Ok someone explain this, divorce, and marriage to another is adultry, except for unchastity,
does that mean if the spouse cheated on him? I don't understand what this means.
First understand that our modern definitions are not the biblical ones.
Fornication, or Pornea, from which we derive our modern term pornography, has nothing at all to do with pornography. A couple of people got that right. It is whoredom, per say, but it covers every form of illicit sexual intercourse, Adultery, Homosexuality, Bestiality, premarital intercourse ... It has NOTHING do to with dirty pictures, movies, paintings ... which were all over all of the ancient Roman cities ... do some research into the art of Pompeii if you don't believe me.
Pornography no more relates to the meaning of pornea than pneuma relates to pneumatic. If you want to make pornography, and what happens in it equal to pornea then you must make pneuma(The word for the Holy Spirit) equal to pneumatic as well to be consistent. In other words, how long an air hose does the Holy Spirit have? How big a compressor does it take to operate the Holy Spirit. Yes, this is ludicrous. So is taking the meaning of the modern word pornography and attempting to shove that meaning back into the bible because of a common root word.
Adultery is ALWAYS the destruction of an existing family unit to form another one. A family unit, according to God's definition in the O.T. is a husband, his wife or wives, and all their kids. This is why David could have 6 wives, and kids with 5 of them prior to committing adultery. It is also why Solomon never committed adultery. Besides, in the reproof of David, God says He is the one who gave David the wives of his enemies, and says that He would have gladly given David more if only he had not sinned. Check it out, don't trust me. Also there is a command that when we do take extra wives, we are not to lessen the support or marital rights of the first wife. God doesn't give commands on how to "sin" properly.
The passage that says, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother ..." in Genesis is not a command, and no one, including God took it to be one. That explains why it wasn't corrected by God and the prophets in the O.T., and Jesus and the bible writers in the New Testament. Most people believe Solomon should be the poster boy for ungodly lusts. A thousand wives and concubines, and not only looking at them naked, not only touching them, but having kids with them ... yet, no reproof, why? That wasn't the area of Solomon's sin. He didn't take wives of the same faith, and those wives took his heart away from God.
This is the foundation for the discussion in the N.T.. Here, we see things like, before you can actually commit a sin, there are prerequisites that we go through. For example: Before you commit murder, according to the biblical definition, you must first be really angry with them. Before you can commit adultery, i.e. commit sexual intercourse with a woman who is married to another living man who is not you, you must be in the same room, and you must dwell on lust with her in your presence. If it never gets to this point, adultery is not going to happen.
From what I understand, the Jews had a way of justifying allowing a man to be in the same room and indulge himself mentally, even with women married to another man, and it was not considered a bad thing. Don't know if that is correct or not though. That said, the word adultery limits the scope of what is being discussed to a woman married to a different man than the one in the room doing the lusting. The word woman used is also the only Greek word that can be used for married woman. This limits the scope to married women (Husbands still alive) and being in the same room with her and dwelling on your lusts while intently gazing at her ... blepo, I believe. If Matthew had used the word pornea, or fornication, instead of the word for adultery, then we would be having a whole different discussion, and some conflicts with the passage in 1 Cor. 7. As it is, there is no conflict.
This brings us to the last passages. We have cases where wives divorce their first husband, and husbands divorce their first wives ... to marry another. For the woman, she must always destroy the first marriage relationship to form another one. For the man, he could "Add to" his current family by taking another wife. Yes, all this stuff was foreign to me, and a bit offensive at first, but it is what God set up. And all of scripture, and history is consistent with this. The problem is that when you divorce, you destroy the existing family structure to create a new one.
Divorce is another topic. From God's standpoint, Hosea covers His responses to a spouse committing adultery. That's the "Godly way" of responding to a spouse committing adultery. Keep in mind that God's definition of adultery really hasn't changed at all here, ever. But if your spouse does do so, AND YOU HAVE A HARD HEART(That's your problem) divorce is "allowed".
I am open to altering any, and all of my opinions, beliefs, teachings … in the light of the fullness of the scripture with everything that pertains taken into consideration, and with everything cut straight so that everything fits in a cohesive whole.
