Jesus Does Not Allow Divorce-An Apology

[Amazedgrace21]

Hello again Alaska,

I believe the concept you are refering to when it comes to parabolic 'proclivities' is not with out merit..many are guilty of this in terms of both mistaken, yet honest intent as well those who are set forth by Satan to intentionally raise false teachings to the detriment of the body of Christ, out of sheer force of their nature.

That being said..

Of course God did allow divorce but that does not mean it was right or that he wasn't suffering that for the time being until perfection came by way of a new testament.

After establishing that the truth is reflected in "let not man put asunder" based on that they are one flesh after the pattern of Adam and Eve, the Pharisees very clearly saw the implication in this and asked him why then did Moses command to allow divorce.

He responded that it was for the hardness of their hearts but that from the beginning it was not so; again supporting the prohibition based on the pattern of the first marriage in the beginning.

What I observe here is an example of pesher commentary..

The term pesher means, "to explain." In fact, however, pesher is an application of OT scripture with little to no concern for the context of the passage applied.Pesher interpreters assume that OT authors were speaking to the contemporary audience. This form of interpretation is tied to a word, text or OT allusion, which is then related to a present person, place or thing. The interpretations are generally aloof from the source context and appear to lack any coherent methodology.


This is why I have asked you to supply the scripture used as a source context outside of simply making a citation of what your personal reaction was to it at the time you began building your commentary on this subject so that I might be able to better understand the them you have arrived at as the actual intent of Christs teachings as they apply to the matters of marraige, divorce and remarraige..

To some extent, it appears you have done the very thing you have cited was an error on the part of "others" you are holding accountible the standards you are citing are one and the same as Christs.


an example:

Which brings to mind your belief that since God described a parabolic spiritual divorce scenario to people under the OT law, therefore the ability to divorce literally for us in the NT must be allowable.
By this reasoning we should also then be able to have more that one wife because he uses what they were familiar with regarding polygamy to equate himself as having two wives in another parable in Ezekiel.

You have made an assumption of what is "a belief", assigned it to being mine ..opposed to yours, and that yours is representing "gods" merely on the basis its, "your conclusion".

The reasoning you have applied to the issue of "polygamy or homosexulaity" have very clear and numerous scriptural contexts set forth in scripture for scripture to expose and respond to parabolic interpretations.

I welcome accountability Alaska to how and why I have arrived at my understandings of Christs teachings of divorce, and remarraige, I am a devout and fierce advocate of marraige..but I would never go so far in my love and respect for marraige to impose inaccurate or unscriptural bias against "literal" divorce in respect to the fact God has indeed approached this subject "literally" with "literal" concession and this "literal" concession ever being construed as "being a 'literal' sin" he authored and allows..

Until you can seperate the concept that not all divorce is "sin" and that God does not 'author' sin because he allows divorce and demonstrate how this is resolved scripturally..in your thesis..well I am gonna be a bit cautious here..with the conclusions you have arrived at, albeit sincere and well meaning..

[Alaska]

The reasoning you have applied to the issue of "polygamy or homosexulaity"

I don't recall saying anything about homosexuality.

God speaks parabolically in the OT when he divorces Israel. It was not a literal husband and wife scenario from which God "divorced". It is parabolic because it uses a concept with which they were familiar (divorce as was allowed in their time) to reflect a spiritual message. You used that parable to defend the belief that literal divorce is allowable in the NT because God "divorced" Israel in the OT. (The underlying rationale seems to be that if God did it it must be allright for us to do the same.)
I responded that if this kind of thinking is sound, then there should be no objection to endorsing polygamy now in the NT since in another place in the OT (Ezekiel) God speaks another parable showing himself to have had two wives.
I do not believe I have violated the context of our discussion here by pointing out what I believe to be inconsistency in your argument. (Your 'Peshur' point ?). I suggest that your defense of your belief that divorce and remarriage is allowed in the NT should use something other than God's "divorce".

[Amazedgrace21]

Please forgive me regarding adding homosexuality alongside polygamy, I obviously mispoke as I was thinking ahead of myself how the same arguements are often posed to try to legitimze either by "twisting scripture" which I was certainly not accusing you of doing.

What I am trying to do once again is come to a better understanding in respect to how you have corresponded scriptures to correspond some of your conclusions absent the specific scriptures to do so.

In my personal approach, I am taking the NT scriptures, and allowing for the setting in regard to who Christ was addressing and what prompted these responses..to discern their intentions..

Now in another thread I pointed out:

Keeping in mind the question posed to Jesus by the Pharisees..(and once again the Jewish audience Christ set forth his response to)

Matt. 19:3.."Is it lawfaul to divorce a wife for any ( and every) cause?"

This question establishes the context of the current practice adopted by the culture to expand the reasons for divorce way beyond the OT grounds..some Hilleties Rabbis had been responsible for this and it was being abused by the people to such an extent and caught on in popularity to the equivalent of "no fault divorce" today..because almost no one relied on the literal OT grounds.



Quote:
The "any cause" divorce was invented from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1. Moses allowed divorce for "a cause of immorality," or, more literally, "a thing of nakedness." Most Jews recognized that this unusual phrase was talking about adultery. But the Hillelite rabbis wondered why Moses had added the word "thing" or "cause" when he only needed to use the word "immorality." They decided this extra word implied another ground for divorce—divorce for "a cause." They argued that anything, including a burnt meal or wrinkles not there when you married your wife, could be a cause! The text, they said, taught that divorce was allowed both for adultery and for "any cause."
Furthermore, there was an opposing view upheld by the Rabbis of the Shammaites , that there was no grounds for divorce except in the case of 'immorality'....and argued that not only were all of thes divorces "invalid" so were all of the remarraiges that followed..and these two views were as publically known and a souce of debate "then" in the Jewish cultures as they are here, today in our own Christian circles..

To expand upon this, Matt. 19 ..Jesus had just left Galilee and "after" he had delivered the Sermon on the Mount..and was per 19:1 .."in the region of Judea, to the other side of Jordan" when he was approached by the Pharisees aand the exchange began regarding the question he has posed..

Now obviously earlier in Matthew , Christ had said spontaneously to the crowd on the hillside near Caperneum:


"32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery....(Matt.5)

and in Matt. 19:9, his response to a direct question,

"9:And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matt. 19).

Now this calls into question the first time this was taught by Christ what the point was for it..and toput it simply he was addressing the crowd with a two fold purpose..he was directly challanging the proud and 'legalistic' teachers of the day, the Pharisees..and was calling attention "back" to the OT prophets that heartfelt obedience was superior to legalistic observance.

Obviously he 'got' their attention..the location where Christ was confronted is a clue to why these "buzzards" shoed up and tried to pin Him down..the words posed to him regarding the "heart of the question" was also a clue..this was Herods territory, and where his cronies 'lurked' and were trying to catch Christ in a mistep to discredit him but to also find a loophole to bring him up on charges for "legalistic" abuse of the Laws..by teaching "heresy"..

Whichis why Christ nailed them..he brought back around the original plan for marraige set forth and instituted by God, he proceeded with God's authority over the "lawws" of men and he dealt with the hypocrisey of their attempts by 'clueing in" whoses teacheings and who the teachers were that they were quoting..they were quoting the "any divorce laws" of the Hilleties rabbis..

Christ exposed "them" as the false teachers when he brought around the Law of Moses, gave them a "smack down" so to speak..this was more thanlikely the "divorce practice" Herod had used and what John the Baptist had brought tolight when he cited what Herod had done and later discussed in furhter detail..but exposed the heartof the problem..

In Deut. which Christ quoted..he cited the Mosaic Law..and as Christ said , he did not come to do away with the 'moral law' of God that Moses instituted but to fulfill it..and was teaching the "intent, as in the spirit of the law that was above the letter of the law..in contrast to the "legalistic" and ceremonial aspects that had been corrupted by the Pharisees along the way.

So the "spirit of the law" is very alive..as is the written Word of God, the living "breath" of God.. and both were 'present' when the Son of God, spoke from his position of authority..that was His claim and that was what he was teaching, revealing to everyone..who he was and why he had come..

So these answers bear great weight..Christ clearly was also reaffirming the plan and purpose of marraige to set forth his identity and what it was to be based upon in respect to Christ as the groom and the body of Christ as the bride...but he was going further..he was not doing away with the moral law but bringin it into its fullness and light..

Moses instituted those laws with Gods authority..and he instituted divorce as a remedy for "sin", the sin of abusing marraige for the benefit of those who were being abused by anothers sinfulness in the marraige .."their hardness of heart" spiritually and otherwise..

divorce was not instituted as "a sin" to cure another sin..

which is why God resorted to this in response to Israels spiritual conduct of covenent breaking, Christ was not condeming "divorce" he was condeming the sinners who's conduct resulted in the need for divorce..nor was he condeming the innocent parties of a divorce, he was advocating them..and why he spoke to the abuses of the divorces resulting in dire Legal and spiritual harm to others, as well as the offense of it to God.

Furthermore to restablish the original order, sancity and design, Jesus was exposing the abuses of "divorce" and this "hardness of heart" as well..God hated divorce and it was men who were taking apart marraiges for absurd and selfish evil reasons..also in context of the culture and times, the men who had the "legal authority" to put away their wives..

and why Christ was adrressing their conduct..not devaluing or punishing "women" but advocating them..this was being practiced as well as marrying outside the nation and with pagan women..corrupting the "chosen nation" of Christs bloodline...breaking covenat with God on this issue as well..

All this to say..that many points you have offered do not incorporate the scriptures in context of when and why they were spoken nor bring together scripturally the scripture that sustained the 'spirit' being conveyed behinf the letter of the laws you are quoting when you ommit these considerations..

Christ was addressing the problems and the sins of of wrongful divorces, unscriptural and "forbidden" divorces..not forbidding or calling divorce sin, nor did he forbid and call remarraige sin..

Furthermore if he was addressing fornification adultery, lust, murder and other sins as sins that could be commited in the heart..of course he was allowing for these sins as well in the scope of a literal solution for a parabolic sin..Chist died on the cross for his blood to wipe away these 'sins' as he did for their "literal counterparts.

Jesus said that only the innocent mate has the right to divorce his/her mate for the cause of their adultery and remarry. All other situations involve sin and adultery when there is a remarriage. Those in sin are (making application):

1). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery.
2). The one who divorces for some reason other than adultery and remarries is in adultery.
3). The person whom he remarries in such a circumstance is in fornication.
4). The wife whom he unscripturally divorced is in adultery when she remarries.
5). The man whom the "wife" remarries is in fornication.
6). The put away mate who is guilty of adultery is in sin when she remarries.
7). The man whom she remarries is in fornication.

Christ spoke in these verses to the example of two living spouses in respect to becoming divorced..he spoke to remarraige for the innocent party "while" the guilty party was still living..what he was concened about wa that the divorce, if had to be resorted to , had biblical right to be resorted to..so that the biblical right to remarry was present for the "innocent party"..the status of the guilty party was treated differently and they were not permitted to remarry, evenf they could not reconcile with their innocent spouse until they had reconciled with God for breaking the covenent with Him..with confession, repetence and returning to him for forgiveness for reconciliation with him and restoration "from Him"..

Gender did not matter in respect to any of this..the guilty party could be either spouse..it just was customary in that time for men to be the ones who were responsible primary parties in these matters as was the structure of the laws at that time which is why the wife and the husband were specifically cited in the teachings in terms they were , women as wives were at the recieving end of all the abuses of the legal entitlements men took with wrongful divorces and marraiges for the most part, and Christ was very sensitive and concerned for their welfare.....the same principles, spirit and moral laws apply today..

Hope this is "strong enough"..


.

[DIZZY]

Matthew 5:32
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

My question is. Is adultery sin and if it is then to divorce is a sin.

The only reason Jesus gave for divorcing someone is if they have committed adultery, sexualy immorality. Because with a husband and wife in their sexual desire and love making they become one.

[ikester7579]

Hi guys,
I just thought I'd put my 2 cents worth in. As a young girl I was forced to marry someone I didn't love by my dad. I was not a christian and I did not know God's laws. The marraige never lasted more than 12 months and we were seperated for about 12 months and we divorced months later. I prayed for years after not knowing who I was praying to for a real family, someone to love me and to have children to and to share the joy of those children together as they grew up. I had been through 2 more relationships and had 2 children one from the marriage and one from a defacto relationship. Then after my last relationship broke up God found me and rescued this sinners tail from hells fire. God brought in my life a wonderful christian man and we got married and now we have two beautiful boys. As a young christian I had asked God to forgive me of all my sins and I realize my divorce was one of those sins. It was done as a sinner not as a child of God and God has forgiven me that sin. I do not condone divorce I am saying if it is done unknowingly and you become a christian and confess that sin God if faithful and just and He forgives you that sin. But on the other hand if you are a christian and you knowing God's law on divorce decide to divorce and remarry, then that marriage will not be blessed by God, because you have done it knowing it is a sin and that sin will not be forgiven you. As christians we should not go out to intentionly sin against God. If you do that then you don't love your Father enough to obey Him.

jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

This also would apply in the opposite as well. if you did not know it was a sin, then it cannot be held against you. For how can a rightous God condemn you of a sin you knew not of?

Also, forced love is not true love. This is why Christ is about choice and free will. So in my "opinion", I don't think you were married to a man that you did not love. This is because you did not mean the words of the marraige covenant in which you spoke. Just as a person who says the sinners prayer and does not mean what is said will not be saved. Because having faith in God, which means you mean what you are saying, also means your words are heart felt. And unless the words come from your heart, then Christ cannot live where your heart does not agree.

Love is a heart felt emotion. So the words spoken in covenant have to be from the heart or they have no meaning. So forced marraige is not heart felt so it has no meaning if the words you spoke were not from the heart.

[Amazedgrace21]

I'm certainly no expert nor profess that my understanding are ever to be considered without prayerful consideration and to always seek God's will.

Howerever,

What always breaks my heart is the spirits of condemnation and guilt that seems to be associated with the divorced, more often unintentionally and insensitively because there has not been careful and humble study given to this subject..

The words, DIVORCE and ADULTERY, ADULTERER's jump off the pages of the bible and that sets so many negative and fear based emotions into play towards the entire subject..and these are the only things seen or heard..

The word "divorce" is not actually ever used.."puting away" , is..and it is always done with the citing of a written document, as was the custom of law of Moses..

Thats pretty significant if you go back and study how "put away" was used in other situations..

Divorce.."putting away" was dealt with by God in the sense He was the original "put awayer"..

Divorce.."putting away" is not a sin..as in murder or stealing, etc..it was a "ceremony, legal action" in response to a set of circumstances to rectify a sin, or crime..

Thats a huge distinction..becasue that signifies it it can only be wrong or a sin , if the "putting away" is wrong or sinful..and that seems to fly out the door as a principle when folks see "DIVORCE" opposed to "putting away"..

For example:

Judges 10:16
And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the LORD: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.

Which needs to be cross referenced with (Deut. 32:36) to understand "putting away" from God's perspective, pursue what his "meaning" was and the desired response or resolution he was seeking..in context when certain words and their directives were spoken by Him..in order to seek His will.

"For the LORD will vindicate His people, And will have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their strength is gone, And there is none remaining, bond or free.

Secondly, the matter of the "writ" the legal document is always part of the formality of "putting away" when it is associated with the proceedure of "divorce/putting away"..


So there were laws and there were legal proceedures and there was Legal presceedence of the wrongful party as well as the wronged party in these proceedings..

That brings attention to the fact God always discerned the circumstances in this context when Christ counciled and taught about these "proceedings" of putting away..

So its not as simple and I humbly submit, an error, to step forward and simply say all divorce is sin hence any divorce is sin God hates divorce and all divorce ..period end..Get a divorce and that retroactively makes one an adulterer just because they were "divorced"and a parriah who can never get remarried based on this logic..even if they were the ones victimized by the sins of another and/or a completely innocent party to them.

Something I see cited so often as Gods..will, intention and final word..which just drives me crazy ( in case no one has noticed how adamently I speak to this subject)

I have studied, have poured my heart, mind and soul into this subject as have many ..always seeking Gods will and I am completely willing and not one bit frustrated or wounded in respect to accepting God's will if this is literally the stance He has taken with my own personal circumstances as both the wife and the innocent party of a very wrongful divorce..that I had no say or choice in being pursued...nor have I ever been mad or resented God over this..not once...now my ex is fortunate the Holy Spirit holds the leash when it cames to much..this I confess honestly and remorsefully...thats something entirely different..

I am not seeking "loopholes"..so tospeak..I have absolutely no hesitation in abiding here and remaining single or ineligible to get remarried "if" indeed that is being asked of me..and I actually see wonderful opportunities in the prospect as it stands in respect to being single at ths stage of my life should this status remain as such..

Please stop and consider that when God says "he hates divorce" that it is not a statement simply saying he forbids it or it is a sin..he hates marraiges failing and for all the reasons they often do..every one that
does involves Him and am sure in my small limited perspective as a human being might even go sofar as to suggest breaks his heart for his children..no differently than mine did for my children when I faced all of this..

The only adultery Christ was concerned about in regards to the "wife" in the case of "putting away" was the unbiblical and illegal divorce/putting away prctices of thattime..and how 'any cause' divorces had crept in and this was an abomination becasue it was destroying the sanctity and foudations of marraige as God had always intended it to be from the begining..no differntly than we see today with the "no fault" divorces..

There was no condemnation from God if the divoce was out of control and against the wishes of the innocent party..his anger and the dire consequences of the adultery was pointed inthe direction of the husbands who knew better and yet persisted in doing this..just review the women who was brought forward toHim to be stoned..and how he responded to the adulter's and fornicators who were demanding "she be put to death" after using her..the sheer hypocrisey of demanding legal rights to "murder her" legally..

Christ did not say >"woman" go out and get a divorce from all the men who slept from you and remember you are an adulteress, so don't get remarried..I hate divorce, I hate remarraige, I hate adultery....he did not say anything except "I will not judge you either, get up and go, sin no more".. who was he directinghis condemnation to in this case?..the unrepentent, the hard hearted, the hypocrites, the legalists...

Things to consider when responding to statements that "divorce is sin" and that Christ ever intended the condmenation or the consequences of a divorce to be borne by the innocent party.. or that the guiltyone was not able to be restored and forgiven in spite of the gravity of what they had done. These things always need tobe brought into the study of these subjects..for they are the heart of them..not the legal aspects of theletter of the law but the divine aspects of the spirit of the law in these matters. of course we need to take a stand and speak out to those who wrongfully abuse Gods grace in these matters but we must always speak as loudly and passionately to the ones who have been abused about Gods love for them.

[Alaska]

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorce her husband and marry another she commits adultery.

The wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.

What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

[VerticalReality]

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery and if a woman divorce her husband and marry another she commits adultery.

The wife is bound to her husband for as long as he lives.

What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

Let me ask you a question . . .

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Do you believe that God has joined these two together?

[Alaska]

Your post is useful for some of what I am trying to share here. The law was imposed until the reformer (Jesus) came.
Truth is not judged by all what was done in the OT.

The NT church is the ground and pillar of the truth.
Would someone in the NT force a marriage as is prescribed in the verse you quoted from the OT? If someone did, would it not
seem unreasonable and uncharitable?
Not all the OT was "Truth" as truth is defined by the NT.
The law served a purpose. Partly to keep people in line. Partly to make examples of people who sinned so others wouldn't do the same. it served numerous puposes. God allowed such things in the OT, some which we now recognize as negative, because the law was intended for the unregenerated, to regulate things for the sake of order. Not necessarily for the sake of truth.

"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".

This leads me to the point I have been trying to make all along.
The provision to allow divorce was not the "truth". It was instituted for the sake of ordering what they in their unregenerate state would inevitably do no matter what the law said. Law, in and of itself cannot change the heart as the Holy Spirit in Jesus can. It can, however, provide enlightenment, and incentive by fear of consequences, to restrain people from doing things.

Hence, the provision made by Moses to allow divorce. Because it is right and Holy? No. Because of the hardness of their hearts.

Is it wrong to perceive NT believers who resort to such a provision to justify their divorces, as attempting to justify themselves by the Law even though the NT says that "no man is justified by the law"?
By resorting to a law that was written for the hardness of hearts, is it wrong to consider that their hearts may be hard?

The offence of the cross still offends.

[VerticalReality]

Your post is useful for some of what I am trying to share here. The law was imposed until the reformer (Jesus) came.
Truth is not judged by all what was done in the OT.

The NT church is the ground and pillar of the truth.
Would someone in the NT force a marriage as is prescribed in the verse you quoted from the OT? If someone did, would it not
seem unreasonable and uncharitable?
Not all the OT was "Truth" as truth is defined by the NT.
The law served a purpose. Partly to keep people in line. Partly to make examples of people who sinned so others wouldn't do the same. it served numerous puposes. God allowed such things in the OT, some which we now recognize as negative, because the law was intended for the unregenerated, to regulate things for the sake of order. Not necessarily for the sake of truth.

"The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".

This leads me to the point I have been trying to make all along.
The provision to allow divorce was not the "truth". It was instituted for the sake of ordering what they in their unregenerate state would inevitably do no matter what the law said. Law, in and of itself cannot change the heart as the Holy Spirit in Jesus can. It can, however, provide enlightenment, and incentive by fear of consequences, to restrain people from doing things.

Hence, the provision made by Moses to allow divorce. Because it is right and Holy? No. Because of the hardness of their hearts.

Is it wrong to perceive NT believers who resort to such a provision to justify their divorces, as attempting to justify themselves by the Law even though the NT says that "no man is justified by the law"?
By resorting to a law that was written for the hardness of hearts, is it wrong to consider that their hearts may be hard?

The offence of the cross still offends.

Just so I'm clear where you're coming from, are you speaking of the believer or the unbeliever here?

My stance is that I do not believe the unbeliever is free from the law.

[third hero]

Ok. I did not read all of the OP, but I can add this to at least one of the comments that he presents.

1. The meaning of adultery.

In the OT, a man was able to give a writ of divorce to a woman if he did not desire to be married to her. This is the doctrine that Jesus first tackled in Matthew 5. He knew thatt he OT definition of adultery, as it was prescribed in that time period, is one man having relations with another man's wife. For a woman, it is a wife who has relations with another man. Thisis the definitions with which Jesus is working with.

With His proclamation, he single-hjandedly changed the meaning of adultery to make it equal. The men were able to marry more than one woman. The woman could only have relations with her husband. Jesus changed all of that. With His proclamation, the man must be with only his wife, and because the definition was changed to fornication, the man would be guilty of committing adultery if he had relations with another woman, and not just another man's wife.


With Jesus using the word fornication, the man is now guilty if he has relations with another woman, whether he intended to make her his wife or not. That relationship would now be considered adultery. This is why the word "fornication: was used. Jesus knew what He was doing by using that word. Now, when he goes on to say that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he would be committing "Adultery", which under the OT definition was not possible.

I will have other posts on this as soon as I decipher the rest of the OP. So, thanks for the thread!

[Alaska]

Just so I'm clear where you're coming from, are you speaking of the believer or the unbeliever here?

My stance is that I do not believe the unbeliever is free from the law.

Your question is not clear concerning the believer or the unbeliever. please be more specific.

Concerning being free from the law. Paul warned believers concerning becoming entangled again in the yoke of bondage of the law. This is not diminishing of the importance of moral obligation. Some things of the law have been deleted under the new covenant. Holding to outdated things from the old that are not now necessary, such as circumcision, while believing they are still necessary is being in bondage.
Imagine a teenager still believing that an adult must hold his hand before crossing a street. We are no longer under a schoolmaster in the new law of the NT.

[deepjagga]

Maybe it's best not to marry any one ever. I mean as long as
one doesn't understand completely what God is saying about
marriage, adultery, fornication, divorce, etc...

Maybe marriage should be left out of the equation period
and no one should do it because no one completely understands
what God nor Jesus are saying about all of this.

Half the time Jesus was not very clear, the other half he changed
what he was saying. Ex: In some verses he flat out says it's adultery
to marry someone else while the first husband or wife is still living.
In other verses he turns around and says, Ok, you can go ahead
and divorce as long as someone committed fornication. (Verses
below)

Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Just to be on the safe side, it would seem logical that we just leave
the whole marriage thing alone period. It's just too much of a
Biblical gamble based on the different things Jesus said.

[Alaska]

Finally someone with honesty to see that the two accounts, Matthews and Marks contradict.
But they do so only IF putting away for fornication means for adultery.

The whole pont of the document in the first post is to show that putting away for fornication DOES NOT mean putting away for adultery.

Reading Mark 10 2-12 and Luke 16: 18 is the plain and simple truth.
The complexity caused by the cultural issue of how they "divorced" before they got married "put away for fornication" does not contradict the simplicity of Mark 10:2-12 1 Cor 7:39

Read Mark 10:2-12. Believe it in all its implications. You are then wiser than the high ranking theologians who in ignorance cannot agree with Jesus as he plainly spoke in that passage.
The exception clause does not contradict because the exception does not pertain to the married state but to the betrothed.
Please read the first post.

[VerticalReality]

Your question is not clear concerning the believer or the unbeliever. please be more specific.

Concerning being free from the law. Paul warned believers concerning becoming entangled again in the yoke of bondage of the law. This is not diminishing of the importance of moral obligation. Some things of the law have been deleted under the new covenant. Holding to outdated things from the old that are not now necessary, such as circumcision, while believing they are still necessary is being in bondage.
Imagine a teenager still believing that an adult must hold his hand before crossing a street. We are no longer under a schoolmaster in the new law of the NT.

So, wouldn't you agree then that an unbeliever would be like a babe needing someone to hold their hand as they cross the street?

My problem here is not that believers shouldn't divorce. I don't believe believers should divorce. However, what seems to present folks with the most problems are those who were divorced prior to salvation who have gone on to remarry.

I certainly won't give you any argument that believers are not to divorce.