Adultery vs Fornication

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

(dont be angry...it is good to know you are wrong ,because then you can know right)
if this were the case you should just ignore the post but ... You read me ,You ask me , trying to interpret .... so yes this is the Word of God that call your attention ,not me

You have basically set yourself up as the final judge of scriptural interpretation. Grammatical, contextual, and hermeneutical considerations are of no importance to you.

And my only motive in engaging you is to expose you for the fraud you clearly are. You are the poster-boy for what I would use to show students in a Biblical Hermeneutics class on what not to do.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Is the reason they could so grossly misinterpret/ignore that passage the fact it couldn’t be proven/punished? I guess that’s more a history question than a scripture question, but since I don’t know, i’m asking

Human nature looks for reasons not to actually obey God. Funny how that is, eh?

. Also, isn’t “Love your neighbor as yourself” said to be a new commandment? In what way can it be said to be new?

I’ll stop the tangent so as not to totally derail the thread, but thank you for sticking with me.

Leviticus 19:
16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Your questions are great questions, keep 'em coming!

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You have basically set yourself up as the final judge of scriptural interpretation. Grammatical, contextual, and hermeneutical considerations are of no importance to you.

And my only motive in engaging you is to expose you for the fraud you clearly are. You are the poster-boy for what I would use to show students in a Biblical Hermeneutics class on what not to do.

just give me scripture
"you dont take us serious" but you still read, you still post, you still sweating and praying (to your father..) " just give me a verse to feel justified" ,,

Maaann, be a man, you are mad because is the Word of God that can not change..accept it like a man and then come to to tell us. i dont set my self up, that is why you get mad on me, you seε me competitive! instead of see me like a brother. It is the Word that does not justify divorce , the Word dont need me to interpret it..
with LOVE!!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I think it depends on how one sees the Law. I see it as having eternal moral elements in it, but it is largely an ancient law code for an ancient nation and an ancient religious system. For example,

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

We can glean from the Law that this act is an abomination. But I do not believe God desires that we advocate that such sinners be executed today. In the NT, when anyone was guilty of such terrible sin and wouldn't repent, they were disfellowshipped, not executed under a religious Christian court.

We learn much from the Law. But the Law itself isn't intended for us. It was intended for an ancient nation that no longer exists.

Romans 13 establishes the truth that the civil power, not the church, is responsible for execution of justice. So of course the church did not execute adulterers, sodomites, kidnappers, etc. Yet, to extrapolate from this that sodomites for example should not be punished at all by the state is the same as saying no crime should be punished whatsoever "because Christians did nor execute criminals upon conviction in an ecclesiastical court."

The Law (as the expressed Instruction of God for how people are to live) was intended for all nations (Deut 4:6-8, Isaiah 2:2-4).

Israel exists, it is under the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:32-33).

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Human nature looks for reasons not to actually obey God. Funny how that is, eh?

Your questions are great questions, keep 'em coming!

Thank you; I appreciate that. As always, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. It's nice to interact without having the conversation devolve into one of the tirades I have seen lately.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Multiple versions with contraditcory meanings.

The corruption version way.

Not one was contradictory.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

just give me scripture
"you dont take us serious" but you still read, you still post, you still sweating and praying (to your father..) " just give me a verse to feel justified" ,,

Maaann, be a man, you are mad because is the Word of God that can not change..accept it like a man and then come to to tell us. i dont set my self up, that is why you get mad on me, you seε me competitive! instead of see me like a brother. It is the Word that does not justify divorce , the Word dont need me to interpret it..
with LOVE!!

Again, I used the very scriptures YOU cited to prove you wrong.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Jesus clearly lists marital unfaithfulness as a justification for divorce. Why even bother to divorce them if they are soon going to be dead anyway? Thus, there is more to this statement than meets the eye. Some men were probably merciful enough not to rat-out their wife to keep her from being killed. But whatever ended up happening to the cheating woman, the context here is indeed divorcing for unfaithfulness.

While all sexual sin can generally be referred to as "fornication", if the person is married, the fornication is an "adultery". Jesus uses the general term because the sin in question isn't in context of the marriage covenant.

You'll note that in the Law if two unmarried people "fornicate" the man is to marry the woman and not divorce her all his days. There is no need for trial before the elders, execution, etc. This would be the case if one's spouse was found to have been "sexually immoral" (fornication) prior to the wedding (for example, during the betrothal period). The man in such cases was free to issue a writ of divorcement (required to terminate a Jewish betrothal) and was free to marry another. That's exactly what we see when Joseph suspected Mary of unfaithfulness during their betrothal period:

Matthew 1:18-19
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.

This understanding of the "exception clause" in the Matthean text would explain several things:

1.) Why the exception clause is only found in the Matthean text (written with a Jewish audience in mind).
2.) Why the term "fornication" is used instead of adultery.
3.) Why the exception clause doesn't appear in Mark or Luke (primarily written for a Gentile audience.)
4.) Why there appears to be no death sentence for the unfaithful partner.

But here is a greater dilemma. Some do indeed adhere to the "betrothal" theory. The problem is, I do not know a single church that would condone a divorce for this reason since the wife's actions were committed before the wedding.

I don't either. However, this may be a cultural thing. If we were a truly "Jewish" culture, virginity before marriage would be paramount and sexual immorality during the betrothal period (or earlier) would be grounds to terminate the betrothal. And, while it isn't a rule in most churches, most grooms to be would break off the engagement upon discovering that their betrothed was unfaithful, lying about her virginity, or not honestly disclosing her sexual history.

This would not be considered adultery.

Amen. That's why Jesus used the term "fornication".

I know a minister this happened to. His wife had an STD from her secret lover and transmitted it to this brother on their wedding night. He appealed to his district board that he married under false pretenses but they would not consider it as adultery.

The problem here is with the board, not the biblical text.

Another problem with the betrothal theory is that it would make breaking an engagement into sin if it was done for some other reason than catching your betrothed in sexual sin. This is why I feel we err as Gentile Christians when we look to the Jewish Law espoused by Christ concerning marriage as a guide for New Testament Christianity.

I believe context is important. In the first century a betrothal was just as legally binding as a marriage. A writ of divorcement was even required to terminate a betrothal. It was no mere verbal promise. It was contractual and involved the wealth and status of both families. Since the couple was not yet officially married, the domestic stipulations of the ketubah were not yet in play. About the only valid grounds to immediately terminate a betrothal was sexual immorality prior to or during the betrothal period.

If we are going to go by part of the Law, we must obey all of it in regards to marriage including Deut. 24's prohibition against reunited with ex-spouses who remarried.

That's assuming that we are still bound by the letter of the OT law. However, I do see your point, and for the law keeper who believes such, it does become a rather sticky situation.

Our guide is I Corinthians 7 which is very simple...... Christians should not initiate divorce but abide alone or reconcile if a divorce occurs. Even then there will be times that reunification is impossible. What happens then is not specified by Paul. Second, Christians married to unbelievers are not under the same moral obligations as the former group mentioned above if they are abandoned by the unbelieving spouse.

Amen. The only thing I'd "add to" is this statement:

Even then there will be times that reunification is impossible. What happens then is not specified by Paul.

While you're right, beyond abiding alone Paul doesn't specify exactly what is to happen if a couple cannot reconcile. However, the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four Gospels and is written in a very generalized fashion. The Gospel of Luke was specifically written for Gentile readers. Let's see if they include any "exception clause" for those who would not be practicing the Jewish betrothal custom...

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

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.

See, no exception clause.

Try to remember, the NT wasn't compiled until AD 170. Imagine being in a Gentile community in an ancient Roman town north of Rome. You might not even know of the Gospel of Matthew (which was being circulated in Judea). However, you'd know about the Gospel of Luke being circulated in your community. If you read Luke, this would be your only understanding...

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.

Since Luke is all you'd have to go by, you'd see marriage as an indissoluble bond. And to marry another, even after divorce, would be understood as being adultery, regardless of the unfaithfulness or sin committed by yourself or your spouse. The marital bond cannot ever be dissolved.

This fact also lends itself to the "betrothal theory". You see, you wouldn't be wrangling over what Jesus meant by "except it be for fornication" because you'd probably not even know about such a clause. However, those in Judea (where Matthew was circulated) would, because such a clause would be relevant to their betrothal customs.

So, we are left with the understanding that whosoever divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery. Period.

In addition, whosoever divorces their spouse and marries another, causes their spouse to commit adultery (here it is implied by Jesus that they will eventually marry another). Even the one who marries the divorcee commits adultery.

It is now pretty simple. There is no need for all these interpretive gymnastics and wrangling over the so called "exception clause". Because it doesn't apply outside of the context of a Jewish betrothal. And so, we know that...

To divorce and marry another is adultery.

Now the question becomes... How do we deal with those who are in adulterous marriages?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

While all sexual sin can generally be referred to as "fornication", if the person is married, the fornication is an "adultery". Jesus uses the general term because the sin in question isn't in context of the marriage covenant.

You'll note that in the Law if two unmarried people "fornicate" the man is to marry the woman and not divorce her all his days. There is no need for trial before the elders, execution, etc. This would be the case if one's spouse was found to have been "sexually immoral" (fornication) prior to the wedding (for example, during the betrothal period). The man in such cases was free to issue a writ of divorcement (required to terminate a Jewish betrothal) and was free to marry another. That's exactly what we see when Joseph suspected Mary of unfaithfulness during their betrothal period:

Matthew 1:18-19
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.

This understanding of the "exception clause" in the Matthean text would explain several things:

1.) Why the exception clause is only found in the Matthean text (written with a Jewish audience in mind).
2.) Why the term "fornication" is used instead of adultery.
3.) Why the exception clause doesn't appear in Mark or Luke (primarily written for a Gentile audience.)
4.) Why there appears to be no death sentence for the unfaithful partner.

I don't either. However, this may be a cultural thing. If we were a truly "Jewish" culture, virginity before marriage would be paramount and sexual immorality during the betrothal period (or earlier) would be grounds to terminate the betrothal. And, while it isn't a rule in most churches, most grooms to be would break off the engagement upon discovering that their betrothed was unfaithful, lying about her virginity, or not honestly disclosing her sexual history.



Amen. That's why Jesus used the term "fornication".



The problem here is with the board, not the biblical text.



I believe context is important. In the first century a betrothal was just as legally binding as a marriage. A writ of divorcement was even required to terminate a betrothal. It was no mere verbal promise. It was contractual and involved the wealth and status of both families. Since the couple was not yet officially married, the domestic stipulations of the ketubah were not yet in play. About the only valid grounds to immediately terminate a betrothal was sexual immorality prior to or during the betrothal period.



That's assuming that we are still bound by the letter of the OT law. However, I do see your point, and for the law keeper who believes such, it does become a rather sticky situation.



Amen. The only thing I'd "add to" is this statement:



While you're right, beyond abiding alone Paul doesn't specify exactly what is to happen if a couple cannot reconcile. However, the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four Gospels and is written in a very generalized fashion. The Gospel of Luke was specifically written for Gentile readers. Let's see if they include any "exception clause" for those who would not be practicing the Jewish betrothal custom...

Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

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.

See, no exception clause.

Try to remember, the NT wasn't compiled until AD 170. Imagine being in a Gentile community in an ancient Roman town north of Rome. You might not even know of the Gospel of Matthew (which was being circulated in Judea). However, you'd know about the Gospel of Luke being circulated in your community. If you read Luke, this would be your only understanding...

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.

Since Luke is all you'd have to go by, you'd see marriage as an indissoluble bond. And to marry another, even after divorce, would be understood as being adultery, regardless of the unfaithfulness or sin committed by yourself or your spouse. The marital bond cannot ever be dissolved.

This fact also lends itself to the "betrothal theory". You see, you wouldn't be wrangling over what Jesus meant by "except it be for fornication" because you'd probably not even know about such a clause. However, those in Judea (where Matthew was circulated) would, because such a clause would be relevant to their betrothal customs.

So, we are left with the understanding that whosoever divorces their spouse and marries another commits adultery. Period.

In addition, whosoever divorces their spouse and marries another, causes their spouse to commit adultery (here it is implied by Jesus that they will eventually marry another). Even the one who marries the divorcee commits adultery.

It is now pretty simple. There is no need for all these interpretive gymnastics and wrangling over the so called "exception clause". Because it doesn't apply outside of the context of a Jewish betrothal. And so, we know that...

To divorce and marry another is adultery.

Now the question becomes... How do we deal with those who are in adulterous marriages?

My point was not to condone the betrothal theory. Jesus is clearly speaking of WIVES, not finances, being sent packing because of infidelity. Yet, it is all a moot point. Matthew 19 is a Jewish question, not a Gentile one. I Corinthians 7 does not forbid remarriage to one who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse, nor does it forbid remarriage to a believer whose departed spouse refused to obey Paul and married someone new.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

My point was not to condone the betrothal theory. Jesus is clearly speaking of WIVES, not finances, being sent packing because of infidelity. Yet, it is all a moot point. Matthew 19 is a Jewish question, not a Gentile one. I Corinthians 7 does not forbid remarriage to one who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse, nor does it forbid remarriage to a believer whose departed spouse refused to obey Paul and married someone new.

that is yours (or your pastor`s,commentary etc.) opinion. Please give a verse (or two) to support your respectful opinion. If something thre is not in the Word we dont believed .
thank you.
I give you verses for our doctrine.

7:[I]10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.[/I]
if his foot smells let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
if he is in prison let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
if she got addicted to pills let her remain unmarried,
if her breast are hanging till the floor let her remain unmarried,
if he losses his legs to an accident let her remain unmarried,
if he just left let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
if her face is burned\ let her remain unmarried,
if she is not in love anymore let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
whatever reason" let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled

Matthew 19 is a Jewish question, not a Gentile one.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 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.
Who is speaking? 28 But I say unto you,
What Paul said? yet not I, but the Lord
To whom? And unto the married I command
to some of them? And unto the married
except some? That whosoever shall put away his wife
Christians? That whosoever shall put away his wife
with non-Christians? [B] That whosoever

I Corinthians 7 does not forbid remarriage to one who has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse

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.
Who speaks? But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:
Does Paul make an exception of what Jesus say? let him not put her away.
If she/he is pleased to stay with him and divorce? causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
If she/he is pleased to stay but he put away? Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
If he pleased with her but she left him? 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
If the un-believer is NOT pleased with her and left her? and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
who should marry an other after they depart? 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.
If he left her and she marry again ?Rom.7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress:
If he broke his back and she re-marry ? she shall be called an adulteress
if he is an-believer? she shall be called an adulteress
if he lives with his gay friend and she re-marry while he is living? she shall be called an adulteress
what she must do then? let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled
when she can married? 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.