Adultery vs Fornication

[Esaias]

Pauline Exception? Upon what authority does Paul make "exceptions" to God's instructions concerning marriage?

I think a lot of confusion is the result of not properly understanding the point and purpose of the laws, commandments, statutes, judgments etc. "For the gentiles, for the Jews", marriage and divorce are different for Jews and gentiles? Different rules? What is lawful for one is not for the other, or vice versa?

Is it not possible that there are no "exceptions", that it was all spelled out in the Law, and that the NT provides correct interpretation and application of the Law concerning marriage and divorce?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Pauline Exception? Upon what authority does Paul make "exceptions" to God's instructions concerning marriage?

I think a lot of confusion is the result of not properly understanding the point and purpose of the laws, commandments, statutes, judgments etc. "For the gentiles, for the Jews", marriage and divorce are different for Jews and gentiles? Different rules? What is lawful for one is not for the other, or vice versa?

Is it not possible that there are no "exceptions", that it was all spelled out in the Law, and that the NT provides correct interpretation and application of the Law concerning marriage and divorce?

No.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Question:

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

Because Matthew addresses Jewish people (?)

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?

No, everybody in Church knew the teaching about putting away.

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?

Yes, but as you said, the Church had a clear understanding and a sould doctrine over the subject.

question You say that there is forgivenes for the people who were 2nd or even 3rd time in the world? when they did not knew Chist ,tight?
(i dont think that this could be the case for a Christian) right?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

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

nowhere . Pauls speaks to all married and tell them ":10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, that this is the Lord`s command for all the married .
So then he continues giving his opinion "12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:" and of course he did not gave any exception...

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

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.

the believer that is abandon is not under this obligation : That whosoever shall put away his wife, causeth her to commit adultery:
So is telling that is not an excuse for divorce and dont be guilty for their adultery ,if the husband/wife is an unbeliever .
And of course Paul said that "to the rest i say ,not the Lord". Do you think Paul would say something that contradict the command of our Lord on the previous verse? 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Well, that's that, I guess.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

the believer that is abandon is not under this obligation : That whosoever shall put away his wife, causeth her to commit adultery:
So is telling that is not an excuse for divorce and dont be guilty for their adultery ,if the husband/wife is an unbeliever .
And of course Paul said that "to the rest i say ,not the Lord". Do you think Paul would say something that contradict the command of our Lord on the previous verse? 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
?

The "moral obligation" is to remain single or be reconciled which Paul spoke of in the previous verses. Those abandoned by unbelieving spouses are not under that obligation.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The "moral obligation" is to remain single or be reconciled which Paul spoke of in the previous verses. Those abandoned by unbelieving spouses are not under that obligation.

τhey are not guilty of causeth her to commit adultery.
Again , do you think Paul contradict the statement of Jesus on the previous verse?
7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
"to the rest i say ,not the Lord".
The commandment of the Lord covers all married.
(otherwise was no need to tell them "stay single or reconciled " because all abandoned men or women should found the excuse that their ex was "unbeliever". and sure every man who has so hard heart to divorce is "8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" so everyone should found an "exception" because of their ex apostasy.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

τhey are not guilty of causeth her to commit adultery.
Again , do you think Paul contradict the statement of Jesus on the previous verse?
7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,
"to the rest i say ,not the Lord".
The commandment of the Lord covers all married.
(otherwise was no need to tell them "stay single or reconciled " because all abandoned men or women should found the excuse that their ex was "unbeliever". and sure every man who has so hard heart to divorce is "8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" so everyone should found an "exception" because of their ex apostasy.

Paul is not contradicting anything. He is dealing with two different circumstances. Just accept it. Be free.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Paul is not contradicting anything. He is dealing with two different circumstances. Just accept it. Be free.

yes but he did not say that they can re-marry, neither is possible that he would say something different than the rule which he sets on the previous verse.
He first put the basis for aLL married couple (which is Lord's commandment) and then continue to supplement and deal with the other circumstances .