You say these acts objectively break the marriage bond, then you say not necessarily.
We know that God "hates" divorce (Malachi); the insertion of an "adultery" exception into the Matthew text -- a word Jesus did not use here --- quite effectively nullifies His actual teaching.
In any case, Paul also teaches that it is impermissible to divorce and remarry another. In Romans 7:2-3, Paul says that a woman is an adulteress if she is with another man while her husband lives. In 1 Cor 7:39, Paul teaches that marriage is dissolved only by death.
And here's an important distinction: in 1 Cor 7:10-11, Paul says that a wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does, let her remain "unmarried," or reconcile with her “husband.” Although the woman has separated from her husband (which is divorce), Paul still calls the spouse her “husband” which means the separation did not dissolve the marriage. Her state of being “unmarried” refers to the civil law, while her still having a “husband” refers to the moral law: how God sees it. In the eyes of secular law, she is divorced; in God's eyes, she still has a husband.
The teaching of Jesus and Paul is applicable to this day: civil divorce (with separation) may be permitted for bad situations, but this does not entail a right to remarry.
“This is self-contradictory.”
Only what you think I said is contradictory. Not what I said. :-)
“First you say porneia includes “many acts,” then you say “porneia is specific.”
Porniea includes illicit sexual acts - “illicit sexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.” Each is included in the meaning of porneia. It is NOT limited to adultery, but obviously includes adultery, which is the context of the discussion Christ was having with the Jews in Matt. 5:32
“You say these acts objectively break the marriage bond, then you say not necessarily.”
It is not required that you divorce, if you spouse violates the one flesh nature of marriage Christ says it is permissible to divorce for this reason.
“We know that God “hates” divorce (Malachi); the insertion of an “adultery” exception into the Matthew text — a word Jesus did not use here -— quite effectively nullifies His actual teaching.”
Actually, we agree that God hates divorce. We disagree on the second part of your sentence.
Adultery is included in the meaning of porneia, because it is illicit sex. This doesn’t invalidate what God said. It specifies that only illicit sex is a permissible reason for divorce - not any reason, as many Jews taught. Christ affirms God’s teaching in the Hebrew Scriptures that porneia is a permissible reason for divorce. If divorce doesn’t end a marriage, there would be no point in saying it was permissible.
“In any case, Paul also teaches ...”
I’m going to set aside Paul’s teaching for another post, so that this doesn’t get too broad. There are contextual and other issues we would have to cover that are lengthy.
Kindest Regards,
ampu