Adultery vs Fornication

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Thanks, God bless you and yours!

And yours as well!

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Very interesting discussion. I'm watching it . I have pentecostal close friends and relative affected by divorce.

Antipas, regarding "and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh". If your spouse goes and divorce you and marriage another person making one flesh, how that leaves the other spouse? Is he/she still one flesh with the original spouse at that point?

I just wonder what your options are to recover from an abusive relationship (infidelity, domestic violence, etc...).

What if Jesus was talking about those that because they couldn't afford multiple wives (cultural context), would divorce the current one and marriage another one they desire, pretty much committing adultery in a "legal" way? In my opinion, I find hard to believe that God wouldn't allow those that suffered the brutality of sin to recover.

If one's ex remarries another they have committed adultery, as has the one who married them. If both remarry, both have committed adultery, as have their new partners.

But please try to understand something very important...

This position isn't about a blame game. Nor does it open up the doors for a blame game. Most don't want or like blame games anyway. But we've been conditioned to accept them as a part of justifying remarriage through exceptions.

The position I hold is the fundamental acknowledgement that God's will is that a couple marry and remain married for life. And that if a couple separates or divorces, it is God's will that they reconcile. Anything short of the reconciliation between two divorced or separated parties is therefore sin. As a result, any remarriage to another is sin.

This position requires that remarriage be recognized as sin and brought before God with contrition through confession. There is always forgiveness for sin. God loves us and knows we are but flesh. However, can God forgive a sin we refuse to acknowledge as sin???

This position opens the doors for forgiveness and grace towards those couples who have remarried. This position takes down the facades we build to justify ourselves because we are not comfortable with the reality of what we're doing or have done. And while it may be troubling or humbling for some to accept that their remarriage is a sin... coming to grips with that reality will allow God's forgiveness and grace to work in that second marriage, bringing greater blessing and peace than any façade can ever provide. Yes, the later house can be greater than the former house... if it is taken to Jesus with the right spirit. In a way, due to the grace and forgiveness involved, some of these second marriages can prove to be more blessed than one's first marriage. Sadly, most fail to see it like this.

But many just want their "exception clause" so that they can justify their remarriages and appear righteous to church, friends, and family. But that façade will sadly never produce the blessing that confession, forgiveness, and grace can bring.

I'd rather be a contrite, confessed, and forgiven scoundrel who has been covered by the blood of Christ through the grace of God... than someone claiming some ancient, and questionable, exception to the rule in order to maintain an appearance of righteousness that will be judged one day as being just a religious façade.

But that's just me.

[Antipas]

Another thing that troubles me about the so called, "exception clause", is that it paints God as being strangely less than what He truly is. It paints Him as a rather unjust and arbitrary God.

For example, most who believe in the exception clause would say that a man or woman is perfectly justified in divorcing their spouse and marrying another if their spouse had a one night stand while on a prolonged business trip.

However, this exception clause position only justifies one who has divorced and remarried if their spouse was sexually unfaithful. This clearly means that a man can beat his wife for 10 years straight, batter their children, and she finally break down and leave him, file for divorce, and she's forbidden to remarry.

I'm not justifying any one night stand... but the brutality of a repetitively abusive husband is far worse than a husband having a one time tryst while on a business trip with some floosy on the other side of the world. To me, a woman who was brutally abused by her husband for over 10 years is certainly just as morally justified in divorcing and remarrying as the woman whose husband had a one night stand... that is... IF we are going to make exceptions to the rule.

That's why this exception clause as it is taught today seems so dark and arbitrary to me. It justifies divorce and remarriage over sexual unfaithfulness... but it provides nothing to those who have been physically or emotionally abused. It offers nothing to those who suffered deep depression and loneliness in a loveless marriage due to a spouse's neglect. It offers nothing to the one who divorced an alcoholic or drug addicted spouse who had absolutely refused to seek help and has descended into the abyss of self-destruction.

The exception clause is so narrow in that its only focus is sex... it really offers very little grace to the vast majority of human pain and suffering experienced in so many marriages that end up in divorce that isn't related to sex.

That being said... of what real world value is this "exception clause" to the vast majority of divorcees??? To an overwhelming number of divorcees the supposed "exception clause" offers little peace because it doesn't apply to them... though they endured as much Hell as anyone whose spouse has been sexually unfaithful, if not more.

I think that while seeking to make God more merciful, and "palatable" to the masses, those who embrace this clause have really made God seem illogically unjust and arbitrarily focused on sex over the overall wellbeing and suffering of real human beings.

Maybe that doesn't bother anyone but me. Or... maybe no one has really thought that deeply about it. I don't know. But this has troubled me since I first heard about the exception clause that so many churches believe in.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I think many forget that the Law is not God, nor does it fully express God's intention for man. It is a natural covenant with an ancient earthly nation. Jesus tells us that divorce was never God's will, yet it was permitted in the Law because of man's hardness of heart...

Matthew 19:7-8 (KJV)
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

We must be careful not to make an idol out of the Law. God directed Moses to allow for divorce because of man's sinfulness. God knew that men would kill their wives to escape the marriage if God didn't provide a means of separation through divorce. But it was never God's intention for man to ever divorce.

So, here, the Law doesn't express God's perfect will for mankind.

I believe that most would agree that God's permissiveness with polygamy is very much the same. Polygamy was never God's intention for man. And so, it too is sin, though permitted and even regulated by God.

God and God's holiness is infinitely higher than the Law. This is why it is dangerous to become too fixated upon Law outside of the context if it being an ancient covenantal law, given by an Eternal God, to an ancient earthly nation.

I'm going to challenge your premise here concerning the Law and the "perfect will of God" by asking you to prove that the Bible teaches the point of view you are here presenting. I do not mean find an example that you interpret as an example of your position, but rather please show the Bible passages that actually teach what you are here asserting, that essentially one can sin without transgressing the law, or that there is a standard for regulating human social behavior other than the law as expressed in the laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances etc found in the Scripture.

That's interesting. If state licensed clergy do not perform weddings and establish marriages, who does?

Pastors are not licensed by any state of the Union nor by DC or the federal government. All the united states (to my knowledge) recognize marriages performed by any religious clergy so authorized by the religious faith to which said clergy belong, but no clergy are licensed, certified, or otherwise "authorized" by any civil government in the US. Are you in Europe or the UK, or a Commonwealth nation? The laws may be different there than here in the USA.

But as far as the Bible is concerned, there is no such thing as clergy performing or authorizing marriages. If anyone would like to show otherwise, I'm all ears.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I'm going to challenge your premise here concerning the Law and the "perfect will of God" by asking you to prove that the Bible teaches the point of view you are here presenting. I do not mean find an example that you interpret as an example of your position, but rather please show the Bible passages that actually teach what you are here asserting, that essentially one can sin without transgressing the law, or that there is a standard for regulating human social behavior other than the law as expressed in the laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances etc found in the Scripture.

Well, I'll present this example, and it is a good one because it is on topic. Regarding divorce, Jesus is recorded as having said...

Matthew 19:5-7
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

In the above passage Jesus explains that a man leaves father and mother, and cleaves unto his wife: and the two of them become one flesh. Jesus emphasizes that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Then Jesus issues a statement essentially saying, "What God as joined together, let no man separate."

That's when the Pharisees ask a rather natural and understandable question. They ask, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?" Meaning, "If God joined a man and woman, and no man is to divide the two. Why then did Moses give us legislation in the Law to allow for a writ of divorcement to put a wife away???"

It's a great question. Because here Jesus is raising the bar over what the Law allows. Christ's answer is very important. Christ answers...

Matthew 19:8
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Here, Jesus admits that the Pharisees are right. Moses indeed was instructed to give allowance for divorce in the Law. However, Jesus goes on to explain that the reason God did this was not because it was God's will that it be so. But rather because of the hardness of the human heart. Jesus goes on to emphasize the fact that from the very beginning, it was not so. It was never God's intention that mates divorce or separate. So clearly the Law only accommodates and regulates man's hardheartedness on this issue. It doesn't express God's perfect will on the matter.

Pastors are not licensed by any state of the Union nor by DC or the federal government. All the united states (to my knowledge) recognize marriages performed by any religious clergy so authorized by the religious faith to which said clergy belong, but no clergy are licensed, certified, or otherwise "authorized" by any civil government in the US. Are you in Europe or the UK, or a Commonwealth nation? The laws may be different there than here in the USA.

I'm not sure if that is entirely true. In many states in the United States for the minister to sign the "officiant" line of the Marriage Certificate the minister must be a licensed minister with the state in question. Getting a state minister's license is typically a short process in most states. The minister in question submits his/her ordination documents from the religious organization he/she is a part of. Some Secretary of State offices will also require a letter of recommendation from the congregation the minister presides over, for example a letter from the church treasurer or head of the church board. These things are submitted with a fee and the minister is then licensed with the state and able to legally sign state marriage certificates. State marriage certificates signed by ministers who are not licensed with the state to do so can be legally challenged in some states. In most states that license ministers, a state licensed minister is also prohibited from performing private wedding ceremonies wherein the couple do not have a state marriage license and a state marriage certificate isn't issued. Such ceremonies in these states are called, "Commitment Ceremonies" to avoid violating said civil statutes.

But as far as the Bible is concerned, there is no such thing as clergy performing or authorizing marriages. If anyone would like to show otherwise, I'm all ears.

I'd have to say that you're on the money here. I don't see a single wedding wherein a clergy member performed a wedding.

How do you believe a couple should marry if they desired it to be strictly biblical?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Well, I'll present this example, and it is a good one because it is on topic. Regarding divorce, Jesus is recorded as having said...

That is specifically what I asked you NOT to do, lol. Besides, the passage you cited is the very passage in question. What I am asking for is where does anyone in the Bible specifically teach that one can sin while NOT transgressing the law, or (which is basically the same thing) that God's moral standard for regulating human social behavior is something other than those standards detailed by the law, in His laws, commandments, statutes, judgments, and ordinances?

I'm not sure if that is entirely true. In many states in the United States for the minister to sign the "officiant" line of the Marriage Certificate the minister must be a licensed minister with the state in question. Getting a state minister's license is typically a short process in most states.

According to the National Association of Christian Ministers, ministers are licensed by their church or denomination. Some states require said ministers to register with the State in order to perform marriages (as in Ohio), while most others simply recognize marriages performed by a minister licensed with his/her church organization. So, no stare to my knowledge licenses ministers, as ministers, but some do register already licensed ministers in order to validate marriages performed by them. Ohio actually calls it filling out an "Ohio minister's license application". See here: https://nacministers.com/answers-faq...ined-minister/

The whole thing seems to run afoul of any existing State religious establishment clauses (state versions of the first article of the Bill of Rights) but America abandoned rule of law decades ago, it seems.

I'd have to say that you're on the money here. I don't see a single wedding wherein a clergy member performed a wedding.

How do you believe a couple should marry if they desired it to be strictly biblical?

Biblically, a marriage was an agreement between the bride, the bride's parents, the groom, and the groom's parents, requiring witnesses, and a consummating act. A dowry or bride-price was usually involved. Since marriage and divorce were subject to interference or intervention by judges/courts (subject to their jurisdiction), it follows that existing legal requirements to validate either would need to be followed (somekind of lawfully recognized documentation a marriage had occurred, for example, compliant with the local laws), as well as parental agreement and the agreement of the two parties getting married. Chattel bondage and private war prisoners are outlawed across most of the globe, so the voluntary nature of marriage remains.

So basically, a man would seek permission from both his and the woman's parents to marry her. That being granted and all parties agreed, a public declaration (ceremony) before witnesses would take place, followed by the consummation, and then whatever legal paperwork needs to be filed to validly record the marriage.

If local law requires a "performer" of the marriage, then just about any judge or Justice of the Peace could do it (depending on location). Technically, and scripturally, though, a father "gives his daughter in marriage", so Biblically that's as close as actually "performing" a marriage as I can find.

Fatherless women and other extraordinary cases would have to adjust their procedures accordingly while being as true to Scripture as possible.

Elopement against parental wishes is no more recognized as valid by Scripture than is "gay marriage". Christians ought to restore parental involvement in the marriage decision process, it's there for a reason. In fact, it used to be in place throughout Christendom up until the Enlightenment began eroding it, along with everything else, in western civilization.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Antipas, regarding "and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh". If your spouse goes and divorce you and marriage another person making one flesh,

Not making one flesh, making one adultery involving two people, the spouse and the new beau.

Originally Posted by coksiw

] how that leaves the other spouse? Is he/she still one flesh with the original spouse at that point?

Yes. The adultery has no affect on that basic covenant marriage.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Not making one flesh, making one adultery involving two people, the spouse and the new beau.

Yes. The adultery has no affect on that basic covenant marriage.

Well, according to Deut 24 it certainly did have an effect on the marriage covenant.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Well, according to Deut 24 it certainly did have an effect on the marriage covenant.

In that particular set of circumstances, which would be impossible under the New Covenant and the words of Jesus, involving uncleanness and a Mosaic-sanctioned bill of divorcement, and the full abrogation of her original marriage, yes, the bill of divorcement combined with her legitimate remarriage definitely had an effect on the original marriage. It was "gone-marriage".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

In that particular set of circumstances, which would be impossible under the New Covenant and the words of Jesus, involving uncleanness and a Mosaic-sanctioned bill of divorcement, and the full abrogation of her original marriage, yes, the bill of divorcement combined with her legitimate remarriage definitely had an effect on the original marriage. It was "gone-marriage".

Please explain how Deut 24 provides for a "set of circumstances, which would be impossible under the new covenant and the words of Jesus".