Adultery vs Fornication

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I apologize for sounding judgmental. I've always dealt tenderly with couples in this situation. I assure you that I am not personally targeting anyone. I don't know, nor have I asked, the marital status of anyone here. If one is in a second or third marriage, I'd only advocate that they not lie to themselves and call evil good and good evil. If one is in a second marriage, they have become a serial polygamist in a sense because now they have entered into two indissoluble covenants with two different people.

Sadly, the common attitude in mainstream Christianity is to justify any and every sin ranging from immodesty to homosexuality. The only reason why there are so many positions on marriage after divorce is because the modern church has departed from the ancient practice of the early church which condemned all subsequent marriages as sin, without exception. And yes, I've seen many a saint and many a minister in a second, third, or even fourth marriage, claiming "It's all good, they cheated on me." And what I find interesting is that we so quickly believe that. I've encountered circumstances wherein if you talk to their ex-spouse, their spouse will lay it all out there and rarely is there an entirely innocent party. And often, the individual claiming "It's all good.", is guilty of adultery also. Not to mention neglect, abuse (verbal and physical), etc. When you dig for the truth... it gets REAL ugly.

The early church didn't wrangle over who was at fault and who wasn't in a divorce to determine who could or could not remarry. The marriage bond was seen as being unbreakable and binding for life. The early church didn't go through these gymnastics of interpretation to find an "exception" to the law of Christ on the issue. They condemned all subsequent marriages after divorce as adulterous marriages. Period. And this sin of adultery even fell upon the poor individual the divorcee married. And for a divorcee to marry another meant that they had cut off all chance of reconciliation. This was seen as "causing" one's ex to commit adultery, because now the ex would have to close the door on reconciliation and seek another to marry if they couldn't contain their passions.

Divorce was seen as an ugly and dark circumstance. And reconciliation with one's spouse was God's will. Not a second, third, or fourth spouse.

My concern, along with others who hold to this position, is that the modern church is justifying the adultery of divorce and remarriage. As long as one justifies their sin, they cannot confess it. Nor can they express contrition and seek God's mercy and grace. A sin cannot be covered by the blood until it is confessed. A sinful circumstance cannot be afforded mercy and grace unless there is contrition. So, the end result is that there are an untold number of churches with adulterers prancing around the pews and on the platform saying, "It's all good, they cheated on me!", while they bed their second or third spouse in a bed filled with adultery every night.

It would be better for the couple to fall on their faces and plead for God's mercy and grace, pleading that God cover their second marriage with the blood and forgive the carnal weakness and hardness of heart that closed the door for reconciliation with the ex (or exes) in question (if both are divorcees). It would be better to admit to serial polygamy and take whatever sanctions a church felt necessary, than to justify a sin and parade it around saying, "It's all good."

It's kind of like you have to un-save those in second marriages before you can get confession to open the doors to mercy and save them again.

I fear that an untold numbers of saints will find themselves condemned for, or at least being called to account for, their adulterous marriages in the judgment. They could lose their souls, or at least suffer loss, while being saved yet so as by fire. And I don't believe they'll stand before God saying, "It's all good Lord, they cheated.", when the very God who desired their reconciliation with their first love is their Judge.

Please understand, I'm also not out to argue that couples in adulterous marriages should divorce and reconcile with their first spouse, though some churches do hold this position. I see that position as problematic in that it only multiplies the sin of divorce, and would violate the OT law of God which explicitly condemns remarrying one's original spouse after they had married another. There might be other sanctions imposed by the church on such couples. Prohibition of such husbands from serving in the official positions of bishop or deacon could easily be warranted, especially with Paul's admonition that one serving in these offices be the "husband of one wife" or as the Greek would put it, "a man of one woman"...

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:5-7
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Of course, that is my opinion based on this interpretation. I believe that no one is "entitled" to an official position in God's church. In addition, salvation of the soul is of greater importance than any position, ambition, aspiration, or so called "calling". When the church allows those who are divorced and remarried to serve in official offices, they risk propping such individuals up as examples for the entire flock. If any love God's church, even if they be divorcees, they will agree that their life of divorce and remarriage to another is no example for the flock of God to follow. So it is a small price to pay to be disqualified from such positions if it is to uphold the holiness of God's church.

Might they serve in lay ministries? Might they use their spiritual gifts and talents in various ministries throughout the church? I'd leave that up to individual churches to decide. Because some couples might do well serving in lay ministries. Yet a coupling with one partner having been remarried numerous times would not.

Spiritual discipline can be difficult. But if all parties have the holiness of God's church in view, those disqualified from official "positions" will humbly accept the reality and move forward in ways that are open to them. To brazenly argue that the adulterous marriage is of no consequence and demand entitlement or right to any office would only reveal the arrogance of the individual in question.

Could some churches have mercy on a divorcee who is remarried and allow them to hold office? Well... they'd clearly be the exception to the rule. And I'm in no place to argue where a church should or should not exercise mercy. No where does the text say specifically, "You can't ordain divorcees." However, it is implied that the ideal candidate is the "husband of one wife". And as far as ministry goes, it would be better to humbly acknowledge that one's ministry is undeserved, born of God's mercy and grace as provided through the body, than justify sin and claim, "It's all good."

A line has to be drawn. We need to tighten things up on this issue because it's gotten far out of hand in our culture. If we want to preserve the sanctity of marriage... we have to elevate the importance of its roll and purity within the body. At least, that's my humble opinion.

Or... we can take the blue pill and go back to the confusion of an exception clause that would allow one to remarry after divorcing an adulterer, but wouldn't allow one to remarry after divorcing a physically abusive drunk. Or that would then expand on the meaning of "fornication", making it so broad, so to allow divorce and remarriage for nearly anything.

It's always better to confess sin and get it forgiven than to make exceptions to excuse and justify one's sin.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 Peter 4:8
And above all things have fervent charity (love) among yourselves: for charity (love) shall cover the multitude of sins.

John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Psalm 78:38-39
38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I apologize for sounding judgmental. I've always dealt tenderly with couples in this situation. I assure you that I am not personally targeting anyone. I don't know, nor have I asked, the marital status of anyone here. If one is in a second or third marriage, I'd only advocate that they not lie to themselves and call evil good and good evil. If one is in a second marriage, they have become a serial polygamist in a sense because now they have entered into two indissoluble covenants with two different people.

Sadly, the common attitude in mainstream Christianity is to justify any and every sin ranging from immodesty to homosexuality. The only reason why there are so many positions on marriage after divorce is because the modern church has departed from the ancient practice of the early church which condemned all subsequent marriages as sin, without exception. And yes, I've seen many a saint and many a minister in a second, third, or even fourth marriage, claiming "It's all good, they cheated on me." And what I find interesting is that we so quickly believe that. I've encountered circumstances wherein if you talk to their ex-spouse, their spouse will lay it all out there and rarely is there an entirely innocent party. And often, the individual claiming "It's all good.", is guilty of adultery also. Not to mention neglect, abuse (verbal and physical), etc. When you dig for the truth... it gets REAL ugly.

The early church didn't wrangle over who was at fault and who wasn't in a divorce to determine who could or could not remarry. The marriage bond was seen as being unbreakable and binding for life. The early church didn't go through these gymnastics of interpretation to find an "exception" to the law of Christ on the issue. They condemned all subsequent marriages after divorce as adulterous marriages. Period. And this sin of adultery even fell upon the poor individual the divorcee married. And for a divorcee to marry another meant that they had cut off all chance of reconciliation. This was seen as "causing" one's ex to commit adultery, because now the ex would have to close the door on reconciliation and seek another to marry if they couldn't contain their passions.

Divorce was seen as an ugly and dark circumstance. And reconciliation with one's spouse was God's will. Not a second, third, or fourth spouse.

My concern, along with others who hold to this position, is that the modern church is justifying the adultery of divorce and remarriage. As long as one justifies their sin, they cannot confess it. Nor can they express contrition and seek God's mercy and grace. A sin cannot be covered by the blood until it is confessed. A sinful circumstance cannot be afforded mercy and grace unless there is contrition. So, the end result is that there are an untold number of churches with adulterers prancing around the pews and on the platform saying, "It's all good, they cheated on me!", while they bed their second or third spouse in a bed filled with adultery every night.

It would be better for the couple to fall on their faces and plead for God's mercy and grace, pleading that God cover their second marriage with the blood and forgive the carnal weakness and hardness of heart that closed the door for reconciliation with the ex (or exes) in question (if both are divorcees). It would be better to admit to serial polygamy and take whatever sanctions a church felt necessary, than to justify a sin and parade it around saying, "It's all good."

It's kind of like you have to un-save those in second marriages before you can get confession to open the doors to mercy and save them again.

I fear that an untold numbers of saints will find themselves condemned for, or at least being called to account for, their adulterous marriages in the judgment. They could lose their souls, or at least suffer loss, while being saved yet so as by fire. And I don't believe they'll stand before God saying, "It's all good Lord, they cheated.", when the very God who desired their reconciliation with their first love is their Judge.

Please understand, I'm also not out to argue that couples in adulterous marriages should divorce and reconcile with their first spouse, though some churches do hold this position. I see that position as problematic in that it only multiplies the sin of divorce, and would violate the OT law of God which explicitly condemns remarrying one's original spouse after they had married another. There might be other sanctions imposed by the church on such couples. Prohibition of such husbands from serving in the official positions of bishop or deacon could easily be warranted, especially with Paul's admonition that one serving in these offices be the "husband of one wife" or as the Greek would put it, "a man of one woman"...

1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:5-7
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

Of course, that is my opinion based on this interpretation. I believe that no one is "entitled" to an official position in God's church. In addition, salvation of the soul is of greater importance than any position, ambition, aspiration, or so called "calling". When the church allows those who are divorced and remarried to serve in official offices, they risk propping such individuals up as examples for the entire flock. If any love God's church, even if they be divorcees, they will agree that their life of divorce and remarriage to another is no example for the flock of God to follow. So it is a small price to pay to be disqualified from such positions if it is to uphold the holiness of God's church.

Might they serve in lay ministries? Might they use their spiritual gifts and talents in various ministries throughout the church? I'd leave that up to individual churches to decide. Because some couples might do well serving in lay ministries. Yet a coupling with one partner having been remarried numerous times would not.

Spiritual discipline can be difficult. But if all parties have the holiness of God's church in view, those disqualified from official "positions" will humbly accept the reality and move forward in ways that are open to them. To brazenly argue that the adulterous marriage is of no consequence and demand entitlement or right to any office would only reveal the arrogance of the individual in question.

Could some churches have mercy on a divorcee who is remarried and allow them to hold office? Well... they'd clearly be the exception to the rule. And I'm in no place to argue where a church should or should not exercise mercy. No where does the text say specifically, "You can't ordain divorcees." However, it is implied that the ideal candidate is the "husband of one wife". And as far as ministry goes, it would be better to humbly acknowledge that one's ministry is undeserved, born of God's mercy and grace as provided through the body, than justify sin and claim, "It's all good."

A line has to be drawn. We need to tighten things up on this issue because it's gotten far out of hand in our culture. If we want to preserve the sanctity of marriage... we have to elevate the importance of its roll and purity within the body. At least, that's my humble opinion.

Or... we can take the blue pill and go back to the confusion of an exception clause that would allow one to remarry after divorcing an adulterer, but wouldn't allow one to remarry after divorcing a physically abusive drunk. Or that would then expand on the meaning of "fornication", making it so broad, so to allow divorce and remarriage for nearly anything.

It's always better to confess sin and get it forgiven than to make exceptions to excuse and justify one's sin.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 Peter 4:8
And above all things have fervent charity (love) among yourselves: for charity (love) shall cover the multitude of sins.

John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Psalm 78:38-39
38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.
39 For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Long post. I agree with some parts and disagree with others. I'm not sure though I agree with your take on the attitude the early church had on divorce, that they didn't haggle over whose fault it was, etc. I Corinthians clearly contradicts this by exonerating Christians who have been abandoned by unbelieving spouses.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

My point was not to condone the betrothal theory. Jesus is clearly speaking of WIVES, not finances, being sent packing because of infidelity. Yet, it is all a moot point. Matthew 19 is a Jewish question, not a Gentile one.

Another strength of the "betrothal theory" is how the term "wife" is used. Notice that Mary is called Joseph's "wife"...though they are not officially married yet...

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:24
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

As you can see, biblically speaking, according to Jewish custom a man's betrothed bride to be was considered his "wife" during the betrothal period. So, when Jesus speaks of putting away one's "wife", it agrees perfectly with the betrothal theory:

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife (as in bride to be, as Mary was to Joseph), except it be for fornication (sexual immorality of the unmarried, clearly before the marriage, or during the betrothal period, else it would be "adultery"),...

I Corinthians 7 does not forbid remarriage to one who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse

Amen, that's the Pauline Exception. Granted by the Apostle. We agree.

… nor does it forbid remarriage to a believer whose departed spouse refused to obey Paul and married someone new.

Jesus would indicate that the departed believing spouse who married someone new causes the innocent spouse to commit adultery, seeing that they've ended any chance at reconciliation with the new and additional marital bond.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Long post. I agree with some parts and disagree with others. I'm not sure though I agree with your take on the attitude the early church had on divorce, that they didn't haggle over whose fault it was, etc. I Corinthians clearly contradicts this by exonerating Christians who have been abandoned by unbelieving spouses.

I agree that Paul appears to allow a believing spouse to remarry if an unbelieving spouse departs. At least, that's how the language reads to me. That's the Pauline Exception for believers. But it is the only exception I'm aware of. The exception in the Matthean text is clearly in reference to Jewish marital customs as it relates to betrothal. It ties in perfectly with what we see in the story of Joseph and Mary and agrees perfectly with every nuance of language used.

[Antipas]

For the remarried... Confess it, get it forgiven, accept whatever sanctions the church determines, and move forward.

It's a simple plan that brings God's mercy and grace to bear on couples bound in a sinful circumstance. But one has to acknowledge this sin before this can be covered and put under the blood.

[Antipas]

Question: Why didn't Mark or Luke cite this Matthean "exception" with regards to divorce and remarriage?

Would this not imply that believers were in the dark on the issue until Matthew (written well after Mark, and perhaps even Luke), was written?

And wouldn't this imply that over all, believers had no complete understanding on the issue until after the NT was compiled in AD 170?

[Antipas]

Obviously there are other interpretations held by good men and women on this. I don't condemn them. I just wanted to be a voice of reason for the betrothal theory.

I pray I presented it with logic and compassion.

God bless.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

For the remarried... Confess it, get it forgiven, accept whatever sanctions the church determines, and move forward.

It's a simple plan that brings God's mercy and grace to bear on couples bound in a sinful circumstance. But one has to acknowledge this sin before this can be covered and put under the blood.

Very reasonable.

[MarieA27]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Another strength of the "betrothal theory" is how the term "wife" is used. Notice that Mary is called Joseph's "wife"...though they are not officially married yet...

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:24
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

As you can see, biblically speaking, according to Jewish custom a man's betrothed bride to be was considered his "wife" during the betrothal period. So, when Jesus speaks of putting away one's "wife", it agrees perfectly with the betrothal theory:

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife (as in bride to be, as Mary was to Joseph), except it be for fornication (sexual immorality of the unmarried, clearly before the marriage, or during the betrothal period, else it would be "adultery"),...

Amen, that's the Pauline Exception. Granted by the Apostle. We agree.



Jesus would indicate that the departed believing spouse who married someone new causes the innocent spouse to commit adultery, seeing that they've ended any chance at reconciliation with the new and additional marital bond.

Sorry to interrupt, but where are y’all seeing this exception clause to remarry in 1 Corinthians 7?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

Sorry to interrupt, but where are y’all seeing this exception clause to remarry in 1 Corinthians 7?

Verse 15 makes it clear that a believer who is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is not under the same moral obligation as those Paul addresses in verses 10-11.