A_Voice

Shiloh, You have made some interesting assertions but which have very good answers. How about if we both agree to answer whatever question the other asks? So whatever question you ask, I will answer with a yes or no, if required, before presenting any reason etc. If agreed, then you also will grant me the same respect. Concerning betrothal, yes they were regarded as husband and wife by betrothal, the word "married" was also used, but everyone knew they had not become joined in marriage. So it is a mute point to make since Jesus defined what that situation is under which God has joined together that man is not to put asunder. It is that situation where a leaving and cleaving has occurred, where they are completely married living with one another. In the case of the divorce-for-fornication-in-betrothal explanation, the exception clause jumps to touch on that entirely different kind of divorce even though the topic of discussion, as established in Matt 5:31, is definitely the other normal post marital divorce. So in that case, (understanding that the the exception clause pertains to a divorce that DOES NOT put asunder what God has joined together), then everything falls into place: In Matt 5:31,32, she is not caused to commit adultery by being put away for fornication while betrothed. Obviously because she has not ever been joined in marriage (she doesn't qualify for the status of "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder"). We see the same practical accommodating effect in Matt 19:9; he does not commit adultery by marrying another after that kind of divorce, for the same reason; he is still single not having graduated to having left and cleaved to his wife. Please ask questions and I will do the same. By committing to answer each others questions, progress can be made in this discussion. If by your questions and answering my questions I discover and realize I am wrong, then I will very gladly admit that and be thankful for a better understanding. I trust you also have the same heart. Concerning what I said above concerning the exception clause jumping to something other than what was the topic of discussion: Would you like to see an example of a grammatical parallel where we have a sentence that functions after the same format of Matt 5:31,32 and where the exception clause jumps to what is NOT the topic of discussion?

Hi kwikphilly, If a person reads Mark 10:2-12 there is an unmistakable message there. Marriage is until death like the old phrase "till death do us part". A person gets the same effect when reading Luke 16:18. That same message is again clear when reading 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. The mistake people are making is assuming the exception clause in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 is contradicting the very clearly stated passages in Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:2,3. The explanation of the cultural divorce done for suspected fornication (not for adultery), which divorce took place while they were only betrothed, works perfectly for Jesus' exception clause since it does not contradict Jesus' strong statement, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." There is very strong evidence that Jesus did NOT make adultery a grounds for divorce. I think this touches our consciences as well because the situation in the garden at the first marriage; it was impossible for the couple to no longer be one flesh, husband and wife for as long as they were both alive. According to Jesus all married couples after Adam and Eve fall into that same category. They are one flesh, impossible to alter by divorce. Only death can part. To divorce and to remarry is adultery. Jesus made this very clear 5 times. Paul did so twice. As overwhelming as that message is, somehow modern Christianity finds ways to basically deny that adultery is being committed by being remarried. That strong testimony 7 times in the NT that remarriage is adultery fully supports Jesus' claim: what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. If a divorce is acquired followed by a remarriage, that is adultery. The divorce has no weight by God's truth as revealed by Jesus.

Shiloh357, what you have written doesn't make sense to me. Jesus did not make adultery a grounds for divorce. The word he used was fornication, not adultery. That fits perfectly with the divorce during betrothal explanation of the exception clause because Jesus identified the leaving and cleaving as being what God has joined together in marriage. If they are only betrothed they have not been joined together by God. If they divorce while only betrothed, they are still single and hence she is NOT caused to commit adultery as Matt 5:31,32 declares. Also in Matt 19:9 the kind of divorce that is allowed is the kind that makes it that the man that does it can marry afterward and it is NOT adultery. That works perfectly for the divorce in betrothal explanation because he also is still single both before and after the divorce. To assert that the divorce for fornication is really a divorce for adultery makes Jesus to contradict himself since he said, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." It makes Jesus to contradict himself in Matt 5:31,32 as well as Matt 19:9. These verses also contradict each other when the exception of fornication identifying premarital sex is mistakenly assumed to be adultery.

Many believe that Jesus allows divorce for adultery. That directly contradicts "till death do us part". There is strong evidence that fully supports the long held "till death do us part", that proves that adultery is NOT a grounds for divorce. There was a cultural divorce for fornication (not adultery) that was done while the "husband" and "wife" were only engaged (betrothed). Jesus' hearers were very familiar with this kind of divorce. The texts in Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 function perfectly when this perspective of the exception clause is embraced. When the perspective that Jesus allowed divorce for adultery is held, then Matt 5:31,32 and 19:9 contradict each other as well as themselves.

Your effort to love by communication is honourable. Don't let man made rules cause you to go against your God-given conscience. If one of your children dies, you will regret it sorely for not communicating.