Adultery vs Fornication

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m not sure where you are getting your definition of polygamy. Let’s think about it. If I marry, and then divorce and re-marry, and my first marriage is (as you say) not dissolved, that would simply be polygamy. (I would have two wives). So where would the serial polygamy occur?

If one divorces, that marriage is legally dissolved. However, the spiritual union that is of moral and spiritual significance is not. The one flesh relationship goes beyond the legalities of marriage. Divorce was never God's will or intention for man. It is the thing that should not be, and yet is.

What I've come to understand is that those who are in favor of accepting divorce and remarriage as a morally neutral practice will see divorce and remarriage as "serial monogamy". Those who are more critical of the practice and believe in marriage being an indissoluble union see it as "serial polygamy".

The phrase "serial polygamy" isn't a legal term. It is a moral one.

If a bishop is to be a husband of one wife; does that mean he has never divorced?

I don’t believe so, but I know many who believe that. Abraham had several wives as did many of the patriarchs of the Bible. I believe that Paul was talking about having only one wife as in not two or maybe seven hundred (Solomon). I don’t think he meant never having been married prior to this marriage. Maybe I’m wrong.

Both positions have their pros and cons. Here's the way I understand it...

1 Timothy 3:1-5
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The text states that a bishop must be the "husband of one wife". And this really isn't a clear statement all by itself. A divorcee could argue, "Hey, I'm legally the husband of only one wife.", and the divorcee isn't lying. And being divorced isn't mentioned anywhere in the text. And is this such a requirement so as to disqualify single men or widowers? It's kind of problematic and interpretations can be drawn to support a number of conclusions.

However, we can note some things about this passage:

- It calls upon a bishop to be of the highest moral and ethical conduct.
- It calls upon a bishop to be able to govern his family well.

We know that divorce isn't God's will for man, let alone remarriage to another. And if a bishop is to be blameless and set an example for the church, being a divorcee surely wouldn't be their most shining attribute. And if we accept that the indissoluble bond makes remarried divorcees adulterers, it would appear to disqualify remarried divorcees and other polygamists.

Can we make the case that divorce and remarriage to another is God's perfect will for couples? Or is God's perfect will that a couple never divorce and remain married to one another for life? And once we've considered those questions... which does a divorced and remarried bishop reflect???

There seems to me to be some skewed definitions being applied here. I appreciate y’all exercising an abundance of caution in your theology, but words have meanings. We should apply the definitions correctly or we may wind up with the wrong answer.

Check the definition of fornication. It seems important because it is the exception that Jesus allowed.

This has already been covered in quite a bit of depth in previous posts. This exception clause is best explained as being related to the Jewish betrothal, which was just as binding as an actual marriage and required a writ of divorcement to terminate.

Jesus states...

Matthew 5:32
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.

Jesus uses the term fornication, indicating a sexually immoral act outside the bounds of marriage. When married people commit a sexually immoral act, it's adultery. So, Jesus is clearly talking about a man putting away his betrothed due to a sexually immoral act committed during the betrothal. We even see this in play in the story of Joseph and Mary...

Matthew 1:18-20
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.
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.

Here, Joseph could have put away his betrothed wife, Mary, for fornication. And he would have been free to marry another.

But there's more about this exception clause that so many wish to claim for themselves...

Even if we allow for the so called "exception clause" remarriage after a divorce is till adultery accept with regards to a single narrow context, sexual unfaithfulness.

So even if we allow the "exception clause" divorce and remarriage is adultery if a spouse was physically abusive, mentally abusive, emotionally abusive, abusive to children, destructive in the home, a drunkard, a drug addict, a thief, a murderer, a salve trader, an extortionist, a terrorist, and the list could go on and on and on.

So the exception clause of Matthew is actually quite narrow... and its seeming focus on sex over so many other serious offences that makes it rather suspect.

And then there's the problem that some have extended the meaning of "fornication" beyond intercourse. I've heard it extended to cover unseemly behaviors, desires, and habits that a partner detests or doesn't like. I've even seen people stretch it to include idolatry. And so a spouse given over to idols or who isn't a believer can be divorced freely and remarriage seen as lawful.

Eventually, it is stretched so far one could justify divorce and remarriage over almost anything.

I find that suspect.

Fornication is exactly that, sexually immoral acts committed by the unmarried. If married, the sexually immoral acts are adultery.

[MarieA27]

Originally Posted by Antipas

If one divorces, that marriage is legally dissolved. However, the spiritual union that is of moral and spiritual significance is not. The one flesh relationship goes beyond the legalities of marriage. Divorce was never God's will or intention for man. It is the thing that should not be, and yet is.

What I've come to understand is that those who are in favor of accepting divorce and remarriage as a morally neutral practice will see divorce and remarriage as "serial monogamy". Those who are more critical of the practice and believe in marriage being an indissoluble union see it as "serial polygamy".

The phrase "serial polygamy" isn't a legal term. It is a moral one.



Both positions have their pros and cons. Here's the way I understand it...

1 Timothy 3:1-5
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

The text states that a bishop must be the "husband of one wife". And this really isn't a clear statement all by itself. A divorcee could argue, "Hey, I'm legally the husband of only one wife.", and the divorcee isn't lying. And being divorced isn't mentioned anywhere in the text. And is this such a requirement so as to disqualify single men or widowers? It's kind of problematic and interpretations can be drawn to support a number of conclusions.

However, we can note some things about this passage:

- It calls upon a bishop to be of the highest moral and ethical conduct.
- It calls upon a bishop to be able to govern his family well.

We know that divorce isn't God's will for man, let alone remarriage to another. And if a bishop is to be blameless and set an example for the church, being a divorcee surely wouldn't be their most shining attribute. And if we accept that the indissoluble bond makes remarried divorcees adulterers, it would appear to disqualify remarried divorcees and other polygamists.

Can we make the case that divorce and remarriage to another is God's perfect will for couples? Or is God's perfect will that a couple never divorce and remain married to one another for life? And once we've considered those questions... which does a divorced and remarried bishop reflect???




This has already been covered in quite a bit of depth in previous posts. This exception clause is best explained as being related to the Jewish betrothal, which was just as binding as an actual marriage and required a writ of divorcement to terminate.

Jesus states...

Matthew 5:32
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.

Jesus uses the term fornication, indicating a sexually immoral act outside the bounds of marriage. When married people commit a sexually immoral act, it's adultery. So, Jesus is clearly talking about a man putting away his betrothed due to a sexually immoral act committed during the betrothal. We even see this in play in the story of Joseph and Mary...

Matthew 1:18-20
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.
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.

Here, Joseph could have put away his betrothed wife, Mary, for fornication. And he would have been free to marry another.

But there's more about this exception clause that so many wish to claim for themselves...

Even if we allow for the so called "exception clause" remarriage after a divorce is till adultery accept with regards to a single narrow context, sexual unfaithfulness.

So even if we allow the "exception clause" divorce and remarriage is adultery if a spouse was physically abusive, mentally abusive, emotionally abusive, abusive to children, destructive in the home, a drunkard, a drug addict, a thief, a murderer, a salve trader, an extortionist, a terrorist, and the list could go on and on and on.

So the exception clause of Matthew is actually quite narrow... and its seeming focus on sex over so many other serious offences that makes it rather suspect.

And then there's the problem that some have extended the meaning of "fornication" beyond intercourse. I've heard it extended to cover unseemly behaviors, desires, and habits that a partner detests or doesn't like. I've even seen people stretch it to include idolatry. And so a spouse given over to idols or who isn't a believer can be divorced freely and remarriage seen as lawful.

Eventually, it is stretched so far one could justify divorce and remarriage over almost anything.

I find that suspect.

Fornication is exactly that, sexually immoral acts committed by the unmarried. If married, the sexually immoral acts are adultery.

[Esaias]

Jesus uses the term fornication, indicating a sexually immoral act outside the bounds of marriage. When married people commit a sexually immoral act, it's adultery. So, Jesus is clearly talking about a man putting away his betrothed due to a sexually immoral act committed during the betrothal.

Deut 22:23-24 seems to indicate sexual immorality by or with a betrothed woman is adulterous. Thus, the "fornication" Jesus mentioned would have occurred PRIOR to, not during, the betrothal.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jesus uses the term fornication, indicating a sexually immoral act outside the bounds of marriage. When married people commit a sexually immoral act, it's adultery. So, Jesus is clearly talking about a man putting away his betrothed due to a sexually immoral act committed during the betrothal.

Deut 22:23-24 seems to indicate sexual immorality by or with a betrothed woman is adulterous. Thus, the "fornication" Jesus mentioned would have occurred PRIOR to, not during, the betrothal.

Yes that is fornication because means that she did it before they marry.
If they were married should call adultery, but now is called fornication because happened before their wedding.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

Yes that is fornication because means that she did it before they marry.
If they were married should call adultery, but now is called fornication because happened before their wedding.

The context of Matthew 19 is that of sending away WIVES because of their "poerneia", which is any unlawful sexual act, including adultery.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The context of Matthew 19 is that of sending away WIVES because of their "poerneia", which is any unlawful sexual act, including adultery.

i wrote that to explain why sex before the wedding would considering as Porneia and not us adultery.But i dont mean that Jesus spoke for that kind of fornication however.
Because the porneia during the betrothal was punish to death . So was not a reason for divorce was a reason to kill her.

- Ι believe that "except of Porneia" means literally "except of unlawful marriage-relationship". (like the relationship the Corinthian man had with his father`s wife. He was obligated to put her away because was and could never be his wife) That is why do penalty death and neither penalty for adultery-
Peace.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The context of Matthew 19 is that of sending away WIVES because of their "poerneia", which is any unlawful sexual act, including adultery.

The Scripture I posted shows that a betrothed woman is considered a wife of the man to whom she is betrothed.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Scripture I posted shows that a betrothed woman is considered a wife of the man to whom she is betrothed.

Yes that is fornication because means that she did it before they marry.
If they were married should call adultery, but now is called fornication because happened before their wedding.
(however Jesus does not speak neither for fornication before the wedding ,neither for adultery (during the wedding) because in both situations were to be stoned to death.
The only reason for putting away is unlawful relationship. Just like the Corinthian man did with his father`s wife. That was fornication and he had to put her away. Because this would never considered as marriage).

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

Yes that is fornication because means that she did it before they marry.
If they were married should call adultery, but now is called fornication because happened before their wedding.
(however Jesus does not speak neither for fornication before the wedding ,neither for adultery (during the wedding) because in both situations were to be stoned to death.
The only reason for putting away is unlawful relationship. Just like the Corinthian man did with his father`s wife. That was fornication and he had to put her away. Because this would never considered as marriage).

Again, all Jewish questions to begin with.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Again, all Jewish questions to begin with.

go to the 19:00 (i am listening right now)