Adultery vs Fornication

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Antipas

It's my understanding that there were two schools of thought on divorce and remarriage in Christ's day. Here's what unfolded in Matthew...

Matthew 19:3 English Standard Version (ESV)
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”

In Christ's day there were two schools of thought regarding divorce and remarriage. The Pharisees wanted to see if they could get Christ to pick a side in this theological debate. They wanted to know what He thought about divorce because the two most prominent schools of the Pharisees – the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai – hotly debated the issue. The debate stems from this text...

Deuteronomy 24:1 English Standard Version (ESV)
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,

The debate arose between the two Pharisaical schools because of the ambiguity of the Hebrew word used for “some indecency”. The conservative School of Shammai took a very narrow approach to the verse. It taught that the “something indecent” refers to adultery or sexual immorality. So, by this opinion, a husband could only divorce his wife on the basis of adultery. With this understanding, the School of Shammai left little room for divorce.

The far more liberal School of Hillel interpreted the verse quite differently. They taught that “something indecent” meant just about anything that the husband found undesirable about his wife. Hillel taught that even if a wife was lacking in her abilities as a cook that that qualified as “something indecent” and was regarded as legal grounds for a divorce. We can find this debate recorded in the Mishnah:

The School of Shammai says a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some immoral behavior as it is written, “because he finds something indecent about her.” The School of Hillel, however, says that a man may divorce his wife even if she has merely ruined his food as it is written, “because he finds something indecent about her.” Gittin 9:10

The Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood on this debate. Jesus responded as follows...

Matthew 19:4-6 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus uses some very powerful language here. In the KJV its translated, "cleave unto his wife". Here it is translated, "hold fast to his wife". However, the original definition of the term "cleave" means to "unbreakably adhere to", in such a fashion where as to separate the two would destroy both. This implies that a couple is in a state of being "one flesh" or "one organism". Since dividing the two would destroy both, the bond is clearly indissoluble. Jesus goes on to say, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." This implies that what God has joined together, man isn't to separate, because he cannot separate... i.e. man isn't to divorce.

Of course, this was a higher standard than both schools of thought on the issue, for Jesus didn't mention any exception here. It is plain and clear. A couple is in a permanent bond that would destroy both if it were possible to dissolve.

Of course, the Pharisees respond with additional probing...

Matthew 19:7 English Standard Version (ESV)
7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

This question only makes sense if Jesus challenged the very validity of divorce itself. They honestly want to know now, if what Jesus said is true, why would Moses command the procedure of divorce? Jesus answers them as follows...

Matthew 19:8-9 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Here, Jesus tells them that Moses only commanded the procedure for divorce on account of mankind's hardness of heart, not because it was God's will for such to be so. Jesus indicates that from the beginning, from the time God created man, it wasn't God's will that a married couple ever divorce for any reason.

Then Jesus lowers the boom so to speak. Jesus clarifies his answer to them...

Matthew 19:9 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Now, many will mistranslate this and basically cause it to contradict everything that Jesus just said. However, a close reading will indicate that Jesus didn't contradict Himself at all. Nor did Jesus pick either side in the divorce remarriage debate of His day. Jesus states that whoever divorces his wife, except it be for "sexual immorality" (Grk. pornea), and marries another, commits adultery." It should be noted that sexual unfaithfulness by a married person is adultery. The fact that Jesus doesn't use the term adultery here is because the pornea in question is assumedly prior to the actual wedding. This lends itself to the divorce during betrothal interpretation. To even strengthen this, read how the disciples respond to Christ's position on the matter...

Matthew 19:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Please note, clearly Christ's position was one that was far more serious than what the disciples had heard from either current schools of thought. Else they wouldn't have replied with such dismay. Christ's position clearly left the disciples thinking that it would be better not to even marry if what Jesus taught was true. They felt it would be better not to marry because while Hillel and Shammai both had exceptions that applied to married couples... Jesus did not.

This is why I believe that Jesus actually defined the Law and raised the bar of holiness regarding marriage beyond what the schools of Hillel and Shammai. According to Jesus, only "indecency" that justifies divorce is one committed prior to the wedding/consummation itself. This makes sense. Because the bride was typically considered to be a virgin. If she wasn't, the entire wedding would be under false pretenses. We see the putting away of a wife in betrothal in the story of Mary and Joseph. This example provided by the actions of Joseph was what Jesus was talking about. Not a general clause allowing for divorce and remarriage based solely on sexual unfaithfulness, which flies in the face of other possible abuses and reasons that would actually be considered far worse.

Very insightful post Brother.

If fornication only applies before wedding, why "fornication" is used to described the Israel idolatry in the context of a description of the relationship of God and his people as a marriage?

I find this definition here:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=G4202&t=KJV

STRONGS NT 4202: πορνεία
πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used
a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Demosthenes, 403, 27; 433, 25): Acts 15:20, 29; Acts 21:25 (that this meaning must be adopted in these passages will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Corinthians 6:12ff how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly, all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected); Romans 1:29 Rec.; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 9:21; it is distinguished from μοιχεία in Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; and Galatians 5:19 Rec.; used of adultery ((cf. Hosea 2:2 (4), etc.)), Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.
b. In accordance with a form of speech common in the O. T. and among the Jews which represents the close relationship existing between Jehovah and his people under the figure of a marriage (cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus, i., p. 422{a} following), πορνεία is used metaphorically of the worship of idols: Revelation 14:8; Revelation 17:2, 4; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 19:2; ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγεννήμεθα (we are not of a people given to idolatry), ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν τόν Θεόν, John 8:41 (ἄθεος μέν ὁ ἄγονος, πολύθεος δέ ὁ ἐκ πόρνης, τυφλωττων περί τόν ἀληθῆ πατέρα καί διά τοῦτο πολλούς ἀνθ' ἑνός γονεῖς αἰνιττόμενος, Philo de mig. Abr. § 12; τέκνα πορνείας, of idolaters, Hosea 1:2; (but in John, the passage cited others understand physical descent to be spoken of (cf. Meyer))); of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols, Revelation 2:21.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Let's say a couple in which one is a divorcee approaches you and requests that you marry them. They agree to the extensive counseling and have no issue with anything you might ask of them. How do you ensure that the divorcee is indeed allowed to remarry according to your interpretation of the Scripture?

Every situation is different. However, generally I'd need to know how long ago the divorce occurred and why, and if the former spouse had remarried, etc.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Very insightful post Brother.

If fornication only applies before wedding, why "fornication" is used to described the Israel idolatry in the context of a description of the relationship of God and his people as a marriage?

I find this definition here:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang...gs=G4202&t=KJV

STRONGS NT 4202: πορνεία
πορνεία, πορνείας, ἡ (πορνεύω), the Sept. for תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים, fornication (Vulg. fornicatio (and (Revelation 19:2) prostitutio)); used
a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Demosthenes, 403, 27; 433, 25): Acts 15:20, 29; Acts 21:25 (that this meaning must be adopted in these passages will surprise no one who has learned from 1 Corinthians 6:12ff how leniently converts from among the heathen regarded this vice and how lightly they indulged in it; accordingly, all other interpretations of the term, such as of marriages within the prohibited degrees and the like, are to be rejected); Romans 1:29 Rec.; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Revelation 9:21; it is distinguished from μοιχεία in Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; and Galatians 5:19 Rec.; used of adultery ((cf. Hosea 2:2 (4), etc.)), Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9.
b. In accordance with a form of speech common in the O. T. and among the Jews which represents the close relationship existing between Jehovah and his people under the figure of a marriage (cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus, i., p. 422{a} following), πορνεία is used metaphorically of the worship of idols: Revelation 14:8; Revelation 17:2, 4; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 19:2; ἡμεῖς ἐκ πορνείας οὐ γεγεννήμεθα (we are not of a people given to idolatry), ἕνα πατέρα ἔχομεν τόν Θεόν, John 8:41 (ἄθεος μέν ὁ ἄγονος, πολύθεος δέ ὁ ἐκ πόρνης, τυφλωττων περί τόν ἀληθῆ πατέρα καί διά τοῦτο πολλούς ἀνθ' ἑνός γονεῖς αἰνιττόμενος, Philo de mig. Abr. § 12; τέκνα πορνείας, of idolaters, Hosea 1:2; (but in John, the passage cited others understand physical descent to be spoken of (cf. Meyer))); of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols, Revelation 2:21.

That's a good question.

But that opens up another question.

If "fornication" is an exception that allows divorce and remarriage, and idolatry is "fornication"... could one divorce a spouse because they are an idolater?

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Every situation is different. However, generally I'd need to know how long ago the divorce occurred and why, and if the former spouse had remarried, etc.

Since you believe in the exception clause, how do you ensure that you're being told the truth?

I'm curious about how this is put into practice. Because in my experience, it is generally based on one person's claims. No research, required paperwork, or contact with the ex or family is performed. As a result, this vary narrow "exception clause" often becomes a cloak for sin.

How do you prevent being hoodwinked into blessing a marriage you wouldn't even believe in?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

Since you believe in the exception clause, how do you ensure that you're being told the truth?


I'm curious about how this is put into practice. Because in my experience, it is generally based on one person's claims. No research, required paperwork, or contact with the ex or family is performed. As a result, this vary narrow "exception clause" often becomes a cloak for sin.

How do you prevent being hoodwinked into blessing a marriage you wouldn't even believe in?

The exception clause, along with most of what Jesus said in Matthew 19 about marriage, was for the Jews. He was defining their Law. I Corinthians 7 is for the church. As for being hoodwinked, why can't I just seek the Lord and ask him to give me peace on the matter?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Antipas

That's a good question.

But that opens up another question.

If "fornication" is an exception that allows divorce and remarriage, and idolatry is "fornication"... could one divorce a spouse because they are an idolater?

Oh no, my point is that the term fornication was used to described the lack of loyalty of Israel to God after being "married" to Him. Also, fornication in the other parts of the new testament seems to indicate any sexual immorality, including things like prostitution and bestiality.

My point is that I don't think fornication is used in the verse you used to mean "before wedding". IMHO, if there is any indication of "before wedding" in that verse, it comes from the "put away" debate, not from the word "fornication".

Adultery is fornication, but also bestiality, prostitution, and anything in between the way I read it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Oh no, my point is that the term fornication was used to described the lack of loyalty of Israel to God after being "married" to Him. Also, fornication in the other parts of the new testament seems to indicate any sexual immorality, including things like prostitution and bestiality.

My point is that I don't think fornication is used in the verse you used to mean "before wedding". IMHO, if there is any indication of "before wedding" in that verse, it comes from the "put away" debate, not from the word "fornication".

Adultery is fornication, but also bestiality, prostitution, and anything in between the way I read it.

Exactly. Jesus was saying "Anyone who puts away his WIFE for any other reason than unlawful sexual acts on her part, and marries another, commits adultery".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Antipas

It's my understanding that there were two schools of thought on divorce and remarriage in Christ's day. Here's what unfolded in Matthew...

Matthew 19:3 English Standard Version (ESV)
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”

In Christ's day there were two schools of thought regarding divorce and remarriage. The Pharisees wanted to see if they could get Christ to pick a side in this theological debate. They wanted to know what He thought about divorce because the two most prominent schools of the Pharisees – the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai – hotly debated the issue. The debate stems from this text...

Deuteronomy 24:1 English Standard Version (ESV)
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,

The debate arose between the two Pharisaical schools because of the ambiguity of the Hebrew word used for “some indecency”. The conservative School of Shammai took a very narrow approach to the verse. It taught that the “something indecent” refers to adultery or sexual immorality. So, by this opinion, a husband could only divorce his wife on the basis of adultery. With this understanding, the School of Shammai left little room for divorce.

The far more liberal School of Hillel interpreted the verse quite differently. They taught that “something indecent” meant just about anything that the husband found undesirable about his wife. Hillel taught that even if a wife was lacking in her abilities as a cook that that qualified as “something indecent” and was regarded as legal grounds for a divorce. We can find this debate recorded in the Mishnah:

The School of Shammai says a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some immoral behavior as it is written, “because he finds something indecent about her.” The School of Hillel, however, says that a man may divorce his wife even if she has merely ruined his food as it is written, “because he finds something indecent about her.” Gittin 9:10

The Pharisees wanted to know where Jesus stood on this debate. Jesus responded as follows...

Matthew 19:4-6 English Standard Version (ESV)
4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus uses some very powerful language here. In the KJV its translated, "cleave unto his wife". Here it is translated, "hold fast to his wife". However, the original definition of the term "cleave" means to "unbreakably adhere to", in such a fashion where as to separate the two would destroy both. This implies that a couple is in a state of being "one flesh" or "one organism". Since dividing the two would destroy both, the bond is clearly indissoluble. Jesus goes on to say, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." This implies that what God has joined together, man isn't to separate, because he cannot separate... i.e. man isn't to divorce.

Of course, this was a higher standard than both schools of thought on the issue, for Jesus didn't mention any exception here. It is plain and clear. A couple is in a permanent bond that would destroy both if it were possible to dissolve.

Of course, the Pharisees respond with additional probing...

Matthew 19:7 English Standard Version (ESV)
7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”

This question only makes sense if Jesus challenged the very validity of divorce itself. They honestly want to know now, if what Jesus said is true, why would Moses command the procedure of divorce? Jesus answers them as follows...

Matthew 19:8-9 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Here, Jesus tells them that Moses only commanded the procedure for divorce on account of mankind's hardness of heart, not because it was God's will for such to be so. Jesus indicates that from the beginning, from the time God created man, it wasn't God's will that a married couple ever divorce for any reason.

Then Jesus lowers the boom so to speak. Jesus clarifies his answer to them...

Matthew 19:9 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Now, many will mistranslate this and basically cause it to contradict everything that Jesus just said. However, a close reading will indicate that Jesus didn't contradict Himself at all. Nor did Jesus pick either side in the divorce remarriage debate of His day. Jesus states that whoever divorces his wife, except it be for "sexual immorality" (Grk. pornea), and marries another, commits adultery." It should be noted that sexual unfaithfulness by a married person is adultery. The fact that Jesus doesn't use the term adultery here is because the pornea in question is assumedly prior to the actual wedding. This lends itself to the divorce during betrothal interpretation. To even strengthen this, read how the disciples respond to Christ's position on the matter...

Matthew 19:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Please note, clearly Christ's position was one that was far more serious than what the disciples had heard from either current schools of thought. Else they wouldn't have replied with such dismay. Christ's position clearly left the disciples thinking that it would be better not to even marry if what Jesus taught was true. They felt it would be better not to marry because while Hillel and Shammai both had exceptions that applied to married couples... Jesus did not.

This is why I believe that Jesus actually defined the Law and raised the bar of holiness regarding marriage beyond what the schools of Hillel and Shammai. According to Jesus, only "indecency" that justifies divorce is one committed prior to the wedding/consummation itself. This makes sense. Because the bride was typically considered to be a virgin. If she wasn't, the entire wedding would be under false pretenses. We see the putting away of a wife in betrothal in the story of Mary and Joseph. This example provided by the actions of Joseph was what Jesus was talking about. Not a general clause allowing for divorce and remarriage based solely on sexual unfaithfulness, which flies in the face of other possible abuses and reasons that would actually be considered far worse.

Raising the bar beyond Pharisaic halachah is not the same as raising the bar beyond Moses. Other than that, your response is pretty good.

Although a couple problems remain:

1. All those remarried under Moses' law suddenly became adulterers? How is that even possible?

2. If they were already adulterers, then Moses (by God's direction) authorized adultery! Which does not seem likely...

3. If sin is "transgression of the law", and Jesus classed as sin what the law did not, then how is that not a case of Jesus destroying (abolishing, rewriting, repealing, doing away with) the law (which He specifically said we are not even to think)?

4. Your position seems to provide for condemning as guilty those whom the law says are justified, which is a violation of Deut 25:1, as well as contrary to Proverbs 17:5. Under the law, a divorced woman could remarry and it was not sin, she was justified and innocent in her remarriage. Yet, to condemn such a one as guilty of adultery is an abomination, and those who do such are abominable. But that would mean either Jesus is abominable to God, OR He did not suddenly declare lawfully remarried persons adulterers.

5. Are we even sure Jesus, in saying "committeth adultery", is speaking in a legal sense? Or is this more like "covetousness, which is idolatry"? IE we know covetousness is not LITERALLY bowing to idols and worshipping false gods, but is rather METAPHORICALLY a species of idolatry. No greedy person could be charged with idolatry, actual idolatry, simply for being greedy.

6. Those who have been remarried, how are they to repent? Dissolving their current union? But actual adulterers are to remain married? Does that not seem backwards?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Raising the bar beyond Pharisaic halachah is not the same as raising the bar beyond Moses. Other than that, your response is pretty good.

Although a couple problems remain:

1. All those remarried under Moses' law suddenly became adulterers? How is that even possible?

2. If they were already adulterers, then Moses (by God's direction) authorized adultery! Which does not seem likely...

3. If sin is "transgression of the law", and Jesus classed as sin what the law did not, then how is that not a case of Jesus destroying (abolishing, rewriting, repealing, doing away with) the law (which He specifically said we are not even to think)?

4. Your position seems to provide for condemning as guilty those whom the law says are justified, which is a violation of Deut 25:1, as well as contrary to Proverbs 17:5. Under the law, a divorced woman could remarry and it was not sin, she was justified and innocent in her remarriage. Yet, to condemn such a one as guilty of adultery is an abomination, and those who do such are abominable. But that would mean either Jesus is abominable to God, OR He did not suddenly declare lawfully remarried persons adulterers.

5. Are we even sure Jesus, in saying "committeth adultery", is speaking in a legal sense? Or is this more like "covetousness, which is idolatry"? IE we know covetousness is not LITERALLY bowing to idols and worshipping false gods, but is rather METAPHORICALLY a species of idolatry. No greedy person could be charged with idolatry, actual idolatry, simply for being greedy.

6. Those who have been remarried, how are they to repent? Dissolving their current union? But actual adulterers are to remain married? Does that not seem backwards?

Thank you for trying to help others see these passage in context. My biggest problem with the "never remarry" crowd is that the real point Christ was trying to make completely escapes them. All they see is a new legalism to bind others with.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The exception clause, along with most of what Jesus said in Matthew 19 about marriage, was for the Jews. He was defining their Law. I Corinthians 7 is for the church. As for being hoodwinked, why can't I just seek the Lord and ask him to give me peace on the matter?

You make a point I think we can all agree on.

We should seek the LORD for peace on the matter regardless of the interpretation we hold.

But with interpretations as they are, if one believes that there is an applicable acception clause, aren't they bound to actually put that belief into practice to ensure that they are holding to the clause they claim to believe in?

Now, with my position, remarriage to another after a divorce is always a sin. Therefore, if one finds that they cannot contain and reconcile with their ex, one must always approach God with a contrite spirit, confessing the sin, and weakness to attain God's forgiveness and favor. It's the same approach for everyone regardless of the grounds of the previous divorce.