outside of the perameters anything reasonable can accomodate.
Jesus refers to a sexual sin and yet even though the text indicates he is giving the truth on the topic as conclusive, your model has Paul come along and add another reason. The bottom line is that either Jesus meant to include abandonment as an additional reason or that Paul added it later causing Jesus to not have really meant what he plainly appears to say.
Then when things worse that either sexual sin or abandonment are brought into the discussion, it is claimed that of course anything bad like that is what Jesus must have meant. So under your generalizing of the post marital sexual sin, this has widened out to "really" mean anything at least as bad as the post marital sexual sin. I call that linguistic gymnastics.
That is like saying that when Moses allowed divorce for 'some uncleanness', what he really meant was for only limited uncleannesses, specifically for the post marital sexual sin and anything at least as serious including abandonment. As long as your position reserves the right to redefine words and deny basic function of language, I agree that there can be no agreement whatsoever.
So when Moses said "some uncleanness", is it true by your position that what he "really" meant was post marital sexual sin or anything at least as bad, which could be made into somewhat of a list of varying offenses, yet clearly limited?
Can you produce an example where grammar can do that?

You speak as though there is evidence that the genre is not absolute even though the initial and common impression it gives is absolutely absolute. I suggest that your reasoning that it is not absolute is because your interpretation of the exception clause and the implications that has, cannot afford the absolute rendering. In short, circular reasoning necessitated by a misunderstanding prevents the text to take the genre it plainly appears to possess.

2) That the exception clause isn't really an exception at all, since it doesn't apply to post-marital divorce at all

Since it has been overwhelming demonstrated in this thread that exception clauses commonly perform in this manner, not at all providing permission to the topic under discussion, and that the exception clause in Matthew 5;32 and 19:9 qualifies to be read in this manner, which you have agreed to, my offer still stands. Produce reason or evidence why reading the exception clause is not conducive to the actual text. While I have presented evidence and questions indicating that the divorce for adultery (post marital sin) is not conducive to the text, no evidence has been presented against the betrothal divorce explanation of Jesus' exception clause.
Giving commentary on how the divorce for adultery model can be made to make sense is not evidence. That approach to the conflict is totally different than actually presenting evidence how the text under my model does not fit perfectly. I said perfectly. Anyone following this thread should have been able to see that the post marital explanation of the exception clause doesn't get anywhere near perfectly accomodating the actual texts. A thorough investigation will result in concluding that the post marital divorce was never anywhere near worthy of being taken seriously as a consideration of what Jesus was referring to by his exception clause.

[Homer]

AVoice,

You are in error.

Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, commits an act of trespassing.
Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, except for those with permission, commits an act of trespassing.

The first is a complete prohibition with no hint that it is anything else, the second is not at all a complete prohibition, very clearly granting permission, howsoever limited that may be.

Whoever uses Blackberry lane does not commit an act of trespassing. Trespassing means "to enter unlawfully on the land of another". The David family has an easement which gives them an irrevocable right to use the lane. The Jeffrys have permission to use the lane; the no trespassing sign was put up for their sake. When they see the no trespassing sign they know there is an exception for them. And in the statement made to the group of neighbors, those who might not know the intention of the Smiths regarding the lane, the intention is made clear.

Likewise Matthew addressed his gospel to the Jews, Mark and Luke to a different audience who might have understood implicitly that divorce was allowed for adultery and thus Mark and Luke saw no need to mention an exception. In fact, divorce would have been kind if that was all that happened in the Roman culture:

As part of the moral legislation of Augustus in 18 BC, the Lex Iulia de adulteriis ("Julian Law concerning acts of adultery") was directed at punishing married women who engaged in extra-marital affairs. The implementation of punishment was the responsibility of the paterfamilias, the male head of household to whose legal and moral authority the adulterous party was subject. If a father discovered that his married daughter was committing adultery in either his own house or the house of his son-in-law, he was entitled to kill both the woman and her lover; if he killed only one of the adulterers, he could be charged with murder. While advertising the father's power, the extremity of the sentence seems to have led to its judicious implementation, since cases in which this sentence was carried out are infrequently recorded — most notoriously, by Augustus himself against his own daughter.

Augustus' law regarding adultery:

Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis (17 BC)
This law punished adultery with banishment. The two guilty parties were sent to different islands ("dummodo in diversas insulas relegentur"), and part of their property was confiscated. Fathers were permitted to kill daughters and their partners in adultery. Husbands could kill the partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives. Augustus himself was obliged to invoke the law against his own daughter, Julia (relegated to the island of Pandateria) and against her eldest daughter (Julia the Younger). Tacitus adds the reproach that Augustus was stricter for his own relatives than the law actually required (Annals III 24)

So it appears that adultery resulted in either death or banishment from the land and the husband was required to divorce an unfaithful wife.

The Pharisees were seeking to trap Jesus with their question in Matthew. The Background was the dispute between Hillel and Shamai, both agreed that divorce was allowed for adultery. Divorce was not the issue.

All your talk of essential and non essential clauses only confuses things and does not take into consideration that which may have been clearly understood by the audience.

[mattrose]

It being essential simply means that it is absolutely necessary to exist in order for the message to be correct. If the 4 scriptures are all quoted without the two exception clauses,then the message would be entirely different than when the exception clause is present.

No. I would interpret the 4 passages exactly the same whether the exception clause were there or not because marriage is a covenant and covenants can (though they should not) be broken. You keep quoting the 'what God has joined together, let no one separate' verse as if separating married people is an impossibility. The verse simply means that people shouldn't get divorced. We all agree that divorce is a terrible thing that always involves sin. That's what these verses are all saying. People shouldn't initiate divorces. It's sinful. All we are saying is that you can initiate a divorce without being the one to file the paperwork through certain sinful actions.

You write as if the rule is more important than the actual relationship.

[AVoice]

AVoice,

You are in error.

Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, commits an act of trespassing.
Whoever uses Blackberry Lane, except for those with permission, commits an act of trespassing.

The first is a complete prohibition with no hint that it is anything else, the second is not at all a complete prohibition, very clearly granting permission, howsoever limited that may be.

Whoever uses Blackberry lane does not commit an act of trespassing. Trespassing means "to enter unlawfully on the land of another". The David family has an easement which gives them an irrevocable right to use the lane. The Jeffrys have permission to use the lane; the no trespassing sign was put up for their sake. When they see the no trespassing sign they know there is an exception for them. And in the statement made to the group of neighbors, those who might not know the intention of the Smiths regarding the lane, the intention is made clear.

Likewise Matthew addressed his gospel to the Jews, Mark and Luke to a different audience who might have understood implicitly that divorce was allowed for adultery and thus Mark and Luke saw no need to mention an exception. In fact, divorce would have been kind if that was all that happened in the Roman culture:

As part of the moral legislation of Augustus in 18 BC, the Lex Iulia de adulteriis ("Julian Law concerning acts of adultery") was directed at punishing married women who engaged in extra-marital affairs. The implementation of punishment was the responsibility of the paterfamilias, the male head of household to whose legal and moral authority the adulterous party was subject. If a father discovered that his married daughter was committing adultery in either his own house or the house of his son-in-law, he was entitled to kill both the woman and her lover; if he killed only one of the adulterers, he could be charged with murder. While advertising the father's power, the extremity of the sentence seems to have led to its judicious implementation, since cases in which this sentence was carried out are infrequently recorded — most notoriously, by Augustus himself against his own daughter.

Augustus' law regarding adultery:

Lex Iulia de Adulteriis Coercendis (17 BC)
This law punished adultery with banishment. The two guilty parties were sent to different islands ("dummodo in diversas insulas relegentur"), and part of their property was confiscated. Fathers were permitted to kill daughters and their partners in adultery. Husbands could kill the partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives. Augustus himself was obliged to invoke the law against his own daughter, Julia (relegated to the island of Pandateria) and against her eldest daughter (Julia the Younger). Tacitus adds the reproach that Augustus was stricter for his own relatives than the law actually required (Annals III 24)

So it appears that adultery resulted in either death or banishment from the land and the husband was required to divorce an unfaithful wife.

The Pharisees were seeking to trap Jesus with their question in Matthew. The Background was the dispute between Hillel and Shamai, both agreed that divorce was allowed for adultery. Divorce was not the issue.

All your talk of essential and non essential clauses only confuses things and does not take into consideration that which may have been clearly understood by the audience.

I had turned your example into an entirely different example. My modification of your example was not using the permission your example gave.



The truth of marriage is absolute.
The leaving and cleaving with the purpose of becoming a joined married couple constitutes marriage which thereby is deemed as what God has joined together that man may not put asunder. Jesus revealed this to be the absolute truth since creation, and it has never ceased to be the absolute truth. Jesus upholds the absolute truth. This is true even though under the OT, due to ignorance and the unregenerated state of mankind, things such as polygamy and divorce were tolerated and regulated by laws. Their unregenerated state made allowing and regulating divorce necessary and wise under the circumstances, even though not an act of absolute truth. That is a good example of how law and truth conflict.
When a regulatory law is mistaken as absolute truth, and the regulatory law is merely a necessary compromise under the circumstanses making it wise to regulate the lesser of two evils as opposed to the greater of two evils becoming common practice;. this is one way where Paul's words are understood when he said "the strength of sin is the law". So for misinformed NT believers to be pushing Dt 24:1-4 as if it were truth instead of understanding it to having been merely a temporary law to regulate an evil, that misunderstanding is strengthening the evil of allowing man to do what they have no right to do by what the absolute truth dictates.
To say allowing and regulating divorce is necessary for Christians is basically denying the available state of being a new creature in Christ, as if Christians have to possess the same unregenerated state that those under the OT without Christ possessed. Christians are not 'under the law' as though allowing and regulating unregenerative behaviour is necessary. To revert back to the law to justify such things that the NT no longer tolerates fulfils Paul's words: 'Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace'.

Jesus was speaking from an absolute truth perspective. Laws of the land that were contrary to what he was revealing as having always been the truth, were irrelevant to his teaching. Speaking in the absolute sense that he was, his hearers were immediately able to identify with the power of his words outside of any knowledge of a current debate between Hillel or whoever.

A major difference when comparing the OT to the NT is actual absolute righteousness that the NT ministers. If righteousness is come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Righteousness did NOT come by the law since the root cause of man's sinfulness, the fallen human sinful state was still very much alive within mankind until Jesus died in their stead. By merely providing knowledge by way of the obvious absolute moral truths, the OT did not provide the means for mankind to comply to absolute truth, hence it being what condemned by only pointing out the evil but not providing the solution to the fallen condition of the heart.
Paul calls the OT system, because of these factors, "the ministry of condemnation" and "the ministry of death".
Righteousness being brought into actual existence within the person by the renewing of the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit in Christ, (as opposed to a person simply being aware of the basic absolute moral issues), is the comparison that Paul is making in 2 Cor 3. Paul is so bold as to say that the OT has NO glory in respect to the glory the NT possesses with regard to actual righteousness.

This leads to the common misunderstanding concerning what Paul says in Rom 7;
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Since he is specifically using the commandment, "thou shalt not covet" in that context to illustrate the difference between merely having law and having power to obey from a regenerated heart; then at the vey least his phrase 'holy and just and good" is a reference here to absolute law that is upheld under the NT. Some of the absolute law was also, at least in part, upheld under the OT, but overall, the two covenants, when compared, are two entirely separate packages concerning moral responsibility, the former covenant no longer current.

The provision under the law to divorce was not "holy and just and good" as compared to the absolute "thou shalt not covet", which was the specific context in which Paul was speaking. These two differing categories of 'law" (temporarily regulatory and absolute) cannot just be thrown together as if Paul was endorsing as 'good' what the NT forbids. For example, both Jesus and James emphasize that swearing (apparently as a form of reinforcing the veracity of your words) is forbidden under the NT. Compare this with the OT command to not swear by other Gods but to swear by the Lord their God when they swear. A similar principle exists; allow them to do what they will by nature do anyway in their unregenerated state, but regulate it in a direction allowing the lesser of the two evils as opposed to both evils having free reign. The command to swear by the Lord their God was not "holy and just and good" after the manner Paul is applying the description of "holy and just and good" in Rom 7.
To apply the phrase "holy and just and good' to Dt 24:1-4, a commandment that was only written for the hardness of their hearts and was only introduced as a temporary regulatory measure for the people of God until regeneration was to be introduced through the Son, is indeed a failure to rightly divide the word of truth.

Jesus' statement in Matt 5 that he didn't come to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfil, is similarly taken out of context and assumed to mean that Jesus was not changing anything even though the same chapter has him changing a bunch of things!! The command to swear under the OT is thrown out in that same chapter. He says "but I say to you, swear not at all". When he says, "but I say to you' six different times in that chapter, he is disallowing something which under the law, taken as a whole, was not disallowed. He is introducing the new covenant. He is not, as many suggest, reinforcing and correcting the mistakes people made in understanding the OT as if it were perfect. It was absolutely not perfect. The law made nothing perfect. The creation was waiting for the necessary arrival of the Messiah who was to bring light into the darkness. New wine can only be introduced into new wineskins, hence the new wine of Jesus' doctrine was only appropriately introduced with the availablity of the receptacles of that wine being appropriately changed. The new birth is directly linked with Jesus' death, hence the new wine was to be responsibly introduced with the introduction of the new wineskins of the new creature in Christ, which in turn was only made available by Jesus' death and resurrection.

If righteousness is come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace.

[AVoice]

It being essential simply means that it is absolutely necessary to exist in order for the message to be correct. If the 4 scriptures are all quoted without the two exception clauses,then the message would be entirely different than when the exception clause is present.

No. I would interpret the 4 passages exactly the same whether the exception clause were there or not because marriage is a covenant and covenants can (though they should not) be broken. You keep quoting the 'what God has joined together, let no one separate' verse as if separating married people is an impossibility. The verse simply means that people shouldn't get divorced. We all agree that divorce is a terrible thing that always involves sin. That's what these verses are all saying. People shouldn't initiate divorces. It's sinful. All we are saying is that you can initiate a divorce without being the one to file the paperwork through certain sinful actions.

You write as if the rule is more important than the actual relationship.

If initiating a divorce is sinful as you say it is, then you have Jesus saying that that certain sinful act is OK. What other act can you find Jesus saying is OK even though it is sinful? Did you mean to say "initiating a divorce [unless it is for adultery, abandonment or any other among the list that are at least as sinful] is sinful"?
The status of being one flesh in marriage (not the misuse by fornication) is not on condition of what the parties do. The institution and the parties are in this respect two separate issues. Since the institution is founded on the pattern of Adam and Eve wherein their individual behaviour could not in any way have a bearing on their irreversible status as husband and wife, what possible thing in the texts of Matt 19:3-9 and Mark 10;2-12, where Jesus applies Adam and Eve to the discussion, would indicate that a behaviour of one can actually terminate or alter that one flesh status?
The answer to that question is, 'the exception clause', ruling out your claim that you can read those texts without the exception clause and they still allow the exception but the exception is not to be found in any reference made by Jesus!

That dilemma of feeling it is the responsible thing to permit the termination of the one flesh status, which is totally contradictory to what the pattern dictates, is only the case when the exception of fornication is interpreted to mean for the post marital sexual sin (adultery). Such a conflict as your model faces, does not exist under the divorce in betrothal model, whereby no postmarital divorce is allowed.
My model frees me to accept, as written, that a divorce for whatever reason causes her to commit adultery, and if someone marries her he commits adultery, and if he marries afterward he commits adultery and hence also the woman he marries is involved in the adultery against the wife he divorced. I am free to accept that the phrase, 'whatsoever God has joined together, let not man put asunder', means exactly as it appears to imply: even if they obtain a divorce, they are still husband and wife no matter the reason for the divorce, hence the adultery they each face if they remarry after the divorce.
The truth is as the ancients declared, 'till death do us part'.

Interestingly, as I understand, numerous Mennonite groups worldwide have been teaching this as the correct understanding of the exception clause for hundreds of years, yet because these groups do not actually do much evangelizing, many are deprived from benefitting by this precious gem of understanding that they have been given. I discovered it independently.

[AVoice]

Matt,
Earlier you wrote, I understand, suggesting that the interpretation that the exception clause pertains exclusively to incest is not really much different that claiming it only pertains to premarital sex (fornication).
I think the incest model means if he married her but in reality she was his sister, for example, rendering the marriage unlawful, then he could divorce her for their jointly shared sin (perhaps initially unaware) of committing incest.
The reason why this cannot at all be compared to the betrothal model is because the word 'fornication' does not have a specific definition exclusively applicable to incest. While a man fornicating with his sister is incest the word fornication alone does not possess incest as one of its definitions. It has to be used within a clarifying context to determine that the fornication was incestuous. This same argument can also apply to the divorce for adultery model; if Jesus meant either adultery (all post marital sexual sins with another being adultery) or incest (indicating the offense is committed by both and hence not a legitimate marriage to begin with) the most descriptive word to use for the former would have been 'adultery' and the most descriptive word to use for the latter would have been 'incest'. Since the word fornication has its own definition meaning premarital sexual sin (though it can be used within contexts to identify other specific sexual sins) the most descriptive term to identify the premarital sexual sin and hence the divorce in betrothal associated with that sexual sin would be 'fornication'. In reality all 3 words describe specific types of sexual sin. Even though 'fornication' can be used in contexts to mean exclusively the postmarital, for example, If Jesus had meant the post marital, he could have easily said it.

We have in the NT a comparison between 3 other words that we can correlate to the situation we have with 'fornication' 'adultery' and 'incest'.
We have the words "thieves", 'extortioners" and "defraud". The root word of the first, 'theft', covers overall what the other crimes are. Yet it possesses an identifiable unique definition or application pertaining to the covert subtil activity where the thief, at least at first, succeeds in taking what does not belong to him without the owners knowledge.
All three can be defined as willfully having in ones possession that which honestly belongs to another. That is like defining fornication, adultery and incest and all other sexual sin as "sexual immorality" as if no difference in meaning between the varying words exist. True all three, fornication, adultery and incest are sexual immorality; not true, all fornication comes in the form of adultery or incest. True, all three, theft, extortion and defrauding, are forms of thievery; not true, when the word thievery is used, extortion has to be included in the meaning.
Not all thieving comes in either the form of extortion or defrauding, sometimes it is just plain old theft.
While it is true that thieves extortioners and defrauders all willfully have in their possession what honestly belongs to others, and generally speaking the word theft applies, it would be a huge mistake to assume that extortion has to be included in the meaning whenever the word "theft' is used. Like any word that has two main definitions, the initial try at reading the sentence may reveal that the chosen definition was incorrect because the meaning is convoluted. The next thing to do is try the other definition. If the other definition creates a clarity in meaning, even if you disagree with the correctly constructed, grammatically competent sentence, that meaning is determined as the authors intention.

Homer should understand as you understand, that given this practical application of the word fornication, the English grammar and construction, as well as being the case in the Greek, is completely grammatically correct. No convolution is created within either sentence (5:32 19:9). Such is also the case in the numerous, similarly constructed examples. They have demonstrated how a non essential part of a sentence can come in the form of an exception clause, which does NOT provide permission with regard to the topic the sentence is addressing. This is because the exception clauses in these examples are non essential parts of the sentences that are relatively irrelevant 'asides'. That is why Mark and Luke could competently leave the exception clause out altogether; it didn't relate to the joined-in-marriage state anyway.

And that is why the exception clause, when defined as adultery, (post marital sexual sin), is absolutely essential: it directly relates to what the sentence is mainly addressing; post marital divorces. When left out altogether, the sentence has a different meaning which is exemplified by the fact that I am claiming Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18 are the absolute truth as written without need of anything else added, while your position must maintain that I am in error because I do not accept the exception clause as having to apply to the topic at hand. Hence, that position has hereby established the status of the exception clause as absolutely "essential".

[AVoice]

It being essential simply means that it is absolutely necessary to exist in order for the message to be correct. If the 4 scriptures are all quoted without the two exception clauses,then the message would be entirely different than when the exception clause is present.

No. I would interpret the 4 passages exactly the same whether the exception clause were there or not because marriage is a covenant and covenants can (though they should not) be broken. You keep quoting the 'what God has joined together, let no one separate' verse as if separating married people is an impossibility. The verse simply means that people shouldn't get divorced. We all agree that divorce is a terrible thing that always involves sin. That's what these verses are all saying. People shouldn't initiate divorces. It's sinful. All we are saying is that you can initiate a divorce without being the one to file the paperwork through certain sinful actions.

You write as if the rule is more important than the actual relationship.

covenants can (though they should not) be broken

It depends on the covenant.
With Noah the covenant concerning the rainbow cannot be broken as though mankind can effect it. It is one sided.
The same with marriage, it is patterned after the first marriage therefore the terms are not detemined by the individual parties involved as if one can break it. Like the rainbow covenent, it stands under its own terms between God and married couples, he having determined that death and death only can terminate a marriage even if the married couple are unaware of the reality of their situation. Whether or not they are believers is irrelevant. Since it is patterned after Adam and Eve, under which situation it was impossible for the one flesh status to have ended while they both lived, that fact dictates the terms as they exist under the covenant of marriage as ordained by God. In short, "till death do us part" are the terms. He stands on one side and has stated the reality of their situation, they stand on the other side and are obligated by the dictates of truth to abide under the natural 'till death do us part" pattern established by the first couple, something their God given conscience should easily agree with.

[mattrose]

If initiating a divorce is sinful as you say it is, then you have Jesus saying that that certain sinful act is OK. What other act can you find Jesus saying is OK even though it is sinful? Did you mean to say "initiating a divorce [unless it is for adultery, abandonment or any other among the list that are at least as sinful] is sinful"?

I don't think you read very carefully in this case. I said initiating a divorce is a sin, but I added necessary nuance. If someone unrepentantly commits sexual sin, they are initiating divorce (breaking the covenant) whether they initiate paperwork or not. The wronged party may initiate the paperwork without initiating the divorce.

The rest of your most recent round of posts offer nothing new, nor do they further the discussion. You are still reading the statements as absolute statements. You are still mis-using the context of Jesus' teaching. You are still clinging to a very particularized reading of the greek. Etc.

You've been at this discussion for a long time (not just here, but I assume on other boards). Have you convinced anyone yet?