Adultery vs Fornication

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō, "translate, interpret") from ἑρμηνεύς (hermeneus, "translator, interpreter"), The technical term ἑρμηνεία (hermeneia, "interpretation, explanation") was introduced into philosophy mainly through the title of Aristotle's work Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας ("Peri Hermeneias"),
-So when the wisdom of man (philosophy) try to interprets the Bible we have παρ-ἑρμηνεία (par-hermeneia, = misc-nterpretation

(God makes Preachers, School makes students..)

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Incorrect. God says He hates "putting away". God Himself is a divorcee, He divorced Samaria and the House of Israel.

The majority of scholars I've read see "putting away" and divorce as the same thing. A woman was formally put away by a writ of divorcement.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō, "translate, interpret") from ἑρμηνεύς (hermeneus, "translator, interpreter"), The technical term ἑρμηνεία (hermeneia, "interpretation, explanation") was introduced into philosophy mainly through the title of Aristotle's work Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας ("Peri Hermeneias"),
-So when the wisdom of man (philosophy) try to interprets the Bible we have παρ-ἑρμηνεία (par-hermeneia, = misc-nterpretation

(God makes Preachers, School makes students..)

And if a preacher violates the rules of interpretation, he needs to return to b a student or get a new job. You are a prime example, saying Jesus was saying Moses added to the Law his own opinions.

[Esaias]

Peter: 1) 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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

The majority of scholars I've read see "putting away" and divorce as the same thing. A woman was formally put away by a writ of divorcement.

Putting away is an act, a bill of divorcement is a legal procedure that was to accompany the putting away. Thus, they are two different things.

Every divorce includes a putting away, you could not be divorced without putting away. But just because one was put away does not mean one is divorced.

Similar to the modern distinction between "separation" and "divorce".

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by peter83

Αmen you are right brother. But the question is , what is supposed to do a second time married couple that were not Christians when they married?

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

(for a Christian that backslides and re-marry and then repents, we know that Repentance means also to leave the sinful relationship otherwise is not repetance.) Is like i go to rob a bank and then ia "repent" but i keep the money so the question is for them that did not knew that this was sin.
Thanks

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.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Putting away is an act, a bill of divorcement is a legal procedure that was to accompany the putting away. Thus, they are two different things.

Every divorce includes a putting away, you could not be divorced without putting away. But just because one was put away does not mean one is divorced.

Similar to the modern distinction between "separation" and "divorce".

So you are saying that Jesus is saying that if you merely separate from your wife and marry another, you commit adultery. But if you formally divorce her, you're free to remarry at will?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

So you are saying that Jesus is saying that if you merely separate from your wife and marry another, you commit adultery. But if you formally divorce her, you're free to remarry at will?

The question put to Him had to do with valid reasons for putting away one's wife, according to the Law. The Law stipulated the necessity of a bill of divorcement if a man was going to put away His wife. The Law (as well as Jesus) affirmed that a woman put away (but not divorced) would be an adulteress if she hooked up with or married another man.

But the discussion being had between Jesus and the Pharisees wasn't about divorce vs putting away, it was about a dispute between two different schools of rabbis concerning valid grounds for putting away one's wife.

As I stated in an earlier post, we have to cautious how we apply Jesus' words to Pharisees, because He explicitly dealt with them differently than His own disciples or even the masses who came to hear Him teach.

Any interpretation of His words that contradicts the actual Mosaic legislation must be rejected as error, because if He was declaring "The Law says thus and such is allowed, but I say forget that here's new legislation" then He becomes by definition a Lawbreaker (sinner) which is impossible if He is actually the Messiah.

[Esaias]

Whatever the Law permitted and ratified as valid, Jesus by definition as righteous would have had to affirm its validity.

If the Law said ABC is valid and permissible, then Jesus could NOT affirm that said ABC is suddenly forbidden.

The reverse is also true, Jesus could not legalize what God had already made illegal.

This is a point that I see often forgotten or unaddressed in these discussions on this subject.

[Esaias]

And, let me say once again, for the record, I do not claim to have the final answer on the topic. I am studying and trying to learn along with everyone else.