Jesus, himself, recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well). Later, in scripture a "man of one wife" is listed as a qualification for an elder of the church (once again, scripture acknowledges that subsequent marriages are real and valid). And, for those gentlemen who want to live under the law -- Jesus' words are crystal clear regarding lust -- even lust in the heart; you don't get a pass on it and I would think that you'd hold yourself to just as high a standard as you would all those divorced souls who will "burn" at the judgement seat (in your estimation, at least).
I'd be glad that we have a gracious and forgiving God . . . .
Jesus, himself, recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well). Later, in scripture a "man of one wife" is listed as a qualification for an elder of the church (once again, scripture acknowledges that subsequent marriages are real and valid). And, for those gentlemen who want to live under the law -- Jesus' words are crystal clear regarding lust -- even lust in the heart; you don't get a pass on it and I would think that you'd hold yourself to just as high a standard as you would all those divorced souls who will "burn" at the judgement seat (in your estimation, at least).
I'd be glad that we have a gracious and forgiving God . . . .
dorig59 Me too, Janni, and that was very well stated. I agree with you totally.
You say Christ:
...recognized that people can be married many times (note his words to the woman at the well)
You add as your example:
...(note his words to the woman at the well)
Indeed, the Lord 'recognized' - or acknowledged that people who are forbidden to marry, nevertheless, marry.
Where you (and many others) are grossly misinformed and misguided in your understanding - and certainly your claims, is in thinking and asserting that Christ was accepting these (so-called) 'marriages'.
Acknowledgement (or recognizing) is not synonymous with acceptance. He recognized them, yes; but that does not equate to an acceptance of such 'marriages' on his part.
Recognizing is not the same as accepting. You can recognize or acknowledge the fact that something is being claimed to be genuine and acceptable by others in mass (the masses); but that opinion...the 'fact' that such an opinion is widely held, does not mean that popular opinion is itself a 'fact'. Such is the case here.
While Christ obviously "recognized" (acknowledged) such relationships are called (and thought to be by men) 'marriages'; by referring to them as 'marriages', he is NOT proclaiming or pronouncing them as genuine-lawful-holy-and binding "one flesh" husband and wife relationships.
They are not genuine-lawful-holy-and binding "one flesh" husband and wife relationships; because they are NOT acceptable in his eyes. They are not acceptable in his eyes; because they are NOT sanctified by Him. They are not sanctified by Him; because they are NOT able to be sanctified by Him. They are not able to be sanctified by Him; because those involved and are attempting to establish a husband and wife ("one flesh") relationship via a ceremonial rite we call 'marriage' (wedding; nuptials), are attempting to do so in violation of the Divine order God established for such relationships to be created by his active hand.
It out of sheer ignorance and imaginative speculative thinking that causes a person to leap to the erroneous conclusion that Christ and God ACCEPT such an entity, or such relationships.
So while it is clear on the one hand, that Christ certainly 'recognized' men call such unlawful relationships as 'marriages'; it is even more abundantly clear he calls such a 'marriage' an adulterous relationship. Hence, the reason he says:
"Whoever puts away his wife and marries another committed adultery." You see then, while he agrees THEY [men] call such relationships as 'marriages'; he though warns them that such 'marriages' are nothing less than acting out in the lusts of the flesh...the deeds of the flesh, the sin and iniquity [lawlessness]; in particular the sin of adultery.
Are these relationships forged on the Alter of God, in accordance to His Divine order - NO! These so-called 'marriages' are rather concocted fantasies'. That is, what men have conjured up in order to delude themselves into thinking that they can force God's hand to accept and esteem to be genuine in nature.
Marriage means ceremony. It is not and does not translate into that which God alone can create: the "one flesh" husband and wife relationship.
And so we see that the 'marriages' of the woman at the well were recognized, yes; that was one way that the Lord was able to get her attention. He showed he was a prophet - the Prophet, who was to come, the Messiah. He was not accepting her marriages, merely recognizing them as ceremonies see went through that he then could use to bring her to conviction and her need of Him. Sin, being made aware of them and the Judgment for sin, is used to drive you to the One who can forgive and cleanse you of it, when it is confessed and repented of.
'Divorce is not the unpardonable sin', it has for sometime now been often heard and said. And no, it is not; divorce is not the unpardonable sin. But neither is murder, nor stealing, nor lying, nor sodomy, nor fornication, nor any other sin - including the sin of adultery committed by those who either commit it by (a) thought (as you brought up) or dos o (b) physically.
But none of these sins will ever be forgiven you, or will you ever be cleansed of, while and if you refuse to recognize and acknowledge them as sin before God; and then repent (forsake) your sin.
The marriage of two people who are unqualified to attempt to seek God's blessing and acceptance of their designs, cannot be justly or rightly expected
to receive this from God.
They may indeed go out apply for and obtain a legal (civil) document which is called a 'Marriage Licence' and 'Certificate'; and they may even find many so-called religious representatives (priests; preachers; pastors; etc.) to 'officiate' over their planned ceremony [ceremony = marriage; wedding; nuptials]; recite 'vows'; be pronounced husband a wife; they can have all the guests, cake, food, rice throwing, honeymoon, house, offspring, etc., etc., etc. they desire: but it is all in vain and will be burnt as wood hay and or straw or worse.
To strive unlawfully in a matter or for a thing desired, is to invest in futility and vanity. That applies to me and well as to you and all others. Sins of the mind are going to be made manifest as will sins of outward deeds.
Lastly. The qualifications...the character traits of an elder and overseer (episkopos) that state he must be "the husband of one wife", is not meaning one wife at a time - as if he is able to have a divorce in his past and now if married to another (which Christ condemns as adultery), he is free to be esteemed as an elder by an assembly. No. Such are called to repent of their deserting and divorcing their first wife for another, and reconcile with her - if possible.
The qualification restricts men who have two or more wives at a time. Such men were ineligible. Though they may be qualified in every other way, they were not to be considered, owing to the fact they had two or more wives at a time. This is one of the differences between Levitical priests under the Old Covenant, and "examples to the flock of God" in the Ekklesia of God (Church).
It is a very incredible stretch and leap to claim this passage is endorsing divorce and so-called 're-marriage'.
Side note: It is still to date, not unlawful (unscriptural) for me to take more than one wife at a time. That practice is not condemned in the new testament as some think. What is condemned in scripture is to practice what you are saying is acceptable. Christ condemned both women and men if they put away their spouse to marry another - whether they marry soon after or years later. That Christ recognizes these 'marriages', as said before, is obvious. What is not so obvious to too many today - but should be; is that he was not saying he accepted such 'marriages'. That is obvious because he quickly adds to: "Whoever puts away his/her wife/husband...and marries another" - the floowing words: "commits adultery." Period.
How one can extract a meaning that claims God is accepting these sorts of so-called 'marriages' is wishful thinking.
