Paidion,
Out of context, I agree that it looks like 'loosed' means "divorced" in verse 28.
I used NIV.
It looks to me that there is a pattern of conditions, which are not 'following' from the prior sentences.
Darby:
27Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed; art thou free from a wife? do not seek a wife.
28 But if thou shouldest also marry, thou hast not sinned; and if the virgin marry, they have not sinned: but such shall have tribulation in the flesh; but I spare you.
NIV:
27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
King James:
27Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
In all three translations, if all we had was verse 28, yes, it looks like the begining of 28 is connected to the case we just left, which is the end of verse 27. Normally, I would assume the first case of 28 is the same person we just left at the end of 27.
But my problem is this:
The start of verse 27 is not the same case as the end of verse 27.
This means that the cases do not stem from each other. Notice also in verse 28, the 'virgin' case also is not connected to the first case of 28.
Since the first case of 27 is not the same person as the second case of 27;
and since the second case of 28 is not the same case of the first case of 28, then it follows that none of the cases are the same person.
Let's go back to earlier in the chapter:
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Notice that in verse 8, he *ONLY* lists unmarried and widows. Never does he clearly say that 'divorced' can remarry another.
Verse 11 seems to uphold this notion.
Remember, Luke 16 clearly calls being remarried to another after a divorce as 'adultery'.
If Paul's letter permitted a divorced to remarry another, then Paul would be in violation of Luke 16.
Does the Greek actually say that a "divorced' person can remarry another, or did you just mention that you know Greek, and then without actually claiming the Greek says 'divorced' can remarry another, rather use logic to prove that verse 28 must be the same case as verse 27?
I like logic, I bow to logic, it's just that I don't think that verse 28 logically follows verse 27, in this case, given that the clauses within verse 27 are not the same cases, and given the clauses of verse 28 are not the same cases either.
Remember, I'm *for* divorce, in the right circumstances.
On the side, I subscribe to the theory that Paul remained an agent of the San Hedrin, and was here concerned that Jews who leave their husbands not remarry, as their children would have the 'unclean' status, yet be holy as all are God's children regardless of their status.
Jesus, of course, couldn't have married if he wanted to. His mother was married to Joseph, who was not his father. Sadly, nobody knew God was Jesus' father, but they did know Marry was pregnant not from Joseph.
Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
NIV: 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Now, which word in that passage did the NIV mis-translate from the Greek?
If translated legitimately, then notice that being 'unmarried' is not the same thing as being 'divorced' as Jesus and the author Paul earlier in this same chapter seem to think that being 'divorced' is not being 'loosed' or 'unmarried' at all in the first place.
I believe I see your point, do you see my points?
1. That we have two or more verses of JESUS saying you can't marry another after a divorce, and
2. Paul could be read as talking about an 'unmarried' or 'loose' person who has never been married at all. He's only repeating that one can marry, though not ideal.
I thank you for your post.
Brakelite2, if what you are saying is correct, then adultery could only occur once, correct? No formal divorce needed? If a husband cheats on his wife the first time, then he's not married, even if he repents, gets right with God, he can do as he pleases, no divorce needed for either him or his former wife? I am making a reductio argument against your suggestion, I don't think that's how it worked.
Thanks for your post.
St Francis:
Because the "exceptive clauses" occur only in Matthew’s Gospel  the one written for a Jewish audience  it means that they reflect some issue of particular concern to Jews. The term used for "unchastity" porneia  is being used in a special sense. It refers to unchaste behavior before the marriage is consummated. At that point, it is possible to dissolve the marriage, for marriages become indissoluble only when they are consummated.
I politely disagree. In Jewish terms, the Erusin is a legally binding state of marriage *before the consumation, the Nesuin. You have to get a document of divorce even before the consummation.
Notice:
Matthew 1:19
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
'divorce' yet they had not consummated.
I believe this is the problem as to why Jesus could not get married, his mother conceived him not from her husband. The idea that God or an angel did it was a secret until near or after Jesus died.
Certainly we don't read the NT as everyone thinking Jesus was God (yet).
Matthew 19:
8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Notice that the prohibition between cohabiting with an *unmarried* woman is if you pay her money.
The argument at Mat 19 seems, to me, that the disciples are saying that it's better to have a woman (not for money, that would violate the laws of Moses) but not get married. The punishment for adultery is death. There is no punishment under the laws of Moses for failing to get married.
Notice the concubines of the forefathers... they were pretty close to God and no problem with having a 'significant other'.
I must point out that for full disclosure, I've been happily married for quite a long time, I'm extremely lucky, the woman still hasn't come to her senses.
