If you have an income, are healthy, and your wife wants a baby and is healthy, there probably isn’t a valid excuse to delay children

Actually Larry, if you read the whole passage, the husband was to bring a specific charge against the girl. So no, that passage does nothing to address the situation of Joseph and Mary, since Joseph was not going to bring a charge and they had not yet been married.

The point is that the situation you are appealing to is addressed by the Law. You appear to be saying that Jesus couldn’t have been talking about divorce in the case of adultery because the adulteress would have been killed, making divorce both impossible and unnecessary. He had to be talking about something in which the sinning party would be allowed to live; therefore, Jesus was talking about betrothal.

However, the OT also prescribes death for sexual immorality during betrothal, making your distinction irrelevant. Even if Jesus was talking about betrothal (something that would stretch the text beyond reason), it still would have resulted in death, meaning that divorce from a betrothal was still impossible.

So the sword with which you cut out the interpretation you reject also cuts out the interpretation you espouse.

Yes, Joseph was not bringing a charge and they were not married. That’s true, but if he did (as the situation in Matt 19 envisions) the penalty under law would have been death, just as for adultery during marriage. So in either (married or betrothed), the penalty is the same and divorce isn’t possible.

It seems to me that issue gets a lot easier if we take out our preconceived notions about what Jesus was saying, and take away our questions, and just look at the question Jesus was asked and was answering.

The Pharisees asked about the divorce of people who were married. Jesus answers their question. Therefore, whatever he says is in response to that question. If he had been asked a question on betrothal, the answer might have been the same; it might have been different. Either way, we don’t know. All we know is what he said about married people, divorce, and sexua immorality.

Larry, when demonstrated that your “answer” was insufficient, you dig in. Fine. The situation of betrothal is NOT covered by that old testament text. The case law specifically demands that a man bring the accusation against the girl. Now if you can find a text that does make your case, I will look at that. The appeal you brought didn’t work.

Larry, when demonstrated that your “answer” was insufficient, you dig in.

Sorry, I must have missed that. The only response I recall was a dismissal. There was no exegetical or theological interaction with the points I made. So I am not sure what you are talking about here.

The situation of betrothal is NOT covered by that old testament text.

If it’s not covered by the OT text, then why is it even part of the discussion? It shouldn’t be. The Bible needs to be the guide on this issue. However, Deut 22:13-21 covers the situation of sexual immorality prior to marriage, including during betrothal. Assuming you agree that Deuteronomy is part of the OT text, I am not sure how you can claim that “the situation of betrothal is not covered by the old testament text.”

Under OT Law, a woman who was found guilty of sexual immorality during betrothal was stoned just like a woman who committed adultery. Neither was not divorced. The death penalty applies both to the situation you reject and the one you accept. If you argue that Joseph was only betrothed, and not married, then the passage doesn’t apply because the question is about married people.

The case law specifically demands that a man bring the accusation against the girl.

No one disputed this that I know of, but it is really irrelevant. In either case (marriage or betrothal) a claim has to be made. So in the question put to Jesus, it requires a claim. If the claim isn’t made, no divorce can be granted. Of course he could choose not to bring it and stay in the marriage. So this is not a distinguishing mark between two interpretive options.

Again, the attention should be on the text, not this peripheral stuff. In Matthew 19,

1. the Pharisees asked about divorce from a marriage (not betrothal);
2. Jesus responds by answering their question about divorce from a marriage (not betrothal);
3. Jesus’ answer is that sexual immorality is grounds for (at least) a divorce (and possibly remarriage).

You responded that it couldn’t be adultery because adulterers were stoned; It was therefore something other than adulterer. By invoking the situation of Joseph and Mary, you indicate that you believe it is betrothal since they were not yet married. When it is pointed out to you that death is the penalty for sexual immorality among betrothed people, you dismiss it with an assertion about making a claim. So you use the death penalty to deny one meaning while ignoring the fact that the death penalty also applies to the meaning you have chosen. If the death penalty negates one option, then it negates both options.

I think enough has been said here to at least get the options and issues on the table, so I will bow out here.

Larry, your “answer” only works in the case of the man bringing the accusation against the woman with the possible penalty in mind of stoning. Joseph was not going to have Mary stoned and wished to privately dissolve their “marriage.”

You had to change my words to make your next point. I said that betrothal was not covered by THAT OT text.

Alas, I will also bow out. Reconcile it the best you can, and I wish you well.

You had to change my words to make your next point. I said that betrothal was not covered by THAT OT text.

Sorry to come back in but I wanted to acknowledge that you are correct, I misread that and missed the “that.” My apologies. However, betrothal is covered by THAT OT text because they are married; they of necessity went through the betrothal stage and entered into marriage from which they can now seek a divorce if a charge is made and proven.