It takes him until page 23 to reach the point at which he is trying to get. It is sad that today we are not as immersed in the study of classics as our predecessors. Barrister convincingly argues the case for the parenthetical use of the so-called “exception clause” in Matthew as no exception at all, except to understand that the case of adultery is understood as being treated separately and remarriage after divorce would place the guilty party under the penalty of the established law. Have fun.
I would I had the time to read Barrister, but I’ve read your writing on the issue and it convinced me. I hope those not convinced will read you and/or Barrister closely and understand how the NT does not support divorce (along with those in the orthocatholic stream of translocal church polity).