Featured How to be a spiritual leader of the home

Ummm how about not just reading the 9th verse and read they other 8 verses leading into the 9th. I believe you will find that divorce was allowed because of the "hardness of the heart" of men and that in the case of sexual immorality that the spouse would not be held accountable for the others action. At no time does it say GOD checks off on divorce. In Fact, when and if you read verse 6, that pretty much explains GOD's view on marriage.

 

Again, it is not the WHAT is the exception, but the WHEN that the exception is allowed.

Too many folks are like Henry the Eighth just looking for an excuse. Didn't work for him either.

Folks, the WHEN is NOT after consummation, it must be before.

 

You can add what you want, but NOWHERE does Jesus say divorce is allowable. In fact, read and try to understand verse 6.

 

Going back to your own post, as you and I know, there was that space of time between vows and consummation in the Hebrew culture. It was THAT time space that Christ indicated divorce was allowed, not after the two become "one flesh."

What God joins together as "one flesh" no human has the right to even attempt to dissolve.

 

Paul also taught that if the unbeliever left, the other freed to remarry in the Lord, correct?
"acceptable divorce"

 

Well, Paul disagrees wit you, and he was an Apostle!

 

acceptable -- welcome, pleasing; barely satisfactory or adequate

Is divorce welcome? Pleasing? Or would you describe a divorce as "barely satisfactory" or "adequate"?

So, not "acceptable." Permitted, perhaps; but then again, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial or advantageous (1 Cor 10).

 

I take it to mean that GOD will not hold it against the injured party, and they are free to remarry in the Lord!

 

OH, so now we are talking about adultery, I thought the subject was marriage. If we were talking about marriage Mathew 19: 4-7 would definitely without argument tell us what God thinks of marriage.

 

Yes, Paul taught that and he made it clear that it was his thinking and not the Lord's.

 

1 Corinthians 7:40 ....and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

 

It was his Spirit of God that made him tell the reader that it was his thought and not the Lord's. That is why I admire him but not worship him.

 

Christ was not saying the only grounds for divorce was sexual impurity. If you think He that commanded the husbands to love their wives would have a wife bound to an abuser or one that won't get off his butt to work to provide, and if you think that He that commanded wives to submit to their husbands would have a husband bound to one who abuses or neglects her children and refuses to make a home, then you're thinking wrong.

In Christ's commentary on the law in the Sermon on the mount, he is purging it of the pollution of rabbinical tradition that allowed for their ill will, murders and adulteries. No, not just allowed, but hallowed them. Just as the edict "resist not evil" is not a moratorium on self defense or the defense of one's neighbor, and "judge not" is not a moratorium on all judgment and discernment, so "except for the cause of fornication" is limited to the scope of that with which He was speaking at the time, and that was the idea that in the absence of all other crimes and misdemeanors, if one was no longer sexually attracted to his wife, he could give her a writing of divorcement.

"Eye for an eye" is not a mandate for retaliation, "hate thine enemy" appears no where in the law, and the writing of divorcement was meant for those offenses that profaned a marriage.

 

Whenever an Apostle stated his opinion, was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and same as if Jesus stated it!

 

I guess if Paul said it that would supersede what Jesus said. Read

I hope you are not saying that Paul superseded What Jesus stated in Mt 19: 4-6.

 

Whatever was written don by Paul as doctrines nd practices were exactly as if Jeus stated them! Jesus and Paul would never disagree on issues of theology!

 

Uhm, I don't think Jesus was concerned whether or not what He said was in disagreement with Paul. Paul was concerned but had the intelligence to qualify his statements as his and not the Lords, particularly on this subject.