Here is a plain reading of the event as combined, cut, and pasted from Matt 19 & Mark 10 since it is accepted as the same event. The KJV for 'divorce' that should be translated 'put away' is correctly in place.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, �Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any and every reason?�
�Haven�t you read,� he replied, �But at the beginning of creation God �made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�
�Why then,� they asked, �did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?�
Jesus replied, �Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who puts away his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.�
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, �Anyone who puts away his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she puts away her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.�
I don't think it can be any clearer than that. God allowed for divorce, as referenced in Duet 24 along with the attitude/expression of this hardness of heart, for the good of all. Granted, a lesser good than the ideal for marriage.
You ignored my entire premise and went with the English translation that has become church tradition, despite being incorrectly translated. Let's look at your exegesis here again... parenthetical comments are mine.
Matt 5
�Furthermore it has been said,
�Whoever divorces his wife, (the Greek uses "puts away" not "divorce)
let him give her a certificate of divorce.� (both lines match the law of Duet.)
�But I say to you that
whoever divorces his wife FOR ANY REASON EXCEPT sexual immorality PORNEIA (again, Greek work for "puts away")
causes her to commit adultery MOXITAI;
All that Jesus is saying here is that the certificate is required to prevent everybody and their brother from being guilty of adultery in any successive "false" marriages (marriage ceremony without legal divorce)
A wife caught in adultery does not get a certificate of divorce because the law demands her life instead.
In John 4, the woman at the well tells Jesusnthat she has no husband to which Jesus replies, "The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.�
Here, it is presumed that the woman was properly divorced according to the law in order to have "husbands" after each successive marriage and divorce. Otherwise, I doubt Jesus would have given the legitimacy of a term only applied to legitimately married couples to each of her husband's.
Thanks again for responding and there's a lot more verses with no explanation here as well.
I agree that God's love is beyond fully understanding but that should not stop us from understanding as much about it as we can. Heck, the presentation of God's love is the main theme of the bible so I think we can safely say it's a worthy study, no?
What was your take on the passages I provided demonstration that God has the ability to hate individuals and if true, how does that play into your absolute statement that God's love is unconditional?
It is true that Christ died for us while still sinners but that is from an earthly, linear view of time. God stands independent of time, yet steps into it at will, so His perspective is going to be different than ours. Jesus not only has the ability, but did look forward in time, and found joy even amongst the sorrows of the cross.
When you say that 'Christ required nothing, but died for us,' we have another time paradox. Jesus made it clear what would be required of man during His ministry. The last supper is about as figurative as it comes as to Christ's demands (regarding his death) if any are to have a part in Him. If no man responded to Christ's sacrifice, via the faith that God demands (a requirement), do you think Christ would still have suffered what he did? If so, why?
"We love because he first loved us" is true from our perspective but God has been enjoying His paradise, full of believers, that we call heaven for eternity already. Strange, I know but since we're talking the love of God, we need to look at it from His perspective as well.
Thank you for responding. However, unless you give an explanation along with the verses you quote, I'm going to read them via my interpretation over yours (if different) so in the end, those aren't much in the way of feedback to me.
Let me first substantiate some of my original claims. The Hebrew word for what was taken for Adam is tsela' and elsewhere translates as side, chamber, or side chamber (all 'non-material space' at a ratio of about 20:1 over a supporting member within or beside such as area and, never independent of the idea of an open space.
http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=06763
Next, the root word for this 'space' is tsala' which is only translated elsewhere as to limp or to be lame.
This is why I read it to say that whatever was taken from Adam, was immaterial and left him lame or, at a deficit compared to his prior state.
Then, when Adam declares this is bone of my bone, the Hebrew word used is `etsem which literally means bone. This is most likely why the early translators under King James chose 'rib' over chamber for the source material which God used to make Eve and God could have just as easily used 'etsem to denote what was taken from Adam but, He didn't.
The Hebrew word translated 'helper' or 'help meet,' `ezer is used almost exclusively elsewhere to denote the deliverance of God in troubled and/or desperate times.
As to your comment that Eve was of the same bone and skeletal structure as Adam, there is no argument. However, since God is a spirit, your statement that 'man is of the body and flesh and bones of the Lord' might need some figurative interpretation, no?
I think the idea in Eph. 5 is that, as we care for our bodies (avoiding pain, resting, maintaining health, creature comforts, pleasures, etc.), we ought to care equally and comparatively for our wives. The amount of time a man spends investing in his own physical well-being is huge compared to the overall time he has available to him. Wives deserve no less and, the return factor of what Christi gets from the church and what the husband gets from the wife is right there in the same passage... the idea of an equitable exchange.
Unrelated to husbands and wives, you state that 'Christ is the head of the man, but man is not inferior... ' By inferior's classic definition, "a person lower than another in rank, status, or ability." I would have to respectfully disagree. As to husbands and wives (men and women), both are inferior and both are inferior depending on the skill-set. Test after test has borne this out and I can't imagine denying the plethora of evidence in this field of study but if you disagree, feel free to present evidence against it.
I believe that biblical submission of the wife is recommended due to the giftedness which was taken from Adam (femininity, incorrectly translated as "rib") and which God used as "material" to make Eve... said division of masculine and feminine gifts/traits/strengths/weaknesses then being passed down to you and I. The man is better equipped to recognize evil (1 Tim 2) in all of its subtleties and as such, should make the final call on related issues. As Christians, we already have a detailed enough "job description" from God that a godly wife should only defer on the rare occasion that an impasse is reached after prayerful consideration and all applicable biblical passages are brought to light, as well as freedom of communicating each partner's concerns. Nothing more, nothing less.
As an aside, man was also left at a deficit as a result of what was taken which is why a wife is her husband's deliverer (wrongly translated "helper") via God returning what left Adam "lame/erring" (wrongly translated as "closed up") after that surgical episode in which, all men without a female partner still suffer from the same deficit today. Unlike most presentations on this passage with no conflict to resolve, "This," (the conflict) "is why a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to a wife." The "one flesh," or prolonged sexual union, facilitating the bond necessary to recoup each partner's deficit from the other per God's creative order. That and God gets the population he's looking for to fill heaven.
Perhaps the most perplexing passage is 1 Cor. 14:35 wherein wives are asked not to interact through speech in church (presumably with male teachers). I believe the purpose for this is for the wife to adopt her husband's theology, at least in practice, for the sake of acting in tandem to allow for the blessings of God to be present in the home. Sure, the husband may only have a 90% handle on God's word but, when cooperating together, that's 90% of the blessing available from the word of God in their lives. 80-80. However, because if there's unresolved disagreement, with each going their own way, they could end up with a meager dose of God's blessings. Significantly different definitions of good never ends up being good for either party.
Looking for some feedback on this and I know my premise is not the popular thought of the church today so feel free to express yourself.
As to the husband's calling, I have a prelude - God's love. If we get that wrong, how can we model it? I do not believe that God's love is unconditional. It is dependent upon faith demonstrated by action as a result of God's initiation of an equitable love exchange with those who choose to exercise said faith. Jesus endured the cross with the joy in mind, and in His heart, of a future return (Hebrews 12:2). That being a bride made worthy by, and of, his love. Therefore, I interpret the call for a husband to love his wife as a parallel of initiation and equitable exchange. This sacrifice should encourage the wife to return to her husband what he desires from her. Considering another's interests and well-being in light of your own in every situation is a great sacrifice and it is a calling for husbands. Ephesians 5 summarizes this principle at the end of the passage with, "Therefore, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself... " How could God ask us to love our wives/neighbors (distinct applications mind you), measured by comparison to loving ourselves (Mark 12:31), if He himself didn't do the same? Genuine love, including God's, is not sacrificial past the point of equity. Individually, Jesus gave us billions of times more than we can offer in return but there are billions of believers that, when added together, bring equity to the equation. I would love to consider any passage in the bible that indicates God's love is unconditional because if I have this wrong, I don't know God like I desire to. God hates not just the sin, but the sinner himself (Hosea 9:15, Proverbs 6:19, Rom. 9:13). Jesus hated the Pharisees or at least that's how any thinking person would see it (Matt. 23). In light of this, the only passage that can remotely contradict the rest of the bible in this regard is John 3:16 and yes, God holds good-will toward all of humanity and would rather that none "perish" but even that verse is qualified by that good-will only being actuated by and toward "whosoever believes."
I know there's more out there on this topic to check me a horse but I wanted to throw out my read from the bible and get some feedback. This is maybe half of what I believe applies but I'll initially condense it to get the discussion going without branching off in too many directions from the get-go.
I believe that divorce is tolerated by God (allowing for remarriage) as the lesser of evils in the event of an extremely unpleasant and chronically sinful martial environment which also conforms to, literally, "the nakedness of a/the thing." (Duet 24). The precise meaning of this has been debated by Jews for thousands of years but the English phrase that I believe best describes it is "objectively obscene."
Objective:
b : a phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
c : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
Obscene:
1 disgusting to the senses : repulsive
a : abhorrent to morality or virtue
c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles
Since the obscene attitude and associated behavior would be severe enough as to be impossible to hide, there should be a major consensus as to the magnitude of the sinfulness among mature Christians involved in the life of the married couple in question. Jesus, when questioned by the Pharisees (Matt. 19), gave justification for the "sending away" (not legal divorce) of ones wife only for adultery. This, the most liberal school of Jewish thought (Hillel) was probably asked to drive a wedge between Jesus and his female followers since like OT law, Jesus' teachings and practices empowered them. The prescription for sending ones wife away was because under the Mosaic law, adultery was punishable by death, not divorce. Hence, a divorce certificate was a pointless endeavor. Either she was convicted and executed or exonerated and returned to the marriage. The Pharisees next question then addresses legal divorce as referenced in the law in Duet. Jesus de facto acknowledged the justifiable law with distain for the root cause, hardness of heart. I see this as callousness toward God which results in the martial environment covered above.
The NT then adds willful, causeless, and incurable desertion to the list of justifiable divorce and eligibility for remarriage (1 Cor. 7:15). Ultimately summarized and stated therein, "God has called us to live in peace." The Prince of Peace apparently sees peace for our lives as the greater good over and above moral chaos or undeserved abandonment. Amen? I hate divorce as God does but even He exercised it through the prophet Jeremiah toward his then bride, Israel (chapter 3), demonstrating this principle of the greater good - lesser of evils. Could it be that the NT church is a picture of God's remarriage?
Careful putting a burden on another that may not apply.
There's is a huge difference between separation only and divorce, both in practical application and in the bible. I have a synopsis in my profile if you want to discuss it further.
Besides lacking deal breakers and having a pleasant look, I want to see interest in practical living based on the bible. As Christians, what else do we have to base a successful marriage on? The roll of the dice? Not related to your question but the catch-22 for me is that a woman with hard-fought beliefs may be unwilling to surrender them to God should they conflict with her husband's theology, even though I believe God asks that for good reason.
