Yuku free message boards

Jesus did not use the greek words sited. He spoke aramaic. The editor of Matthew (or at least this portion of Matthew) has taken numerous sources and combined them for his own evangelical agenda..."Jesus Is The New And Superior Moses"...hence the constant "Moses has said...but I say..." formulae.
When the editor chose the words in the exception clause he was approximating in greek what Jesus allegedly said in aramaic. It is possible Jesus said none of this at all. Paraphrase or putting words in the mouth of someone was not a scandal as long as it was consistent with what the speaker meant. The practical question for the editor of Matthew was when is divorce justified?
1.) when sexual immorality has been perpetrated by the woman.
2.) Men cannot commit adultery in the first century middle east. If they have sex with an unattached woman they may have "fornicated" and would be perhaps considered ritually unclean but they had not violated any law.
3.) IF the woman was attached (engaged or married) then the mans crime was violating the property of another man/family. Her crime was adultery. If a woman commits adultery then she has forfeited the protection of her husband and it would be immoral for him to keep her as his wife. Having committed adultery she has brought dishonour on her family and therefore cannot return to them. So she is left with finding a man who will take her in (certainly not as a wife-perhaps as a concubine) or she can become a prostitute.
OBVIOUSLY A MAN WHO WOULD SIMPLY DIVORCE HIS WIFE FOR ANY OTHER REASON (which apparently was permitted in 1st century Jewish circles) WAS COMMITTING AN INJUSTICE AGAINST THE WOMAN WHOM HE DIVORCED. She, for no just cause, would be forced to seek out another man or perhaps be reduced to prostitution.
One of the radical notions which came into Christian circles was the harm sexual immorality had on the spiritual state of men. Hence we see developing in the New Testament era a radical critique of accepted first century sexual practices. There were no laws attached to most of these behaviours but the early Christians sensed a contradiction in their bodily expectation of resurrected life and behaviour that was perceived as corrosive of spiritual integrity.
The Gospels are a hodge podge of different sources all filtered through an interpretive lens of Gentile Christianity and may have had little and often nothing to do with the historical Jesus. The real question is not "Why did Jesus say this?" but "Why am I being told that Jesus said this?" What is the agenda of the writers, the agenda of the editors who followed the writers, and the agenda of the Church/Churches which have come to see this as an authentic representation of what Jesus taught?
In truth most of what has been handed to us as the "Teaching of Christ" is not especially new or radical and pretty much similar to many of the other teachings of the rabbis of the first century. The teaching of Christ is not especially original or compelling. THE PERSON OF CHRIST AS IT HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE POINT. "Before Abraham was-I AM." It is Who Christ IS and what Christ DOES that matters...for those to whom it matters.