In my humble opinion (IMHO), means I am open to discussion on this even desire it. We should not reject it without understanding first.
Just because someone does not agree does not mean they do not have a valid point.
Jesus pointed out a hardness of heart issue (Matthew 19:8).
I believe He was condemning hardness of heart not all divorce or all divorced people. Have you been divorced? If not how can you condemn others who are. I have found very judgmental people say divorce is a sin and sinners have no part in God's kingdom (lose their salvation?)
They say it is the sin of adultery if they marry again. Or that a divorced woman who marries another man is condemning him to hell because it is a perpetual adultery. So she should divorce the second husband and go back to the first one even if he does not want her. When he refuses, She is then told to pray and wait for his salvation to be joined back together in God's eyes. But possibly be celebrate the rest of her life. she will become a "marriage martyr" never to experience the true love marriage was meant to be. If the husband then demands money for her freedom, because she is his property, it looks very much like what has continued to this day in Judaism. The marriage martyr is called a chained wife. The Hebrew word is "agunah" and continues even to this day. check it out for yourself. This IMHO it is hardness of heart. When Jesus was asked about the the Mosaic Law, I believe this is the hardness of heart He was speaking of. Not all men put away their wives and then demand money before they grant a get (divorce) paper to marry again. Jesus was not speaking to people suffering from divorce but Pharisees seeking to trip Him up concerning the Law. So we should not condemn divorce either.
@TruthSlinger: I have three different translations in my house, and they all say "except for" (two then say "sexual immorality" and the other says "adultery"). One of the beauties of the English language: it changes over time. "Save for" and "except for" are synonymous.
Though I think we're venturing into hair-splitting territory now and may just have to agree not to agree.
Save for and except for may be the same. No arguement here. Save for the cause of fornication is not the same as save for the cause of adultery which is how the heretical westcott and hort modern translations put it.
Ga 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Gen 3 Yea, hath God said...
Somehow we have to reconcile the passages saying remarrying is adultery w/ this one--1Cor 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
As I explained earlier, modern Christianity makes an arguement for remarriage if the offending spouse committed adultery. The Bible says "save for the cause of fornication" being the only way remarriage was possible. That was speaking of the jewish betrothal system. fornication and adultery are two different sins, therefore fornication can't be substituted in this verse.
Fornication is two unmarried people. Adultery is someone who is married having relations w/ someone not their spouse. That's exactly the kind of scripture twisting modern american Christianity is good at.
If you say so, but I'm still not seeing your point. Fornication/adultery are both the same thing, aren't they? They're both stepping outside of the original plan, which is "don't have sex outside of marriage". Fornication is between 2 unmarried people, and adultery is between 2 unmarried people. What's the difference? The idea that "the unbelieving spouse can depart" is based on a "union" that wasn't "marriage", isn't it? Back then, people that didn't believe in God didn't get married "under God" like they all supposedly do now, right? Anyway, just askin'. I'll defer to your superior intelligent.
The fact remains there is no word in the bible which describes the institution of marriage. Any attempt to build a biblical definition for marriage falls way short and is merely speculation, interpretative and/or the traditions of men. :boxing:
Over the years, well meaning clergy have felt it necessary to explain all things in a biblical context. But somethings we just do not understand yet. And it is to be expected.
Christ and the Church is called a great mystery. And it uses marriage as an example. How can we possibly know more than God on this. A mystery is something you do not know until get into it.
I find it rather ironic happily married pastors and Elders feel they can council the divorced having never been divorced themselves.
I have been divorced 12 years, was married 18. My ex was abusive and would have killed me if I did not leave. He did not provide for me or his children and he was not faithful. I am so sick of people judging me and assuming that I left... just because. I don't like to air all my dirty laundry nor relive the horror of that life. I always tell Christians that God understands why I divorced, and he is the only one I have to answer to. Sorry if they don't understand or don't get all the traumatic details. If it's not for the edification of God do I really owe anyone the details?
