Arguments for the Proposition:

They argue: ‘divorce’ means ‘permanent termination of a marriage’ and nothing else.

I argue: Divorce was “...Not distinguished in Eng. [England]  from legal separation until mid-19c.” Therefore, before about 1850, someone could say they were ‘divorced’ but mean that they were ‘separated'.

There are several categories of 'divorce' according to the Legal dictionary. One: 'divorce a mensa et thoro' means 'separation only' and not 'termination of a marriage', therefore the argument of my opposition is false.

How do I know that  the word ‘divorce’, in the Bible, means 'the permanent termination of a marriage' and not mere 'separation'?

(goto full summary) 

(goto full article)

They argue: The word ‘may’ means ‘permission granted’ and nothing else therefore reunion of ex-spouses is forbidden.

I argue: The dictionary definition of ‘may’ is also ‘likely’ or ‘might’, therefore, this text teaches that the reunion of ex-spouses is mandatory.

 (goto full summary)

(goto full article)

They argue: The exception clause: “except for fornication” implies divorce and remarriage is not a sin.

I argue: Its a violation of the rules of grammar to apply a subordinate clause to every element in a compound sentence. Therefore, Jesus lists three things that are adultery: 1. illegitimate divorce (i.e. divorce except for fornication), 2. remarriage (of a divorced man - the subject of the passage), 3. marrying a divorcee.

 But even if we accept their argument; they’ve taken it too far. The exception implies it is merely 'not the sin of adultery'. Its still a sin; just not the sin of adultery when fornication is involved. Divorce is always the sin of dishonouring parents-in-law.

(goto full summary)

They argue: “is not under bondage” means divorce is allowed.

I argue: In verse 13, the topic of this passage is “...if he be pleased to dwell with her...”, so verse 15 means “is not under bondage [to dwell with her]”. ‘Dwell’ means to cohabitate. Their argument requires very large doses of ‘interpretation’ and uses words outside of their dictionary definitions.

 (goto full summary)

They argue: “if thou marry, thou hast not sinned”(v28). "Untying" or "loosing" (v27) is the same word in the Greek used for divorce.Thus, this passage means that the remarriage of a divorcee is not a sin.

I argue: Many times, words have more than one meaning so there is only ‘the possibility’ that it means ‘divorcee’. Even if what you say is true, verse 25 of this passage is specifically addressed to ‘virgins’ [“Now concerning virgins...”]. Divorcees are definately not virgins, therefore, nothing in this passage can be applied to the case of divorcees.

(goto full summary)

I argue: ‘Broken’ does not necessarily mean ‘cease to exist’. It might mean ‘temporarily cease to be functional’. A broken pot has not ceased  to exist; it is still a pot, although a non-functional pot. A broken vow is merely temporarily non-functional and can be fixed.

(no full summary)