|
alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/27/2006 2:24:35 PM)
|
This construct will demonstrate how an exception, not relating to the main point being discussed, can be utilised in a way to emphasize finality or the last word in making a statement of decision.
This fits perfectly with Matt. 5 because Jesus addresses things that they were familiar with, even justified in doing based on the OT, to which he says "but I say unto you".
You have heard this, but I say to you.
With this mode or context and mindset, the following construct will show, not only that an exception clause can be inserted that does not relate directly to what is being said but also that the exception serves the purpose of emphasising the finality of decision of totally prohibiting what is being directly addressed.
First let's establish the scenario of an issue of discussion of whether or not a certain thing should be allowed to be done, which is the context of Matt. 5.
So the background for this construct is that discussions have been under way to determine whether or not certain doors in a commercial building should be used for receiving goods during the day.
The management is determined to not let these doors be used for receiving goods during the day. After long debate the final word is pronounced which is not negotiable but notice that it doesn't possess an exception clause:
Whoever opens those doors, will cause themselves to be fired.
[Here we also have the doing of something and the cause of doing it as we find in Matt. 5:32 where the doing is the divorcing and what is being caused by it, is her committing adultery.]
But let's focus on the real life example above: Can an exception clause be inserted into that statement that does not relate directly to the discussion at hand, which is the opening of those doors for recieving goods? Can an exception be inserted that refers to the opening of those doors for some other reason , which exception serves to pronounce finality of decision to totally prohibit what is actually under discussion, namely whether or not those doors are to be used for receiving goods? And can this exception be read in a way that makes perfect sense?
First, let's acknowledge that an exception clause in a situation like this where what is being stated is the doing of something and what that doing causes, the exception clause means that in the case where the exception is utilised, that which would be caused is not caused if done for the reason allowed by the exception. Does everybody agree?
So the statement without the exception clause makes perfect sense as worded, as in the above construct. By adding an exception, the meaning is changed to mean that there does now exist an allowance for a particular reason to do what the sentence without the exception appears to have disallowed.
But there is another kind of exception clause. An exception clause that can make perfect sense but which also does not relate directly to what is being discussed means that the statement without the exception clause remains to mean the same even though there is an exception inserted. This is the kind of exception clause not considered in Matt. due to the duality of definitions commentatotors and translators were not aware of, or were willingly ignorant to, that precluded any consideration of such an exception.
The statement: "whoever opens those doors, will cause themselves to be fired", can remain to keep that meaning even though an exception clause is inserted because this kind of exception clause does not relate to opening the doors during the day for receiving. This kind of exception clause that does not directly relate to the discussion at hand, (opening for receiving), is the kind of exception clause that is used to emphasise finality of the decision to prohibit what is being discussed.
So here is the construct I have been telling you about, containing an exception clause that does not make allowance for what is being directly addressed because the exception clause relates to something else as a means to emphasise prohibition. This includes a previous sentence similar to the construct we see in Matt. 5:31,32. So let's pretend that the statements made in the board room were numbered and the numbers happen to coincide with the numbering of Jesus' statements:
31. You have heard it being discussed that the doors should be opened for receiving during the day.
32. But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, except it be for maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.
Don't these two sentences make perfect sense?
Is it not true, having knowledge of the background leading up to this statement as also seen in verse 31, that we see an exception clause that has not changed the fact that the doors are not in any wise to be opened during the day for receiving?
Even without all my dialogue that I have included in this post for the sake of clarity, is it not true that the above construct of verses 31 and 32 alone without any commentary will make perfect sense to anyone who reads it and is willing to understand the voice of the speaker?
The discussion is not about opening for maintenance or emergencies. Yet an exception clause is inserted that does refer to opening for those reasons. The exception does not relate directly to that which the speaker initially addresses.
The exception, that relates to the opening of those doors for reasons not being discussed, serves the purpose of emphasising prohibition of the opening of those doors for the reasons that are being discussed.
|
|
|
|