Adultery vs Fornication

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It is clear that Paul's instructions in I Corinthians 7 are for believers, how they were to conduct themselves post-conversion. Had remarried new converts been required to break up their homes and marriages, the Apostles would have made that crystal clear. They did not.


Esaias thinks I am somehow too emotionally involved to adequately discuss this matter. However, it has been my observation over the years that many who promote the radical views like those espoused by the author of this thread are divorced people who cannot get over the one they lost and thus impose a harsh sentence on themselves in order to still feel married to the one who left them. It is a type of denial that the marriage is over.

I've also seen others in leadership who push this bondage, trying to keep divorced people in leg irons. But when their daughter is abandoned by their spouse, the leader's doctrine suddenly changes.

7:1Pail opinion about stay single 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 -6 Paul's opinion about how to avoid fornication if you can not stay single 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7-9 about un-married and widows For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10-11 Lord`s instructions about Divorce and 2nd Marriage (He does not permit) 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

12-24 again Paul`s opinion about a Christian that his/her matte is not converted 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.1
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?2
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.3
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

25-38 Instructions about Virgins and unmarried that are engaged
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.4
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39-40 Lord`s command about widows .(they are banned to their husbands until the man dies.)39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

-You can stay un-married, but if you can not then better to marry in order to avoid fornication
-For the married Christian divorce is not permitted, but if for any reason separate ,then stay an-married or go back to your wife
-If a matte dont want to fallow Christ ,is NOT an excuse to leave him, but if they want to leave you dont have any sin (otherwise Jesus said that "everyone who puts away his wife is responsible for her adultery)
-Virgins who are engaged are to dont brake it and Christians who are not engaged it is better if they stay singles ,(according to Paul) but if they want to marry is not a sin.
-Widows also is better to sstay singles but if they marry is not a sin (the only cause for 2nd marriage is DEATH) 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Ok professor. You can research the word just as easily as anyone. But will you accept the verdict of any Greek concordance that does not support your view? Probably not.

The various language tool differ. You put one in that is not even identified. Making your insults and bluster around the definition worthless.

Are you in a relationship that marriage permanence believers call out as adulterous?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

That is rich coming from you (who I agree with 99% of the time). You are very passionate and frank in dealing with those on here you feel are promoting error, as am I.

Being passionate and frank about a subject is one thing. But just posting a series of basic insults to a poster who a) speaks a foreign language and therefore there is a lot of room for misunderstanding and b) is simply trying to explain how they see the Bible and c) is not a flaming communist or d) is not an obvious troll... indicates a failure to maintain the necessary level of cool headedness needed for this kind of discussion.

Just my opinion.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The various language tool differ. You put one in that is not even identified. Making your insults and bluster around the definition worthless.

Are you in a relationship that marriage permanence believers call out as adulterous?

Do you or do you not agree that "Porneia" covers adultery?


As for the second question, no. But I find the question to be a cheap attempt at disqualifying someone from a debate. I could just as easily disqualify any "marriage permanence" promoter that is divorced and remaining single. The doctrine being espoused rises and falls on its own merits, regardless of the marital status or background of the one opposing or condoning it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

7:1Pail opinion about stay single 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 -6 Paul's opinion about how to avoid fornication if you can not stay single 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7-9 about un-married and widows For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10-11 Lord`s instructions about Divorce and 2nd Marriage (He does not permit) 10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

12-24 again Paul`s opinion about a Christian that his/her matte is not converted 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.1
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?2
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.3
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

25-38 Instructions about Virgins and unmarried that are engaged
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.4
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39-40 Lord`s command about widows .(they are banned to their husbands until the man dies.)39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

-You can stay un-married, but if you can not then better to marry in order to avoid fornication
-For the married Christian divorce is not permitted, but if for any reason separate ,then stay an-married or go back to your wife
-If a matte dont want to fallow Christ ,is NOT an excuse to leave him, but if they want to leave you dont have any sin (otherwise Jesus said that "everyone who puts away his wife is responsible for her adultery)
-Virgins who are engaged are to dont brake it and Christians who are not engaged it is better if they stay singles ,(according to Paul) but if they want to marry is not a sin.
-Widows also is better to sstay singles but if they marry is not a sin (the only cause for 2nd marriage is DEATH) 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

All great passages, and not one contradicts my stand.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by peter83

Hi how are you?
You can wrote (when and if you want) your view. I mean about the teaching of marriage in general or about the following question:
"we know that a divorced Christian should not marry again" , now what happen to one that has been two or even three tomes in the past and then comes to Christ? I mean does God accepts them like they are? Or they must give up their marriage?
(i dont mean about a Christian who married an other woman and then repents, here for sure he must give up his sin and leave the adulterous relationship. )
But what happens to the couple that comes from the world? Does Jesus accepts their marriage? Does this fits to the "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called" ?
Thanks in advance.

I begin at Moses (Luke 24:27), meaning the Pentateuch. In Genesis, God made Adam, gave him Eve, thus establishing marriage as a one man, one woman bond or partnership, where the woman is the man's helper. This is affirmed by Paul in 1 Cor 11, where he points to Genesis as establishing that the woman was made for the man and he is the head of the woman.

From a survey of Genesis, we discover that while this one man, one woman marriage is the original ideal, we nevertheless also find that occasionally men had more than one wife. Abraham being a definite example, where he is given Hagar as a second wife.

Hagar of course turns out to be highly problematic, yet God's interactions with her and Abraham show God honored that second marriage. We also see where she is put away, and God reinforced that decision as well.

Then we see Jacob with not only two wives, but two concubines as well, so he technically had four wives. That wasn't his intention of course, but he honored the relationships and God likewise recognized them as valid.

We see the same with David, who apparently had something like five wives and ten concubines (secondary wives) but was never rebuked for that except for the sin involving Uriah's wife Bathsheba.

So we see from this that polygamy (a man having more than one wife at the same time) was not forbidden. In fact God gave specific instructions regarding additional wives in the Law, thus proving He did not forbid such, nor was it sin. Otherwise, He would have simply said thou shalt not have two or more wives.

He also gave instructions about various forbidden relationships (incest, heathens, sex between unmarried persons, etc) which would all be classed as examples of fornication. There were also rules given that governed things like rape, and seduction. Rapists were generally to be executed, as were harlots and whoremongers (promiscuous fornicators). However, a man who seduced a young woman was required to marry her, but her father could refuse the marriage while still exacting the bride-price (Ex 22:17).

Adultery was defined by the law of God as having relations with another man's wife, or of a married woman having relations with a man other than her husband. In addition, God ordained that if a man put away his wife (send her away and end the marriage covenant) he had to give her a writ of divorce. She was allowed to marry
again. Without that writ of divorce she would be guilty of adultery (because still married to her husband) but with the writ her marriage was dissolved.

If she did marry another man, and got divorced again, or her second husband died, she was forbidden from returning to her first husband (Deut 24:3-4). God says that would be abomination, and if people allowed that, it would cause the land to sin (thus placing it on the same spiritual level as whoredom, idolatry, child sacrifice, etc).

So, God's instructions provided for marriage and its responsibilities, divorce and its attendant responsibities, as well as defining things like fornication, adultery, etc.

In the case of divorce, God allowed a man to divorce his wife if he found a cause of uncleanness in her (Deut 24:1). This would generally mean if he discovered she was not a virgin when he was expecting her to be a virgin, or if he discovered their marriage was forbidden (she was a close relative, or some other forbidden class). From Jeremiah 3:8 we also see that divorce was allowed if the husband knew her to be adulterous (God specifically states the legal grounds of His divorce of the northern House of Israel as her adultery).

Later, the Pharisees came on the scene as teachers of the Law. They became divided in their opinion concerning the acceptable grounds for divorce. One group taught a man could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever, while the other said the grounds for valid divorce are more limited. This disagreement was the reason Jesus was asked about divorce (Matt 19:3). He was asked to settle the dispute between the two schools of thought. This was important, because divorces were granted and authenticated by the local courts ("judges") which ruled yea or nay based on how they interpreted the law.

It should also be kept in mind that a court ruling on the validity of a divorce was basically law, which everyone was expected to abide by (Deut 16:18, Deut 17:12, Ex 18:25-26). If a court ruled a divorce was legitimate, it was treated as legitimate. Even if a court erred, the ruling would stand until ruled otherwise. This of course supposed the court erred sincerely, and not in an attempt to pervert judgment, but through a genuine mistake in either ascertaining the facts or understanding the law (not through a wilfull and knowing perversion of justice).

When Jesus made His famous statement on divorce, it was in response to a legal question concerning grounds for validly recognized divorce, in the context of "may a man put away his wife for ANY cause?" Jesus affirmed that a man may, indeed, put away his wife for certain causes ("fornication"), but otherwise he causes her to commit adultery (if she remarries).

He also used the term apoluo in Matt 19, which means "put away" but which does not actually mean "divorce". To put away means simply to kick out of the house and refuse to be responsible for the woman. To divorce means to give the writ of divorcement. Thus, Moses said if a man is going to put away his wife, he has to (in addition) give her a writ or bill of divorcement. A woman who was put away but not given a writ of divorce was NOT divorced and could NOT remarry, whereas a woman who was put away AND who had a writ of divorce COULD remarry, according to the Law.

Keeping in mind that Jesus was responding to a legal question by Pharisees, we should be very careful in how we take His answer. He was very close and specific in His responses to Pharisees and scribes, often giving them answers that, while technically correct, didn't actually answer them. A perfect example was His answer concerning whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar. Giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and giving to God what is God's, is technically a correct answer, but did not really tell His enemies whether they should or should not pay tribute.

The debates concerning divorce and remarriage, in my opinion, often miss certain very important elements. Certain questions are not asked, and thus not addressed, leading in my opinion to various unwarranted or at least unproven conclusions.

I don't have the final word on the subject. I am learning along with the rest of us. But every side of the question seems to me to be missing things, making me think I have not yet seen a THOROUGHLY BIBLICAL examination of the subject yet.

[Esaias]

"The debates concerning divorce and remarriage, in my opinion, often miss certain very important elements. Certain questions are not asked, and thus not addressed, leading in my opinion to various unwarranted or at least unproven conclusions.

I don't have the final word on the subject. I am learning along with the rest of us. But every side of the question seems to me to be missing things, making me think I have not yet seen a THOROUGHLY BIBLICAL examination of the subject yet."

Some examples:

1. Any discussion must navigate the differences between "put away" and "divorced". The Greek uses two different terms, the Law specifies a distinction between them. So the distinction must be taken into account when examining this topic.

2. Jesus could not have directly and unilaterally altered the Law of God, otherwise we have serious implications concerning His own holiness and His authority as Teacher.

3. The penalty for adultery was death, not divorce, YET not all adultery could be PROVEN in court, nor was the death penalty for adultery always enforced (as today, nobody gets the electric chair for adultery). Therefore, divorce has historically been granted for cause of adultery, because the cheating spouse "would have" died if God's law was enforced, the adulterer was considered "dead" by the law as far as marriage was concerned, and the innocent spouse was considered loosed from the bond.

4. Because of 3 above, spousal abandonment has also been considered grounds for divorce, because it is as if the spouse has died. This affects our understanding of 1 Cor 7:15.

5. 1 Cor 7:15 is also impacted by the subject of mixed marriages to unbelievers, which are technically forbidden. Yet there seems to be certain allowances and recognitions of the validity of religiously mixed marriages. This subject is usually not addressed very well in these types of discussions.

6. "Because of the hardness of your hearts" is almost always misinterpreted as "God allowed divorce because men were mean towards their wives and the wives needed a fallback plan". That is definitely not the case. The hardness of heart has nothing to do with attitudes towards spouses, but everything to do with obedience to God's law. Divorce then was allowed because God knew people would be disobedient to His laws concerning purity. Divorce then is a corrective measure that mitigates the damage caused by sin. Most divorce discussions fail to recognize this point.

[Esaias]

And again, the question of spousal abandonment must be reconciled with the fact that a woman who was put away, but not divorced, could NOT lawfully remarry.

Also, most of these discussions fail to define exactly what is a valid marriage to begin with. Just because people have a court document saying they are married doesn't necessarily make it so. This is not only true of marriages after divorce, but also of a person's FIRST marriage!

And yet, the role of courts in deciding these matters is explicitly affirmed by God, and we do err if we think marriage is wholly outside the bounds of the judicial power.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"The debates concerning divorce and remarriage, in my opinion, often miss certain very important elements. Certain questions are not asked, and thus not addressed, leading in my opinion to various unwarranted or at least unproven conclusions.

I don't have the final word on the subject. I am learning along with the rest of us. But every side of the question seems to me to be missing things, making me think I have not yet seen a THOROUGHLY BIBLICAL examination of the subject yet."

Some examples:

1. Any discussion must navigate the differences between "put away" and "divorced". The Greek uses two different terms, the Law specifies a distinction between them. So the distinction must be taken into account when examining this topic.

2. Jesus could not have directly and unilaterally altered the Law of God, otherwise we have serious implications concerning His own holiness and His authority as Teacher.

3. The penalty for adultery was death, not divorce, YET not all adultery could be PROVEN in court, nor was the death penalty for adultery always enforced (as today, nobody gets the electric chair for adultery). Therefore, divorce has historically been granted for cause of adultery, because the cheating spouse "would have" died if God's law was enforced, the adulterer was considered "dead" by the law as far as marriage was concerned, and the innocent spouse was considered loosed from the bond.

4. Because of 3 above, spousal abandonment has also been considered grounds for divorce, because it is as if the spouse has died. This affects our understanding of 1 Cor 7:15.

5. 1 Cor 7:15 is also impacted by the subject of mixed marriages to unbelievers, which are technically forbidden. Yet there seems to be certain allowances and recognitions of the validity of religiously mixed marriages. This subject is usually not addressed very well in these types of discussions.

6. "Because of the hardness of your hearts" is almost always misinterpreted as "God allowed divorce because men were mean towards their wives and the wives needed a fallback plan". That is definitely not the case. The hardness of heart has nothing to do with attitudes towards spouses, but everything to do with obedience to God's law. Divorce then was allowed because God knew people would be disobedient to His laws concerning purity. Divorce then is a corrective measure that mitigates the damage caused by sin. Most divorce discussions fail to recognize this point.

The author of this thread would have us believe that all those abandoned wives that remarried,without having been given a bill of divorcement, in order to avoid a life of prostitution or starvation, are in Hell.

Thanks Esaias for injecting some rationale debate, but Peter has too much emotionally vested in this debate to be moved. He is quite comfortable where he is at.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Originalist

As for the second question, no. But I find the question to be a cheap attempt at disqualifying someone from a debate. I could just as easily disqualify any "marriage permanence" promoter that is divorced and remaining single. The doctrine being espoused rises and falls on its own merits, regardless of the marital status or background of the one opposing or condoning it.

When you have pastors who are officiating at second and third "marriage" adulterous "weddings", and then reap the tithes and offerings benefit, and various thanks and accolades, it is clearly a difficult thing for them to really look at the issues scripturally.

This does not disqualify them from the discussion, but is worthwhile to be noted.