The government wasn't what made their marriage real, and it hasn't ended unless they let those pieces of paper tell them it has. In this case the government only (when functioning properly) recognizes something that can and will exist with or without them, for purposes of law.
To be clear the situation is extremely messed up and this does need to be fixed, but to actively go around saying you're no longer married because you had to pull some paperwork shenanigans to get around the government and and their monopolized economy, that's some serious societal brainwashing.
Agreed, dissolved in Man's world but appears still intact in God's. I imagine God could interpret this way but would really have to dig into the scriptures. Still the conviction of choosing money over marriage still is there (I know let the down-votes begin). Think of the rich man...I"m not sure if the appropriate thing before God's eyes would be to eat the bill and uphold the sanctity of marriage?
Tough one b/c the Bible is pretty clear about divorce but I"m just not sure of the context here.
Tough one b/c the Bible is pretty clear about divorce
Actually, it isn't.
In the OT, God has a set of laws regarding divorce. So, it is clearly allowed.
In the NT, Christ says it is not the preferred thing to do, but sometimes necessary.
Nothing in the Bible says it is sinful to get divorced. Any church doctrine that says otherwise is merely a false teaching that was conjured up by mortal men, and not what the Bible says.
Still, it is not ideal, so can be considered a dilemma for many.
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. In that context the OT was used to prove that man could never uphold to the law. Time and time again man falls short. We are no longer bound by the law. He was merely pointing out that Moses had allowed it because their hearts were hardened; but that was never the intention. Again this is the theme repeated over and over all throughout OT.
While there are many verses on it; it is definitely frowned upon. All I am stating is if money is the main motivator no matter how much it is (200k plus here) I don't see how that would be justifiable. Matthew 19:8-9 pretty clear on this.
Matthew 5:31-32 states that anyone who divorces (except for sexual immorality) makes her an adulteress.
Marriage is a core theme in the Bible; we are the bride of Christ. Each will feel their own conviction but again I would have a hard time justifying divorce for money no matter what the cost. Think of the parable of the rich man Matthew 19:16-30. What is more important here? Your vows before God, or saving 200k? When you put it in that light I think you have your answer.
I would rather be wrong and err on the side of caution, then fall into the Hands of the Living God Hebrews 10:31
In that context the OT was used to prove that man could never uphold to the law.
I see it a little differently. It's not that man could not uphold the Law, but rather that man did not, in many cases. But those who did, such as Abraham, were rewarded.
Later in the NT, Jesus says that those who uphold the Law will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven, and those who do not will be among the least.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 5:19
We are no longer bound by the law.
Again, not so. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. He came to lead the way to show how to live by the Law (since so many were failing).
I would argue that God's people were not following the Law very well, so He wiped most of them out and had Noah do a re-start. Later, many were still not following along, so He chose Abraham to receive the special promise, and another re-start within Abraham's family tree (from which the Israelites came). Later still, many were still not following, so He sent Moses to write it all down. And then it still wasn't going the way He wanted, so He came to Earth in human form, as Jesus, for the purpose of satisfying the Law (OT) regarding the death penalty for so many sins, and re-starting by allowing His people to continue without those severe penalties hanging over their heads, and to appoint certain individuals to lead a movement (the Church), so that there could be brotherhood in pursuing the Law.
But the Law remains, modified by eliminating the death penalty, which has been served.
He was merely pointing out that Moses had allowed it because their hearts were hardened; but that was never the intention. Again this is the theme repeated over and over all throughout OT.
Of course, it was not Moses who allowed it, but rather God who did. Jesus was just using that language to communicate this message.
What is more important here? Your vows before God, or saving 200k? When you put it in that light I think you have your answer.
My answer would be the God would not want people to go bankrupt due to the laws that men have put into place, just because someone got sick.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. But Caesar is a nasty mofo when he has his hand out to grab your assets.
If Caesar created the rules about who has to pay taxes, who has to drain assets, who has to pay medical bills, who is "allowed" to be married or divorced, then Caesar long ago stepped out of bounds.
The government wasn't what made their marriage real, and it hasn't ended unless they let those pieces of paper tell them it has. In this case the government only (when functioning properly) recognizes something that can and will exist with or without them, for purposes of law. To be clear the situation is extremely messed up and this does need to be fixed, but to actively go around saying you're no longer married because you had to pull some paperwork shenanigans to get around the government and and their monopolized economy, that's some serious societal brainwashing.
Agreed, dissolved in Man's world but appears still intact in God's. I imagine God could interpret this way but would really have to dig into the scriptures. Still the conviction of choosing money over marriage still is there (I know let the down-votes begin). Think of the rich man...I"m not sure if the appropriate thing before God's eyes would be to eat the bill and uphold the sanctity of marriage?
Tough one b/c the Bible is pretty clear about divorce but I"m just not sure of the context here.
Actually, it isn't.
In the OT, God has a set of laws regarding divorce. So, it is clearly allowed.
In the NT, Christ says it is not the preferred thing to do, but sometimes necessary.
Nothing in the Bible says it is sinful to get divorced. Any church doctrine that says otherwise is merely a false teaching that was conjured up by mortal men, and not what the Bible says.
Still, it is not ideal, so can be considered a dilemma for many.
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. In that context the OT was used to prove that man could never uphold to the law. Time and time again man falls short. We are no longer bound by the law. He was merely pointing out that Moses had allowed it because their hearts were hardened; but that was never the intention. Again this is the theme repeated over and over all throughout OT.
While there are many verses on it; it is definitely frowned upon. All I am stating is if money is the main motivator no matter how much it is (200k plus here) I don't see how that would be justifiable. Matthew 19:8-9 pretty clear on this.
Matthew 5:31-32 states that anyone who divorces (except for sexual immorality) makes her an adulteress.
Marriage is a core theme in the Bible; we are the bride of Christ. Each will feel their own conviction but again I would have a hard time justifying divorce for money no matter what the cost. Think of the parable of the rich man Matthew 19:16-30. What is more important here? Your vows before God, or saving 200k? When you put it in that light I think you have your answer.
I would rather be wrong and err on the side of caution, then fall into the Hands of the Living God Hebrews 10:31
I see it a little differently. It's not that man could not uphold the Law, but rather that man did not, in many cases. But those who did, such as Abraham, were rewarded.
Later in the NT, Jesus says that those who uphold the Law will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven, and those who do not will be among the least.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 5:19
Again, not so. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. He came to lead the way to show how to live by the Law (since so many were failing).
I would argue that God's people were not following the Law very well, so He wiped most of them out and had Noah do a re-start. Later, many were still not following along, so He chose Abraham to receive the special promise, and another re-start within Abraham's family tree (from which the Israelites came). Later still, many were still not following, so He sent Moses to write it all down. And then it still wasn't going the way He wanted, so He came to Earth in human form, as Jesus, for the purpose of satisfying the Law (OT) regarding the death penalty for so many sins, and re-starting by allowing His people to continue without those severe penalties hanging over their heads, and to appoint certain individuals to lead a movement (the Church), so that there could be brotherhood in pursuing the Law.
But the Law remains, modified by eliminating the death penalty, which has been served.
Of course, it was not Moses who allowed it, but rather God who did. Jesus was just using that language to communicate this message.
My answer would be the God would not want people to go bankrupt due to the laws that men have put into place, just because someone got sick.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. But Caesar is a nasty mofo when he has his hand out to grab your assets.
If Caesar created the rules about who has to pay taxes, who has to drain assets, who has to pay medical bills, who is "allowed" to be married or divorced, then Caesar long ago stepped out of bounds.