Adultery vs Fornication

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Whatever the Law permitted and ratified as valid, Jesus by definition as righteous would have had to affirm its validity.

If the Law said ABC is valid and permissible, then Jesus could NOT affirm that said ABC is suddenly forbidden.

The reverse is also true, Jesus could not legalize what God had already made illegal.

This is a point that I see often forgotten or unaddressed in these discussions on this subject.

Good afternoon, Bro. Esaias!

How does Jesus saying -- paraphrased, of course -- 'You've heard it said don't murder, but I'm saying don't even hate' fit into this framework? Because on its face it would seem that hating wasn't outlawed, but now would be. Am I taking 'don't hate' too literally?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas View Post
So you are saying that Jesus is saying that if you merely separate from your wife and marry another, you commit adultery. But if you formally divorce her, you're free to remarry at will?

Let's look at this more closely.

Option 1: Jesus says putting away and remarrying results in adultery (because no bill of divorce).

Option 2: Jesus says all divorce and remarriage is adultery.

Both options include "except for fornication".

Option 1 affirms exactly what the Law affirms, nothing changes. But this raises the question of what was the point of His answer?

Option 2 overturns the Law and makes illegal what God made legal. But this impugns Christ's character as righteous, as a valid prophet, and as Messiah.

Looks like a bit of a dilemma?

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The question put to Him had to do with valid reasons for putting away one's wife, according to the Law. The Law stipulated the necessity of a bill of divorcement if a man was going to put away His wife. The Law (as well as Jesus) affirmed that a woman put away (but not divorced) would be an adulteress if she hooked up with or married another man.

But the discussion being had between Jesus and the Pharisees wasn't about divorce vs putting away, it was about a dispute between two different schools of rabbis concerning valid grounds for putting away one's wife.

As I stated in an earlier post, we have to cautious how we apply Jesus' words to Pharisees, because He explicitly dealt with them differently than His own disciples or even the masses who came to hear Him teach.

Any interpretation of His words that contradicts the actual Mosaic legislation must be rejected as error, because if He was declaring "The Law says thus and such is allowed, but I say forget that here's new legislation" then He becomes by definition a Lawbreaker (sinner) which is impossible if He is actually the Messiah.

Good information for the background of the issue and the perspective you hold. But you didn't answer the question. It appears that your position would allow a man to divorce and remarry as many times as he wished as long as he served his wife a valid writ of divorcement. Is this correct?

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Originally Posted by Antipas View Post
So you are saying that Jesus is saying that if you merely separate from your wife and marry another, you commit adultery. But if you formally divorce her, you're free to remarry at will?

Let's look at this more closely.

Option 1: Jesus says putting away and remarrying results in adultery (because no bill of divorce).

Option 2: Jesus says all divorce and remarriage is adultery.

Both options include "except for fornication".

Option 1 affirms exactly what the Law affirms, nothing changes. But this raises the question of what was the point of His answer?

Option 2 overturns the Law and makes illegal what God made legal. But this impugns Christ's character as righteous, as a valid prophet, and as Messiah.

Looks like a bit of a dilemma?

I don't see a dilemma. For example, would Jesus approve of polygamy? It was legal under the Law, but it appears that Jesus raises the bar to God's will being monogamy. In addition, Paul prohibits polygamy among deacons and bishops. According to the logic you're presenting, Jesus would have to believe polygamy to be a legal and valid form of marriage, would He not? In addition, it would mean that Paul's admonition that deacons and bishops strictly be the husband of one wife puts Paul in conflict with the OT Law, does it not?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Good afternoon, Bro. Esaias!

How does Jesus saying -- paraphrased, of course -- 'You've heard it said don't murder, but I'm saying don't even hate' fit into this framework? Because on its face it would seem that hating wasn't outlawed, but now would be. Am I taking 'don't hate' too literally?

You have heard it SAID, not you have READ. Thus, Jesus was attacking/correcting oral tradition (Talmud), not Scripture (law of God).

God did not previously allow people to hate their neighbor (in fact the law forbids it) as long as they didn't actually kill their neighbor. God never allowed men to lust after other men's wives as long as they didn't actually act on it (the 10th commandment explicitly forbids such lusting).

So Jesus did not change the law of God, but directed people's attention to the actual purpose and intent behind the law.

The law forbade execution for murder except on testimony of two or more reliable witnesses. Yet God sees the heart. One might escape civil penalties but will not escape God's judgment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I don't see a dilemma. For example, would Jesus approve of polygamy? It was legal under the Law, but it appears that Jesus raises the bar to God's will being monogamy. In addition, Paul prohibits polygamy among deacons and bishops. According to the logic you're presenting, Jesus would have to believe polygamy to be a legal and valid form of marriage, would it not?

If Jesus believed polygamy was sin, then He would have to believe both Abraham and Jacob and David were polygamous adulterers with no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

Original intent (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Susie and Letitia) does not necessarily mean polygamy was sin or forbidden by the law of God. Jesus nowhere said polygamy was sin.

Polygamy, however, is definitely a bag of trouble, and considering it is illegal by US and most other nation's laws makes it pretty much a non starter.

The requirement that bishops be the husband of one wife makes no sense if polygamy is sin, because a polygamist then would not only not be eligible for the bishopric, but would be expelled from the church altogether.

[Esaias]

And no, I'm not arguing for polygamy, so nobody even go there. lol

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So Jesus did not change the law of God, but directed people's attention to the actual purpose and intent behind the law.

So was it wrong to hate before? Or is it okay to hate now? One of those has to be true or Jesus did indeed change something. Or something isn't clicking with me, which is ALWAYS possible. Ha!

Thank you for your time, sir! Appreciated as always!

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If Jesus believed polygamy was sin, then He would have to believe both Abraham and Jacob and David were polygamous adulterers with no inheritance in the kingdom of God.

Elements of the Law are carnal and simply regulate man's wickedness. Israel was a vile people compared to NT standard of morality. Their wickedness, rebellion, and idolatry ultimately led to their captivity and the destruction of the entire OT system with the fall of the Temple.

If we believe that God's Word is punctuated with mercy (God not giving us what we deserve) then we see that God was tremendously merciful to men such as Abraham, Jacob, Sampson, and David.

Original intent (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Susie and Letitia) does not necessarily mean polygamy was sin or forbidden by the law of God. Jesus nowhere said polygamy was sin.

Jesus did say that God made them male and female, and that the two shall become one flesh. He doesn't include much room for three or more being one flesh and the original intent seems to be seen in Eden, Adam and Eve. Man and woman. Monogamy.

Polygamy, however, is definitely a bag of trouble, and considering it is illegal by US and most other nation's laws makes it pretty much a non starter.

True. But since you brought this up, if it were made legal, would your position permit and bless polygamous marriages?

The requirement that bishops be the husband of one wife makes no sense if polygamy is sin, because a polygamist then would not only not be eligible for the bishopric, but would be expelled from the church altogether.

That's a rather sweeping assumption. The Greek literally translates, "a man of one woman". Based on my view this would disqualify polygamists, womanizers, and even divorcees who remarried from the Bishopric. And seeing that such leadership should serve as the most godly of examples, I believe this is a good thing for the church.

However, how churches deal with such situations among the laity... perhaps that should be left up to the Bishops of each individual congregation.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And no, I'm not arguing for polygamy, so nobody even go there. lol

I know that you're not arguing for polygamy. lol

But does your view allow for polygamy if it were legal in the United States? Would your view be a basis upon which one might argue for polygamy?