Adultery vs Fornication

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I think the Esaias' point was that just as a betrothed woman is called a "wife", sexual unfaithfulness during betrothal is called "adultery" in the OT.

yes he meant that ,but is not truth. In the Old testament passage when a betrothed woman has sex with an other and then when she marries he discover she is not virgin is called Fornication (because she did before the wedding)
amen.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by peter83

yes he meant that ,but is not truth. In the Old testament passage when a betrothed woman has sex with an other and then when she marries he discover she is not virgin is called Fornication (because she did before the wedding) amen.

That sounds exactly right. A few folks have really studied this question. A lady named Sharon Henry. She studied it with Leslie McFall.(1944-2015). A few others have written on this question as well, utilizing all the research and study tools available. Your point is an accurate summary. Thanks!

Surprisingly, I was actually helped in understanding by a family in a modest little cave type home in Jerusalem. I had not seen them in 15 years, and they spoke some hard and true words.

Later, I went back to my Ethiopian friend and apologized for making light of his beliefs decades earlier. Let God be true, and every man a liar. (Romans 8:4)

The betrothal view of the "exception clause" stands very strong, and we note that the New Testament author who gave that refinement also told us about Joseph and Mary.

None of this is very complicated, but once the barn door has been opened to large-scale adultery in churches so-called, it is hard for pastors and laymen to switch towards the sometimes uncomfortable truth.

There are many evangelists who can speak a strong word against sins like abortion and perversion, which are industries today. And such a stance is a joy to see. However, may of these same evangelists and preachers do a wide circumference around adultery. Or even in some cases have jointed the pscyhobabble abuse chorus to counsel divorce. Confusing adultery with a supposed "remarriage" is something you really, really want to avoid.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think I said earlier in the thread, that these types of discussions on remarriage usually overlook various points that informed the original audience's understanding of NT statements. Therefore, the various conclusions that get drawn are bound to be erroneous in one way or another.

I just try to point some of these tidbits out and see where it takes the conversation.

you did and i gave you some answers but you never spoke back to me.
Please dont make is so complicate , you know that Moses permitted to them because of their hard hearts, and in the new we dont have neither hard hearts neither the word divorce .if you like go back and see also the answers to your post.
amen,

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Antipas

The writer would tailor his recollection of Christ's teaching to be pertinent information relating to his audience. Ever notice that Matthew goes into greater detail when dealing with Jewish issues, traditions, and custom? Also, notice how Luke appears to focus on Christ's authority, in a sense challenging Roman authority.

Again, all the gospels have similar omissions.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

you did and i gave you some answers but you never spoke back to me.
Please dont make is so complicate , you know that Moses permitted to them because of their hard hearts, and in the new we dont have neither hard hearts neither the word divorce .if you like go back and see also the answers to your post.
amen,

God permitted it, to protect the victims. God gave the Law by Moses.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

God permitted it, to protect the victims. God gave the Law by Moses.

yes my brother thus the text shows us the temporarily of that kind of protection.
The emphasis is how and why God permitted? It says "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered to you to put away".."but from the beginning was not so"
Moses: that shows us that Moses as a type of Mediator was in the middle of God and Jews. So yes without God nothing happen but the emphasis is at MOSES
because of the hardness of your hearts:That is why they were protected. because without holy Spirit our hearts are hard...
suffered to you: That is the temporarily and imperfection of the law, He just suffered for them to put away.
to put away that is h row God sees the divorce, so He protect the putted away by the law of divorcement..
but : oups here something changes..BUT (and now we let Moses and we go how God looks at marriage
from the beginning : we go back, at the creation ,when God make Adam AND Eva , His purpose was not that of remarriages and divorces like the hard-heart sinner does. So we go back before the law of Moses (yes is called" the law of Moses", dont throw me back this)
was not so: was not such a thing and he explains that God did man and women to be one flesh: , " Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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

Now do we have hard hearts while God says "He will give us new hearts? "9 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh
He writes His law to our hearts ! amen.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

yes my brother thus the text shows us the temporarily of that kind of protection.
The emphasis is how and why God permitted? It says "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered to you to put away".."but from the beginning was not so"
Moses: that shows us that Moses as a type of Mediator was in the middle of God and Jews. So yes without God nothing happen but the emphasis is at MOSES
because of the hardness of your hearts:That is why they were protected. because without holy Spirit our hearts are hard...
suffered to you: That is the temporarily and imperfection of the law, He just suffered for them to put away.
to put away that is h row God sees the divorce, so He protect the putted away by the law of divorcement..
but : oups here something changes..BUT (and now we let Moses and we go how God looks at marriage
from the beginning : we go back, at the creation ,when God make Adam AND Eva , His purpose was not that of remarriages and divorces like the hard-heart sinner does. So we go back before the law of Moses (yes is called" the law of Moses", dont throw me back this)
was not so: was not such a thing and he explains that God did man and women to be one flesh: , " Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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

Now do we have hard hearts while God says "He will give us new hearts? "9 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh
He writes His law to our hearts ! amen.

I truly do not have a problem with what you are saying. This was just one of many clarifications of the Law that Christ made, showing its true spirit and severity. However, we must remember that there are many other things God permitted that "in the beginning were not so". God obviously never intended palimony, either. Yet he allowed it. Many of the Patriarchs and kings of Israel had multiple wives. By your theory they are hell bound adulterers like the poor abandoned Hebrew women from Moses to Christ, that remarried after being abandoned.

The real theme here is God's desire for marriages to endure. This indeed only is likely if both hearts are no longer hardened, but have been made new in Christ, something that still was not possible at the time Christ uttered those words. I believe this is the whole premise and point of Paul's words in I Corinthians 7 as well. After all, he is writing to believers who have indeed had a clean heart created in them by the indwelling Christ. But I do not believe that Paul's point was to put people in leg-irons. I believe he knew even so-called Christians would harden their hearts and turn away. He also knew that unbelievers with stony hearts would abandon believers. His purpose was not to bind people that had been forcibly loosed. Sadly, that is what you do, and ascribe your philosophy to Christ.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I truly do not have a problem with what you are saying. This was just one of many clarifications of the Law that Christ made, showing its true spirit and severity. However, we must remember that there are many other things God permitted that "in the beginning were not so". God obviously never intended palimony, either. Yet he allowed it. Many of the Patriarchs and kings of Israel had multiple wives. By your theory they are hell bound adulterers like the poor abandoned Hebrew women from Moses to Christ, that remarried after being abandoned.

The real theme here is God's desire for marriages to endure. This indeed only is likely if both hearts are no longer hardened, but have been made new in Christ, something that still was not possible at the time Christ uttered those words. I believe this is the whole premise and point of Paul's words in I Corinthians 7 as well. After all, he is writing to believers who have indeed had a clean heart created in them by the indwelling Christ. But I do not believe that Paul's point was to put people in leg-irons. I believe he knew even so-called Christians would harden their hearts and turn away. He also knew that unbelievers with stony hearts would abandon believers. His purpose was not to bind people that had been forcibly loosed. Sadly, that is what you do, and ascribe your philosophy to Christ.

1) i dont say that Old Testament people were hell bounded
" 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. \ just like our reaction now.
is not and i never told you my philosophy , is what the whole Church believes and practice my friend. i never knew any Christian who believes or practices second times marriages. there is not such a thing in Church.
the only issue is about those who are coming already remarried from the world, only here there are different practises, otherwise i dont know any Church that practises re-marry a departed man or woman or gives divorces etc.Never!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

1) i dont say that Old Testament people were hell bounded
" 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. \ just like our reaction now.
is not and i never told you my philosophy , is what the whole Church believes and practice my friend. i never knew any Christian who believes or practices second times marriages. there is not such a thing in Church.
the only issue is about those who are coming already remarried from the world, only here there are different practises, otherwise i dont know any Church that practises re-marry a departed man or woman or gives divorces etc.Never!

You may have surmised I meant "polygamy" not palimony.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by peter83

1) i dont say that Old Testament people were hell bounded
" 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. \ just like our reaction now.
is not and i never told you my philosophy , is what the whole Church believes and practice my friend. i never knew any Christian who believes or practices second times marriages. there is not such a thing in Church.
the only issue is about those who are coming already remarried from the world, only here there are different practises, otherwise i dont know any Church that practises re-marry a departed man or woman or gives divorces etc.Never!

You are very disingenuously referring to the "church" as only being constituted by those who believe like you on this issue.