Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 12

CD If put away does not mean divorce then we should be able to make a parallel sentence showing the switch over .... Let's examine

Matt 5:31,32 is one long sentence:
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,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Notice how line A is referring to what you call "divorce", since he is coming from Duet. 24:1 by referring to the writing of divorce. Is that correct?
Now notice how Jesus refers to the same thing, in lines B and 1 but uses the term "put away".
Can you see how it is very reasonable to view the sentence as early on establishing that "divorce" and 'put away' are simply interchangeable terms?

You claim there has to be a distinction between "divorce" and "put away" in Matt 5:31,32. Then you bring in Duet 24 to say that based on Duet 24, that is what makes the difference between "divorce" and "put away" necessary. But in reality, based solely on the NT scriptures of Matt 5:31,32; 19:9 and Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, there is no actual difference between the words.

In Matt 5 Jesus says something like "but I say to you" 6 times. So, 6 topics he brings up a topic and then addresses it likewise by something like, "but I say to you". Doesn't it make sense that when he says but I say to you he is referring to the same thing that is the topic of discussion? For example, about swearing; when he says but I say to you, does it make sense that he would refer to something else as what he refers to? Do you see what I mean? For example:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Could we change the reiteration of what is being discussed in verse 34? It is talking about swearing from 33 and the "but I say unto you" is also about the same thing; it is about swearing, right? Can that be changed and it make sense? Let's try it:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Talk loud not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

See I have changed 'swear not at all' to 'talk loud not at all'. It does not fit to change the topic. Yet you say in 5:31,32 the 'But iI say to you' changes topic to something else other than the topic identified which starts the topic in 31!!

In 5:31,32 he starts off talking about what you would recognize as an actual recognized "divorce", then when he says but I say to you, he switches over to talk about something that is not recognized; a mere putting away. I have not tried this before, but can you give a parallel sentence on any topic imaginable where this could be done after the same general format and make sense? In the example above about 'talk loud not at all, a nonsensical sentence is created. Literally, a nonsensical sentence is created also when the topic is switched over in Matt 5:32.

For those who say put way does not mean divorce...Provide an example of how that switch over is literally functional.

JM According to Matt 5:32. And 19:9 fornication is incest but I don't have to worry about it anymore I lived w/o my wife for 16 yrs because we were in adultery as she had a living husband ( no need to contact me I know what the KJB says )

LJ Not according to 5:32 and 19:9 but according to an incorrect explanation of the exception clause. If Jesus meant incest he would have said that. The definition of fornication is found in the NT by how it is used. Its definition is NOT incest in 5:32 and 19:9. The divorce for incest explanation does not fit the context. The same as the divorce to get out of adultery does not fit. Take the divorce to get out of adultery, for example; even though that divorce is good and required by God, that is NOT what the exception was intended to identify. Evidence for this exists but you have indicated that you already know the truth and care not to hear anything.

PC I think it's pretty clearly wrong to be married to a woman who is already married to someone else.

PC I think "put away" includes divorce.

LJ Yes, they are used as completely interchangeable in Matt 5:31,32. That is why a functional parallel, demonstrating the two being able to be referring to two different things, cannot be made.

PC I don't know that I would say that they are interchangeable. I don't think we can see a verb in the original text that matches our American understanding of "divorce".

In scripture, it seems that "put away" was the verb(action) while a divorce certificate is used as a noun as something that was handed to a wife by her husband as he was putting her away.

The main function of this certificate may have served as a means of absolving a man from his duties to the woman while also absolving her from any duties to him.

I don't believe it was a permission slip for her to marry another, but I think it would have protected her from being put to death for adultery if she did marry another.

LJ PC Under the OT as seen in Dt 24:1-4, the divorcing or putting away, whatever term is chosen, did in fact give right for the woman to be married again afterward. Jesus did not come to defend such carnal ordinances, but to reveal the truth concerning them. That ordinance was given for the hardness of hearts, not because it is an absolute morally righteous thing. Jesus revealed that it was immoral to divorce a wife. Referring to Dt 24:1, he said "but I say unto you. He reveals it was immoral by virtue of the fact that it causes the wife to afterward commit adultery, as the result of the divorce. That was in direct contradiction to Moses' allowance. Moses allowed divorce, Jesus forbade it based on the original intention at creation spoken BEFORE the fall. Jesus, coming to redeem mankind from the fall, reinstituted what was said BEFORE the fall. Mark 10:2-12 is the Christian law. Dt 2:1-4 is abolished. 2 Cor 3:11-13 Heb 7:12 Gal 3:19 Heb 9:9,10.

PC I don't think the divorce certificate is ever described as giving a woman the right to marry another. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 seems to be stating what not to do if she does defile herself by marrying another after she has been put away by her husband and given a certificate.

LJ PC Dt 24:
24 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.

PP CD, you have gone directly into one of the most popular interpretations at the moment, the divorce paper view Basically the divorce paper view falls on these 2 scriptures 1 cor 7:39 and Rom 7:1-3, and also scriptures like Luke 16:18 suffer, and the history of Herod and Herodias. But yes, the structure of the sermon on the mount does not invite the theory that Jesus will introduce something completely new here.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/deuteronomy/24-3.htm Try to look at the word for "let him write" in 24:1 and "he writes" in 24:3. It is exactly the same word, strongs 3789, and with the same transliteration "wekatab". So, it looks like there is no difference in the Hebrew word or grammar, only it is translated differently.

JPM CD - If you and I knew the same people and I told you "such and such" married couple just got separated - what would you naturally conclude? Just like everyone else you'd correctly assume the couple is estranged and no longer living together but yet STILL married. For anyone to suggest Hebrew terms such as 'put away' 'send away' and the like are synonymous with 'divorce' is not only shoddy scholarship (being completely ignorant of Greek and Hebrew meanings), it makes the false analogy that things different are the same. Your above comment on December 26th appears to be completely absent of understanding of both the Hebrew and Greek languages. You spend a lot of time philosophizing about the subject of divorce seemingly unaware of the fact that Jesus Christ Himself contrasts 'putting away" to "divorce" in not only Matthew 19:9 but a host of other contexts. The correct explanation is quite simple to understand when one spends time in the original languages - however, when we simply read the Scripture in English and pretend there are no mistranslated words and go about to teach things that cannot be supported from the MSS evidence we place ourselves in the position of being a false teacher. May I encourage you to just define the words themselves in the Greek and it will become as plain as the nose on your face that not only are terms like "putting away" and "divorce" distinctly different they carry completely different meanings, in no stretch of academic study are they synonymous terms.

LJ JPM, It seems quite clear Jesus disagrees with you. He was plainly asked about Dt 24:1-4. Read Mark 10:2-12. Your perspective of the difference in meanings is not supported by the actual text. Your position has created its own parameters and reasons SEPARATE from the actual texts where Jesus addresses it. Also, the post by CD above demolishes that position.

LJ JPM You must embrace the Biblical use of terms. The contexts of both Matt 19:9 and Mark 10:2-12 show that put away and divorce are absolutely speaking of the same thing. They are interchangeable in those contexts. You can disprove this, if it were false, by simply taking the challenge that CD has presented in the opening post.
RW runs away from the challenge. And for good reason.

JPM LJ With all due respect LJ - Even a cursory perusal of a Greek and Hebrew Lexicon or even a glance at a Strong's concordance not only disproves your so-called contextual criticism but shows your "perceived" interchangeability between distinct and separate Greek words to be absolutely fallacious. As for your statement: " It seems quite clear Jesus disagrees with you." Well, even a novice can conclude you neither speak for Jesus Christ nor represent Him accurately. Use His words - not yours. Present your evidence for your philosophical and speculative claims rather than assume you "clearly" and "plainly" understand what scholars and others have diligently studied for centuries. Both you and CD are protecting personal opinions. Present your evidences from the analysis of the original languages and I, and others, may be more apt to take your observations seriously. Right now, you're simply offering opinion and speculative bias from an eisegetical approach. Until you're willing to exegetically dissect the Greek I can only conclude you seek not the Truth but rather seek to defend your own personal interpretation.

LJ JPM I see you are not even trying to hide or cover up that you are evading the challenge presented in the OP. You have a wonderful opportunity to disprove what we say, but you simply dismiss the challenge that provides that avenue.
Make a sentence after the format of the long sentence in Matt 5:31,32. The six parts are to be paralleled reasonably to show how that after "but I say to you", (indicating clarification or enlightenment of some sort), the next line can switch to a separate topic.
Read CD’s post above in the opening post and respond responsibly.
You know, I really think that you will just maintain your course of bombastic denial and dismissiveness. Surprise me by responding in an appropriate manner.

LJ JPM Here are the 6 parts broken down for easier identification:
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,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Here is a parallel for an example:
A) you have heard it said that leaving that door open during the summer is OK
B) but I say to you;
1) Whoever leaves that door open,
2) saving that someone installs the new screen door.
3) causes flies to get in the house,
4) and whoever sees it open and does not shut it will also be seen as having caused flies to get in the house

Line 1 continues with the same topic as established in Line A.
Please provide a parallel where line 1 can switch to a different topic and make perfect sense.