Adultery vs Fornication

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

So was it wrong to hate before? Or is it okay to hate now? One of those has to be true or Jesus did indeed change something. Or something isn't clicking with me, which is ALWAYS possible. Ha!

Thank you for your time, sir! Appreciated as always!

It was wrong to hate your neighbor (Lev 19:17), and it still is wrong. Jesus said hating your neighbor is murdering him in your heart. Nobody is going to be convicted and executed for secretly hating their neighbor (how could such ever he proven in a human court?) but God sees everything and secret sins will be accounted for on judgment day.

Jesus didn't change the moral or ethical standard, He challenged and corrected an improper interpretation ("I can hate as long as I don't actually murder the one I hate").

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I know that you're not arguing for polygamy. lol

But does your view allow for polygamy if it were legal in the United States? Would your view be a basis upon which one might argue for polygamy?

I don't see where polygamy could be declared sin, since there is no passage which teaches polygamy is explicitly forbidden. Polygamy wasn't sin under the law of God, nor before Sinai, nor did Jesus say "if a man have two wives at the same time he is guilty of sin".

The point being I don't see how Jesus could relegislate the law of God, abolishing some commands, making illegal what was legal, or vice versa, without impugning His holiness.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

That's a rather sweeping assumption. The Greek literally translates, "a man of one woman". Based on my view this would disqualify polygamists, womanizers, and even divorcees who remarried from the Bishopric. And seeing that such leadership should serve as the most godly of examples, I believe this is a good thing for the church.

However, how churches deal with such situations among the laity... perhaps that should be left up to the Bishops of each individual congregation.

The point is, if polygamy was across the board banned and sinful, then a polygamist would have been expelled from the church, it wouldn't need to be stated as a requirement for eldership. That is like saying "an elder must not be a fornicator or adulterer". Well, fornicators and adulterers weren't barred from eldership, they were barred from membership in the church altogether.

But yes, it (monogamous eldership) is a good example to follow, as is Isaac's example (monogamy) and Adam's example.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't see where polygamy could be declared sin, since there is no passage which teaches polygamy is explicitly forbidden. Polygamy wasn't sin under the law of God, nor before Sinai, nor did Jesus say "if a man have two wives at the same time he is guilty of sin".

The point being I don't see how Jesus could relegislate the law of God, abolishing some commands, making illegal what was legal, or vice versa, without impugning His holiness.

I think it depends on how one sees the Law. I see it as having eternal moral elements in it, but it is largely an ancient law code for an ancient nation and an ancient religious system. For example,

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We can glean from the Law that this act is an abomination. But I do not believe God desires that we advocate that such sinners be executed today. In the NT, when anyone was guilty of such terrible sin and wouldn't repent, they were disfellowshipped, not executed under a religious Christian court.

We learn much from the Law. But the Law itself isn't intended for us. It was intended for an ancient nation that no longer exists.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't see where polygamy could be declared sin, since there is no passage which teaches polygamy is explicitly forbidden. Polygamy wasn't sin under the law of God, nor before Sinai, nor did Jesus say "if a man have two wives at the same time he is guilty of sin".

It all depends on the definition of sin. If we're strictly talking about the Mosaic Law, no, polygamy couldn't be declared a sin. However, if we look at it like missing the mark of God's perfect intention for man, it is. God often winked at human ignorance and sin. With polygamy, it appears that God regulates it without endorsing it. Christ's monogamous statements and their implications appear to indicate that monogamy was God's intention for man.

The point being I don't see how Jesus could relegislate the law of God, abolishing some commands, making illegal what was legal, or vice versa, without impugning His holiness.

When we look at the Mosaic Law we see a Law given to an earthly nation. The church isn't an earthly nation, it is a spiritual kingdom that extends throughout all earthly nations. The church isn't a nation state. Our kingdom is not of this world. The Mosaic Law is therefore dependent upon the existence of the nation, its priesthood, and its geography. That nation doesn't exist any more. Christ isn't so much abolishing OT laws, but rather Christ is raising the bar elevating the moral and eternal elements of the Law from their context of being a social obligation to a personal spiritual practice.

Christ brought it all full circle, back to God's spiritual intent for man. Something well above and far more eternal than God's intentions for the earthly nation of ancient Israel.

[Antipas]

According to my position, those who have divorced and remarried have sinned. It's God's intent that estranged couples reconcile, not divorce and marry others. Thus the divorcee commits adultery by marrying a new spouse. In addition, the divorcee who remarries makes the first spouse they divorced commit adultery when that spouse eventually seeks and finds a new spouse. Notice, based on the language of the text it is assumed that this will happen. So yes, the one who divorces and remarries ends all opportunity to reconcile and leaves the spouse they divorced in a position to also commit adultery upon remarriage.

As with the marriage covenants of polygamy and the marriage covenants between believer and non-believer, all these unions are not God's perfect will or intent for His people. However, they are still binding. The second marriage after a divorce is indeed a binding marriage covenant, though made in a state of adultery. Remember, the woman at the well had five "husbands". She was indeed bound to each subsequent husband, though she had been married before.

So, the idea that the adulterous marriage isn't binding and must be dissolved is unfounded. It is a binding covenant, even if it is not God's will. And so, the only possible recourse I can see is to confess the sin and commit to the marriage with intent to end the cycle of divorce and remarriage.

Some churches might say that a man in a second marriage is disqualified from being a deacon or a bishop seeing that the man is clearly no longer a "man of one woman" because he has had two wives. And in addition, committed adultery against the first by marrying the second.

Of course this is very troubling for us in the world we live in. It was troubling to the disciples also. They responded,

Matthew 19:10
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

And they are right. In many ways it would be better not to marry and avoid the sinful cycle of divorce and remarriage. But if divorced, it would be better not to seek a second wife. You might note that if a divorced man doesn't seek a second wife, and is chaste, he's still the "man of one woman". So, he'd still qualify to be a deacon or bishop. Being divorced and single, he could focus on how to serve the Lord with greater focus.

The concern I see is that with the idea of an "exception clause", or with the idea that the writ of divorcement allows one to remarry freely, the believer's sin is justified in their own eyes. They see nothing to confess and seek mercy for. Therefore, it hangs over their head ready to condemn them at the judgment. It would be better to acknowledge the sin, confess it, and ask God to have mercy and bless the second marriage. Having the blood bought cover of God's forgiveness, mercy, and grace for a less than perfect situation is far more holy than trying to justify the situation and claim one has committed no sin by clinging to a spurious "exception clause".

[Originalist]

It is refreshing to see some substantive explanations and discussions coming to this thread. Too bad Pete can't touch this.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

It was wrong to hate your neighbor (Lev 19:17), and it still is wrong. Jesus said hating your neighbor is murdering him in your heart. Nobody is going to be convicted and executed for secretly hating their neighbor (how could such ever he proven in a human court?) but God sees everything and secret sins will be accounted for on judgment day.

Jesus didn't change the moral or ethical standard, He challenged and corrected an improper interpretation ("I can hate as long as I don't actually murder the one I hate").

Is the reason they could so grossly misinterpret/ignore that passage the fact it couldn’t be proven/punished? I guess that’s more a history question than a scripture question, but since I don’t know, i’m asking. Also, isn’t “Love your neighbor as yourself” said to be a new commandment? In what way can it be said to be new?

I’ll stop the tangent so as not to totally derail the thread, but thank you for sticking with me.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I don't see any reason to treat them differently. Even the unsaved know that marriage is a covenant promise for life.



When speaking to the woman at the well, Jesus said:

John 4:18
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

Note that Jesus tells her that He knows that she had previously had five "husbands". Jesus uses terminology that recognizes all five of these men as being legitimate "husbands". This tells us that a covenant is a covenant. Can a binding covenant be a sin and not the will of God? Yes. A glaring example of a sinful covenant being binding are the polygamous marriages in Scripture. Another example is marriage between a believer and an unbeliever.

If you are a believer, and you are already married to an unbeliever, you are to remain married to the unbeliever and honor the marriage covenant, though it doesn't express God's will:

I Corinthians 7:12-13
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

But if you are a single Christian or widow/widower you are commanded to only marry in the Lord. These marriages express God's will for the believer.

I Corinthians 7:39
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 6:14
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

If a believer sins by marrying an unbeliever it is still a binding marriage and should be honored, though the marriage is not God's will. You'll note that nowhere does the NT present any scenario in which believers are required to "divorce" in order to please God. God hates divorce. You cannot please God by doing that which He hates, twice. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Jesus was pretty clear,

Mark 10:10-12
10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

The above are the clearest statements of Jesus ever recorded on the issue. And what is of relevance here is that an "exception clause" cannot be found in neither Mark nor Luke. It is suspicious that something of such great importance isn't mentioned in the oldest Gospel, nor the Gospel specifically written for a Gentile audience.

The only Gospel containing the so called "exception clause" is Matthew. It reads,

Matthew 5:31-32
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
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.

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.

Now, either the Matthean text contradicts both Mark and Luke, or there is a specific reason why this so called "exception clause" is in the Matthean text and not the others. Scholars agree that the Gospel of Matthew was written to an audience with a Jewish background. And so many of the references in Matthew refer to known Jewish customs and cultural manners. If we look deeper into the so called "exception clause" in the Matthean text, it will reveal its true meaning, and the Gospel of Matthew will be brought into harmony with the texts found in both Mark and Luke. Even the Gospel of Matthew itself will be shown to present the reader with an example of what this so called "exception clause" really means.

If we look closely at the text the exception is for "fornication". And while the term "fornication" can be used for nearly any act of sexual immorality including adultery, its biblical usage is typically in connection to idolatry and sexual immoralities that take place among unmarried individuals. In addition, since any form of sexual immorality conducted by a married individual is specifically called "adultery", it's puzzling why Jesus wouldn't just use the term "adultery" if that is indeed what He meant. The fact that Jesus uses the term "fornication" points the reader to a sexually immoral act performed prior to the marriage, perhaps even during the betrothal period.

This is important, because if the bride wasn't a virgin before the wedding, the groom could nullify the entire marriage. In addition, these betrothals required a writ of divorcement because a betrothal was a binding aspect to the marriage contract. If a betrothed woman committed fornication with another man during the betrothal period, the groom to be could legally issue a writ of divorcement and be free of any and all obligation to the woman, thus permitting him to marry another (and in the process become betrothed again).

Interestingly, we see an example of this very concern in play when we look at how Joseph was considering putting away Mary upon hearing that she was with child during this betrothal period,

Matthew 1:18-19
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Based on the exact wording of the Matthean text, Joseph would be free to put his betrothed away and remarry if he were to discover that his betrothed was sexually immoral prior to the wedding.

Therefore, it is on these grounds that many Christians do not believe that the "exception clause" covers "adultery". These Christians believe that divorce and remarriage is ALWAYS a sin.

Ηι brother. I agree to all waht you said except the last.
The exception clause does not cover adultery:
For Jesus spoke to Jews and we know that adultery was not the reason for divorce but the reason to stone until death!
The exception clause does not cover fornication before marriage
For the law for one who founds his wife was not a virgin had to stone her to death. (however i see what Joseph wanted to do with Mary and i keep an eye to that point)
Now we have left only to the literal meaning of fornication is any unlawful relationship or premarital sex :
The relasionship between this man at Corinth with the wife of his father (propably his dad were dead) it was not recognized as a marriage but as a fornication :1 Cor.5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife
An other example is that fornication ids not the exception clause for adultery (which is 2nd marriage) but the opoisite! Marriage is the exception clause for fornication [I] 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.[/I]
So every man that putts away his wife is causing her to commit adultery and the man who marry her that is putted away commits adultery to her husband and if that man marry another woman commits adultery too (to her).
But to the above example (the situation to the 1 Cor 5:1) he must put away his woman because is fornication and not a lawful marriage and of course if he repents and in the future want to marry a woman ,he will not be adulterous because he was never married.
And also if a couple living together but not married (like chapter 7:2) there are two things to do :1) is to seperate one from the other and 2) is not marry her.
the only reason for a man to put away his woman is unlawful (non recognized,not accepted) marriage which is fornication and that is why they can marry in the future, because they were never married .
And the second aspect of fornication is two young people who are living together but not married. (like today we have many of them!)

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes Moses permits the Old testament to give a divorce for the reason you suggest very good. But in the eyes of God there is just putting away.

This is where your error is located. God taught Moses was to teach Israel. The law of Moses is the law of God. Moses did not add his own personal opinions to God's law. If he did, he would be a lawbreaker, not a prophet.

It is said "Moses said" or "Moses gave" because Moses was the Prophet through whom God gave His Divine Law to the people.

So when the Law recognizes a bill of divorcement, THAT IS GOD'S OPINION OF THE MATTER.

Isaiah we are not under the law. The law does not save anyone.
Grace does not means unlawfulness but real fulfilment of the law! Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Αnd that is : 1) All who are not under grace will be judged according to the law (depent of what they knew) and 2) We believe to Christ who fulfilled the law and 3) we live according to the law of the Spirit, That means we obey the law much more deep and in Truth than the Pharisees.The law is not destroyed but fulfil by us! Look every aspect of tyhe law is given to us with much more detail and this is the real thing. Jews were not even obey the basics, how then to do the will of God that is given in the new testament? Is much more hardcore See above some of the commandments and you will see the commandments does not contradict the law but give the real purpose.
Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart
" Thou shalt not kill;":But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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.
Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths : But I say unto you, Swear not at all;
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. :But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Does Jesus contradict the law? Dear brother, you can not keep the Sabbath (God did not told you) and dont keep the 7nth commandment.
Moses because of the hardness of their hearts permits a divorcement, but now we have the Holy Spirit ,we are not hard in our hearts.
What you dont understand is that the Spirit Law is much more deep ans difficult to obey than the law of Moses. We are not under the law. and this does noit mean we do what ever we like, (except the salvation concept that is by faith and not the law, because the law requires to keep all the commandments) , but Spirit law is exactly the oposite, we have the ability to know and do the perfect will of God. For a person without the Spirit is not able neither to see neither to obey the law.
except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Pharisees were law keepers. But if we try to obey like them we will no0t be saved....our righteousness must be perfect by the Spirit of God. we are not hard in the heart any more!

(now, you said that waht makes putting away unlowfull is when you dont give a divorcement? (if i understood right)
Well this is not the narrow gate that Jesus preached! His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Do you see how they react? If it was so easy to divorce why then they said "is better to not marry atoll"?
Ofcourse the things that does not change by the law ,are given to the New Testament too.
For example ,do you know when a woman is free by the law of her husband ?
1 Cor.7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. The only cause for remarriage is DEATH.
James.1:But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed
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
Rom.8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death
James.1:So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Rom.6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Gal.5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.