I would like to say that I have found that your article on “Is divorce a sin” is very well explained and thought out. I have been studying marriage, divorce and remarriage for some time with other believers and you and I have come to the same conclusion - for the most part.
If you would permit me, I would like for you to consider that when “Jesus implies that the one divorcing a spouse because of fornication can marry another without committing adultery” that he was speaking specifically to a men because the term there is man and NOT woman.
When scripture uses the term man it does not mean woman and in the same respect when scripture uses the term woman it does not mean man. This may appear to be a minute detail but it significantly changes the passage in addition it poses another question “why would God allow a man to re-marry and not a woman”.
I can assure you that the answer may be a long journey but if you truly do believe that God’s Word is the final authority in your life then I would encourage you to put aside any quick judgments and consider that the subject of marriage divorce and remarriage may go a lot deeper than initially thought.
If you’re willing I would like to share with you some of our studies for the purpose of growing within the body. I can see that according to your review that you have a desire for the truth. Our motto is simply this “in essentials we maintain unity, in opinions liberty and in all things, love..”
So again, if you would be willing to thoroughly study and challenge by God’s Word what we have come across then I would like to extend that challenge to you by sending you our studies. We’re always willing to learn more so long as it’s actually biblical. Cultural views aside we want to know the truth, no matter the cost!
Please understand that our agenda is only to teach what the Lord has given us and not what he has not. You won’t hear me giving advice and teaching about absolute truth in reference to subjects that we are not well educated by the Word. On the other hand in regards to the subject of MDR we believe that our understanding is absolute truth as we have tested it against the Word and have challenged our POV with scripture and with other brothers and sisters in Christ in addition the Lord has affirmed it on multiple occasions by signs and wonders, though our faith lies in the Word first.
God bless you in your journey for truth, continue to seek Him earnestly and we will all be more like our Lord Jesus Christ and bring honor to our Heavenly Father.
Despite the desires of feminism, the fact remains that in English, Greek, and most languages of the world, if you wish to speak of a single person but the gender is not important, you use the male gender. Neither English or Greek has indefinite, single person sets of pronouns.
You understand this most of the time. "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need" (Ephesians 4:28). I doubt you conclude that only men can't steal, but women are free to shoplift, despite the fact that the command is using male references.
Matthew 19:1-9 is paralleled in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18.
"So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12).
Mark's account, while not mentioning the exception clause, does make it clear that either the man or woman might initiate the divorce. Thus, the proper conclusion is that the exception clause mentioned in Matthew 19:9 applies to the male or female.
"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife" (I Corinthians 7:10-11).
Paul tells us this is Jesus' command, taught while he was here on earth. Here Paul specifically talks about a wife initiating a divorce for reasons other than fornication. Because he framed the statement between commands to both the wife and the husband not to divorce, we know the exception in between applies to both and that it is to be a rare exception.