Adultery vs Fornication

[Antipas]

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.

I think the Esaias' point was that just as a betrothed woman is called a "wife", sexual unfaithfulness during betrothal is called "adultery" in the OT.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by peter83

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.

It might be important to note that under Roman rule Jewish authorities were not permitted to impose the death penalty per the Law. So, any failure to mention the death penalty in Christ's remarks could be due to historical/cultural context.

[Antipas]

I'm finding it interesting how stretchy people make the "exception clause". If Jesus is saying that one can divorce their partner, and remarry another, as long as their first partner had engaged in "sexual immorality"... isn't that subjective? What if the one's spouse engages in something that one personally feels is sexually immoral, but their partner was raised to believe it isn't? What if one changes their mind about a given sex act and thinks it is now immoral, whereas before they didn't?

For example, seedy women's magazines like Cosmo can be explicit. What if a husband has no issue with his wife reading these things early on, but comes to the conviction that they are "pornea" later? Now the rules have changed. Can he put his wife away over reading Cosmo and remarry another without it being adultery?

[Antipas]

Personally, I think the "exception clause" as interpreted by most churches today is strangely silly. It's like people want something, anything, to justify a second marriage not being sin.

Here are my questions for those who hold this position...

- What constitutes "fornication"?
- How do churches verify this claim about one's first spouse?
- What if one's first spouse contacts the church and argues that the accusation of sexual immorality during the marriage is false and that the second marriage will be adultery? Will the church go ahead with the wedding?
- What if a church blesses the marriage of a divorcee under the pretenses that the first spouse was divorced on account of fornication, but the first spouse contests the charge after the wedding has been blessed and finalized by the church?
- What if one's first spouse argues against the charge of fornication for spite to throw a wrench in the second marriage?
- Why is the "exception clause" strictly sexual in nature and doesn't include physical or emotional abuse?
- Does this mean that God doesn't recognize the plight of the physically or emotionally abused?

To me, the "exception clause" brings too many questions and concerns into play when Scripture is clear... divorce was never a part of God's intention for couples. And this being so, clearly remarriage was never God's intention either.

I've seen some of these issues first hand. And honestly, churches seem to just take the divorcee's word for it. They don't typically look into it, and they don't typically even act as though they pay attention to any argument that is contrary to the divorcee's claim of their previous partner's spousal sexual immorality. It's almost like they just stick their heads in the sand regarding any of these things and choose to remarry the couple speedily, with all the blessings and "thumbs up" as though it is all "God's will".

Instead of all the tap dancing around with this "exception clause", why not just take Christ's word for it?...

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

Mark 10:11-12
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.

The above was written to Gentiles (like us) who did not have the complicated betrothal rules of the Judean believers who were of Jewish heritage. And one will note, there is no exception given in Mark or Luke. Why would there be such a glaring contradiction?

The Matthean passage is the only passage with the so called "exception clause", which suspiciously appears to agree with annulling a Jewish betrothal/marriage on account of fornication committed prior to the wedding.

All these questions, and more, are reasons why I believe it is best to simply stop trying to justify a second marriage after a divorce. It's best to humbly confess to God that you are but flesh, that you're in need of a partner, and that you've broken down and chosen to remarry, knowing that you are ending any opportunity for reconciliation with your first spouse, and thereby committing adultery. This isn't the unpardonable sin. And it can be forgiven. Why seek to justify a sin that can be forgiven upon confession?

I believe that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we confess them. However, the biggest problem in today's world is convincing saints that what they are doing is sin. And until they realize it is sin, there can be no confession. And if there is no confession, there can be no forgiveness. And as a result... souls could be lost because they were taught about some "exception clause" that doesn't really exist or apply to them. Not to mention those who expand on "fornication" to include nearly anything they can accuse an ex of to justify their second marriage.

Divorce and remarriage has become a shameful mess in the church. We need a clear and certain sound on the matter. It is sin. If you're a divorcee who has remarried... fall on your face and confess it before God. Get this second marriage under the blood. If you are a divorcee and planning to remarry, know that you are choosing to sin. Don't be upset if a church chooses not to facilitate or conduct this second wedding. If you absolutely must, go to the courts, get your second marriage handled by a secular authority. Don't expect God's church to bless something that isn't God's will until you're able to confess that it is a sin and seek God's forgiveness.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Personally, I think the "exception clause" as interpreted by most churches today is strangely silly. It's like people want something, anything, to justify a second marriage not being sin.

Here are my questions for those who hold this position...

- What constitutes "fornication"?
- How do churches verify this claim about one's first spouse?
- What if one's first spouse contacts the church and argues that the accusation of sexual immorality during the marriage is false and that the second marriage will be adultery? Will the church go ahead with the wedding?
- What if a church blesses the marriage of a divorcee under the pretenses that the first spouse was divorced on account of fornication, but the first spouse contests the charge after the wedding has been blessed and finalized by the church?
- What if one's first spouse argues against the charge of fornication for spite to throw a wrench in the second marriage?
- Why is the "exception clause" strictly sexual in nature and doesn't include physical or emotional abuse?
- Does this mean that God doesn't recognize the plight of the physically or emotionally abused?

To me, the "exception clause" brings too many questions and concerns into play when Scripture is clear... divorce was never a part of God's intention for couples. And this being so, clearly remarriage was never God's intention either.

I've seen some of these issues first hand. And honestly, churches seem to just take the divorcee's word for it. They don't typically look into it, and they don't typically even act as though they pay attention to any argument that is contrary to the divorcee's claim of their previous partner's spousal sexual immorality. It's almost like they just stick their heads in the sand regarding any of these things and choose to remarry the couple speedily, with all the blessings and "thumbs up" as though it is all "God's will".

Instead of all the tap dancing around with this "exception clause", why not just take Christ's word for it?...

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

Mark 10:11-12
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.

The above was written to Gentiles (like us) who did not have the complicated betrothal rules of the Judean believers who were of Jewish heritage.


I'm sorry, but Jesus was addressing Israel here, not Gentiles. Nor is he giving a new command that contradicted the Law. Rather, he is explaining the true intent and spirit of the Law. This is not written to Gentiles any more than the command he gave to lepers to show themselves to the priest was written to Gentiles.


And one will note, there is no exception given in Mark or Luke. Why would there be such a glaring contradiction?


The various gospels record several statements of Christ in such a manner. Why does this constitute a glaring contradiction?

The Matthean passage is the only passage with the so called "exception clause", which suspiciously appears to agree with annulling a Jewish betrothal/marriage on account of fornication committed prior to the wedding.


Oh Matthew was for Jews but Luke and Mark were for Gentiles? No way.

All these questions, and more, are reasons why I believe it is best to simply stop trying to justify a second marriage after a divorce. It's best to humbly confess to God that you are but flesh, that you're in need of a partner, and that you've broken down and chosen to remarry, knowing that you are ending any opportunity for reconciliation with your first spouse, and thereby committing adultery. This isn't the unpardonable sin. And it can be forgiven. Why seek to justify a sin that can be forgiven upon confession?

I believe that God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins if we confess them. However, the biggest problem in today's world is convincing saints that what they are doing is sin. And until they realize it is sin, there can be no confession. And if there is no confession, there can be no forgiveness. And as a result... souls could be lost because they were taught about some "exception clause" that doesn't really exist or apply to them. Not to mention those who expand on "fornication" to include nearly anything they can accuse an ex of to justify their second marriage.

Divorce and remarriage has become a shameful mess in the church. We need a clear and certain sound on the matter. It is sin. If you're a divorcee who has remarried... fall on your face and confess it before God. Get this second marriage under the blood. If you are a divorcee and planning to remarry, know that you are choosing to sin. Don't be upset if a church chooses not to facilitate or conduct this second wedding. If you absolutely must, go to the courts, get your second marriage handled by a secular authority. Don't expect God's church to bless something that isn't God's will until you're able to confess that it is a sin and seek God's forgiveness.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Mark is a very early and very general Gospel. I believe a number of scholars would disagree about Luke not being written primarily to Gentile believers...

In contrast to either Mark or Matthew, Luke's gospel is clearly written more for a gentile audience. Luke is traditionally thought of as one of Paul's traveling companions and it's certainly the case that the author of Luke was from those Greek cities in which Paul had worked. Luke's gospel is a product of a kind of Pauline Christianity. And so it tells the story in some slightly different ways than do the other gospels. It has different interests. It has different thematic concerns. It probably also has a different political self consciousness because it's writing predominantly for gentiles in the Greek cities of Asia Minor or Greece itself.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...tory/luke.html

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Mark is a very early and very general Gospel. I believe a number of scholars would disagree about Luke not being written primarily to Gentile believers...

In contrast to either Mark or Matthew, Luke's gospel is clearly written more for a gentile audience. Luke is traditionally thought of as one of Paul's traveling companions and it's certainly the case that the author of Luke was from those Greek cities in which Paul had worked. Luke's gospel is a product of a kind of Pauline Christianity. And so it tells the story in some slightly different ways than do the other gospels. It has different interests. It has different thematic concerns. It probably also has a different political self consciousness because it's writing predominantly for gentiles in the Greek cities of Asia Minor or Greece itself.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...tory/luke.html

It does not matter if the primary audience reading a particular gospel was Gentile. Jesus' WORDS in those book were to JEWS.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It does not matter if the primary audience reading a particular gospel was Gentile. Jesus' WORDS in those book were to JEWS.

The writer would tailor his recollection of Christ's teaching to be pertinent information relating to his audience. Ever notice that Matthew goes into greater detail when dealing with Jewish issues, traditions, and custom? Also, notice how Luke appears to focus on Christ's authority, in a sense challenging Roman authority.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Interesting point Esaias.

I think I said earlier in the thread, that these types of discussions on remarriage usually overlook various points that informed the original audience's understanding of NT statements. Therefore, the various conclusions that get drawn are bound to be erroneous in one way or another.

I just try to point some of these tidbits out and see where it takes the conversation.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Mark is a very early and very general Gospel. I believe a number of scholars would disagree about Luke not being written primarily to Gentile believers...

Unless you simply read the text and you see his deep connections and understanding of the Temple. (Anna, Simeon, the course of Abia).

In fact, we can be assured that Luke wrote his Gospel to the high priest Theophilus when he was the most excellent high priest (c. 41 AD).

And it is more than a reasonable conjecture that Luke himself was a priest, and even one of this group.

Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased;
and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly;
and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Luke likely preceded Mark, which Gospel was likely written in Latin or Graeco-Latin, or two editions. Very possibly involving the times with Peter in Rome. (Did Philo show up? hmmm.. that is a bit more problematic.) There are a couple of gaps in Mark that fit fine when you realize that Luke's Gospel was available as well.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven