Not so. Matthew 19:9-12. Apparently there are those who, for various reasons, cannot accept the no-divorce-except-for-adultery rule. Jesus apparently lets them off the hook.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, I believe that section (which I quoted on the previous page) refers to the idea that it is good not to marry, not the no-divorce-except-for-adultery idea.
I believe that abuse is a situation where being bound by the letter of the law can in some cases be contrary to the spirit of the law. If a woman’s husband is beating her, trying to kill her, etc, her life is in danger. I think God will loose somebody in a situation like that from their vows. I don’t think he intended a woman to be killed by her husband any more than he intended King David and his men to starve (they ate the temple bread which was not lawful for them to eat) or intended somebody not to be healed on the sabbath.
But, Joe, that’s what my “too liberal” interpretation of the Scriptures has been saying all along!
I think you tend to take it a bit farther than I do, though.
I forgot to add that I believe remarriage is still forbidden after a divorce for reason of abuse. Even though sin can be forgiven, it still should be avoided. But once you have remarried, it would be MORE sinful to dissolve a second marriage due to a mistake with the first one.
In other words, Joe, you recommend “living in sin.”
One would think that “repenting the sin of adultery” would mean either (a) in the first place you don’t remarry after you divorce; or (b) if you “repent” after you’ve remarried, you stop your adulterous ways.
Indeed, the interpretation given here does seem to be jumping through hoops to justify what seems to this non-Christian as pretty clearly sinful.
For a Biblical literalist, at least.
Esprix
'Spree, Joe is not a literalist – he’s said this several times. He’s a strongly conservative Bible-centered Christian (“conservative” in terms of Christian doctrine here) who is on record here as believing the Bible is usually to be understood literally, the implication being that there are legitimate non-literal readings of parts of it.
Joe, it sounds to me like your reading says that if you had known His4Ever in the interval after her first divorce, you would have counseled her not to marry again – since that is the apparent literal reading of Jesus’s passage on divorce. But having “met” her (in a virtual sense) after her remarriage, you see her duty now as to be faithful to the husband she is now married to, and to make this marriage work. Do I understand your position correctly?
I agree with Joe_Cool. Even though I believe we’re to take the Bible literally for what it says, I’ve said that there are parts that are symbolic. I’ve said this before. I’ve never said every single word is literal. I’ve said that that’s how we should come it it,reading it for what it says unless the context reveals that it’s symbolic or using stories or parables to reveal or help us understand a specific truth. So I would include myself in the description above about Joe_Cool.
Um, I don’t believe I said he was. I was responding to his post. That’s why I qualified it as “for a Biblical literalist.” Did I do something wrong here? 
Esprix
How do you tell the difference? Since it fairly clearly states that remarriage except in the case of adultery is considered adultery itself (and therefore a sin), and since it also states, to use the comparable example we’ve been using all along, that homosexuality is also a sin, how can you tell which one is “literal” and which one is “symbolic?”
I’m genuinely confused here (as I am with much of Christianity).
Esprix
His4Ever, no offense meant, but this is the first time I’ve read that you consider any part of the Bible to be symbolic. It’s my understanding that you’re enough of a literalist that you even regard versions other than the King James Version to be less than accurate. Care to explain?
CJ
Yes, you have described my positions correctly. that is exactly the course I would have taken.
Not as far as I can tell.
As I understand the passage, Jesus is explaining that the Mosaic allowance of divorce for various reasons was because of the “hardness of your hearts”. But the real nature of marriage is that it is indissoluble except for cases of adultery.
Then the disciples say, essentially, “If that is how it is for everyone, it would be dumb to get married.” And Jesus responds, “It isn’t that way for everyone.” For various reasons, some people (which He refers to as “eunuchs”) are unable to participate in marriage as it is intended to be - some by inborn flaws, some because of flaws imposed on them by others, and some who forgo marriage because of a desire to serve the Kingdom of God. These different types of people can be interpreted to be different groups. Some people are (presumably) born unable to form lasting commitments. Some, because of abuse in childhood, or abuse committed against them by their spouses, or other acquired characteristics, find their ability to form and abide by commitments broken. And some - Roman Catholic priests, people who are tempted to commit sexual sins, or others who want to reserve their time for work on behalf of the Church - choose to not marry.
These people are not subject to the no-divorce-unless-there-is-adultery law. I think Jesus is teaching that this is a second-best. Marriage for most is and ought to be seen as a permanent commitment, and today’s culture of serial monogamy I think Jesus would condemn as a sin before Him. But that is a general principle, and not to be applied to any one couple. I am not a minister, nor a marriage counselor, and it is not for me to judge whether any individual is justified in getting a divorce and remarrying or not.
This impresses me as part of the “easy yoke” of Christ. God does not tempt us beyond what we can bear, even in marriage (1 Cor. 10:13).
I understand you are a recent newlywed. Again, my congratulations and best wishes.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting theory, but I don’t buy it. I just don’t see Jesus saying “This is the rule. But some people don’t like that rule, so it doesn’t apply to them.” The disciples said that if it’s that difficult, it’s better not to marry. Jesus said “yes, and this is a hard teaching…”
IMO, you’ve got it all wrong.
Not exactly that they don’t want to abide by it - they just can’t.
More like “this is the ideal - but not everybody can achieve it.”
FWIW. I am not exactly a Bible literalist, in many things.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, Esprix. It appeared that you were responding to Joe Cool from the context of your post, and the conclusions you were drawing were, to my reading, intended to be read as based on his interpretation of what Scripture commands. I therefore leaped to the conclusion that you were understanding his stance to be one of literalism, and therefore included that phrase to distance yourself from the logic-train you were engaged in working from Joe’s premises – or at least what you understood them to be.
Sheesh, can we discuss something simple, like quantum mechanics, now!?!? 
Shodan, I’m less than thrilled with your reading, but I cannot specify what is making me uncomfortable with it. Mind if I take a bye on commenting until later, with the understanding that I may have some probing questions about your interpretation?
I’m sorry, I just don’t see how, if one takes the bible literally (and I do not), one can remarry after divorce for other than adultery, and not be continuing to sin (except by living chastely with one’s new spouse). It seems to me that if one breaks a vow that should not be broken, then takes another vow that should not have been taken at all, one would not gain pardon or approval for holding to the second vow. YMMV.
Esprix: It’s really simple to tell which parts of the Bible H4E thinks should be literally taken: those that tell her the people she hates are sinning. The parts that tell her she’s sinning are the ones that are just symbolic.
Hmmm. Christianity a la carte. How… well, just how.
Esprix