a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

JesusistheChrist · Dec 21, 2014

Matthew chapter 5

[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 looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[29] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[31] It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
[32] 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.

Again:

Matthew chapter 19

[3] The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
[4] And he answered and said unto them, 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.
[7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
[8] He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
[9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
[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.
[12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Okay.

As you ought to have guessed by now, I fully believe that when Jesus gave "the exception clause" of "fornication" in relation to legal grounds for "putting away" or divorce in God's sight that He was literally referring to "fornication" or to sexual activity BEFORE the marriage or during the betrothal period. Is there any scriptural justification or support for such a belief? Yes, I believe that there is. For starters, this very exact scenario came to the forefront in relation to Jesus' Own birth. Yes, in relation to the same, we read:

Matthew chapter 1

[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 publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
[22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

During their betrothal period or during the time when "Mary was espoused to Joseph" (Matthew 1:18), Joseph was referred to as and considered to be "her husband" (Matthew 1:19). Similarly, during said betrothal period, Mary was referred to as (by the angel of the Lord) and considered to be Joseph's "wife" (Matthew 1:20). Yes, when Mary "was found with child of the Holy Ghost" during this espousal or betrothal period, "Joseph HER HUSBAND, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded TO PUT HER AWAY PRIVILY" (Matthew 1:19) or to divorce her privately. Did Joseph, the aforementioned "just man", have scriptural right or precedence to do so? Yes, as a matter of fact, he did. For example, we read:

Deuteronomy chapter 22

[23] If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
[24] Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
[25] But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
[26] But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
[27] For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

First of all, again, please notice that "a virgin betrothed unto an husband" (Deuteronomy 22:23) or "a betrothed damsel" (Deuteronomy 22:25, 27) was considered to be "his neighbour's WIFE" (Deuteronomy 22:24). Again, even though this was only the betrothal period or only the espousal period, such a virgin was considered to be the "WIFE" of the man to whom she was betrothed. With such being the case, if such a "virgin" or "damsel" had somebody "lie" with her or commit fornication with her during said betrothal or espousal period, then depending upon whether or not she was a willing participant in the same, she would be stoned to death. Going back to the account of the events surrounding Jesus' birth, I believe that it is for this exact cause, the possibility of Mary being stoned to death, that "Joseph HER HUSBAND, being a just man, AND NOT WILLING TO MAKE HER A PUBLIC EXAMPLE, WAS MINDED TO PUT HER AWAY PRIVILY" (Matthew 1:19) or was minded to divorce her privately DURING THIS BETROTHAL OR ESPOUSAL PERIOD. IOW, seeing how Joseph assumed that Mary was guilty of committing fornication during their espousal or betrothal period, he had "just cause" to PUT HER AWAY and he intended to do so "privily" or privately so that Mary wouldn't be "made a public example" by being stoned to death. Of course, having been informed by the angel of the Lord that Mary was with child of the Holy Ghost, "Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" (Matthew 1:24-25).

Furthermore, we also read the following in relation to PRE-MARITAL FORNICATION in scripture:

Deuteronomy chapter 22

[13] If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
[14] And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
[15] Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
[16] And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
[17] And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
[18] And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
[19] And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
[20] But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
[21] Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Here, "if any man took a wife" (Deuteronomy 22:13) or got married and then claimed that his wife wasn't a virgin when they got married or that she had committed fornication PRIOR TO THEIR MARRIAGE and he therefore "found her not a maid" or found her not a virgin, then the girl's parents were required to bring "the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate" (Deuteronomy 22:15, 17) and "spread the cloth before the elders of the city" (Deuteronomy 22:17). IOW, "the tokens of their daughter's virginity" was a "cloth" which was stained with the blood of the virgin's hymen having been broken for the first time WITH HER HUSBAND, thereby proving that she was indeed "a maid" or a virgin when they were married. Again, if such "tokens of the damsel's virginity" could not be presented, then the woman was to be put to death FOR HAVING ENGAGED IN PRE-MARITAL FORNICATION.

Anyhow, I believe that these types of situations adequately explain what "the exception clause" is truly all about and I personally don't believe that it's any coincidence that only Matthew's gospel records the same in that Matthew's gospel begins with an account where such a scenario played out in relation to Jesus Christ's Own birth.

Btw, before somebody comes along and quickly seeks to dismiss or discount the above examples from Deuteronomy as if they somehow have no bearing whatsoever upon New Testament saints, I'll also cite how this very same 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy ends:

"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." (Deuteronomy 22:30)

"A man taking his father's wife" or "discovering his father's skirt"? Where have I read of such an incident taking place in scripture? Oh, yeah...right here:

I Corinthians chapter 5

[1] It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
[2] And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
[3] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
[4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

It's the same exact scenario, friends, as was outlined in Deuteronomy 22:30 and THE APOSTLE PAUL therefore knew exactly how horrible of an offense it was.

Like the Apostle Paul, Jesus didn't just arbitrarily say things without having some precedence for saying the same. IOW, I fully believe that Jesus had the types of things as detailed in Deuteronomy chapter 22 in mind when He uttered "the exception clause".

Anyhow, some things for everybody to hopefully consider prayerfully.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 21, 2014

Why do so many marriages these days fail anyway? Granted, there are different circumstances in different marriages, but I personally cannot help but consider and consequentially believe that the major overall reason why so many marriages fail these days is this:

BECAUSE THE CHURCH HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY, SOBERLY TEACH WHAT MARRIAGE IS REALLY ALL ABOUT FROM GOD'S PERSPECTIVE WHICH IS THE ONLY PERSPECTIVE WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY MATTER IN THE END.

Friends, according to JESUS CHRIST, marriage is only for this side of eternity. Yes, we read:

Matthew chapter 22

[23] The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
[24] Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
[25] Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
[26] Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
[27] And last of all the woman died also.
[28] Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
[30] For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
[32] I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[33] And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Again:

Luke chapter 20

[27] Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
[28] Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
[29] There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
[30] And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
[31] And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
[32] Last of all the woman died also.
[33] Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
[34] And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
[35] But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
[36] Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
[37] Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
[38] For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.

Friends, seeing how marriage is only for THIS SIDE OF ETERNITY or for "the children of THIS WORLD" (Luke 20:34) and seeing how "they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain THAT WORLD, AND THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, NEITHER MARRY, NOR ARE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE" (Luke 20:35), why did God ordain marriage in the first place? Well, one MAJOR REASON why He ordained the same was explained to us by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians chapter 5 where he details how that the natural union between a man and his wife was "a great mystery" in that it was designed and ordained by God to mirror the spiritual union between Christ (the Bridegroom) and His church (the bride):

Ephesians chapter 5

[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
[23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
[24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
[25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
[26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
[27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
[28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
[30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
[31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
[32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
[33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Seriously, how many people nowadays do you suppose actually consider such a sober reality BEFORE THEY GET MARRIED? Friends, I find this to be such an important issue that I actually preached a sermon on this exact topic AT MY OWN WEDDING nearly 14 years ago. Any husband who is in a rush to "put away" his wife is basically preaching to THE WORLD, by analogy, that Christ wants to "put away" or divorce His own "bride", the church. Similarly, any wife who is anxious to "put away" or divorce her own husband is, by analogy, teaching THE WORLD that Christians, the bride of Christ, ought to "put away" or divorce Christ (the Bridegroom). This is SERIOUS BUSINESS, friends.

Anybody who has no intention of honoring Christ in their marriage in the above mentioned manner ought not get married to begin with. Also, anybody who cannot endure a life of being "a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew 19:12) or who cannot endure remaining single throughout their entire lifetime is going to have MAJOR PROBLEMS in the world to come in that THERE IS NO MARRIAGE THERE. Seriously, if you can't endure a life of NO MARRIAGE HERE, then why the heck would you even want anything to do with Christ when He promises you AN ETERNITY OF NO MARRIAGE IN THE WORLD TO COME?

Anyhow, this isn't a light matter, friends, and we'd all better really ask ourselves the following question:

Who/who am I really living for?

Christ OR MYSELF?

Again, some things for everybody here to hopefully ponder prayerfully.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 21, 2014

Having already given much scriptural documentation for my own beliefs, let me now get personal. IOW, let me now share how said beliefs have affected and continue to affect my own life.

Look, by human reasoning alone, my own marriage is basically A DISASTER...but not necessarily in God's sight or from God's perspective. How much of A DISASTER by human reasoning alone? Well, among other things, my own wife filed totally false charges against me with the Police a few years ago (about 4 years ago) and I actually needed to appear in court to defend myself against the same. Having been totally innocent of the charges which she levelled against me, I refused to hide behind a lawyer in court that day, even though I could have potentially lost the right to see my own three children whom I love more than I love my own life ever again, but I did consult with two different lawyers before appearing in court to defend myself that day. Without going into any details, the presiding judge heard 27 cases that day with my case being the 27th or the last. All 26 defendants whose cases were heard before mine that day were found to be guilty, even though most of them had lawyers there representing them, and I was the only defendant that day who was found to be innocent (and I was innocent). In fact, after my case was heard, the judge herself counselled me to divorce my wife after realizing what a truly evil woman my wife actually is. Similarly, one of the lawyers whom I had spoken with was pushing me heavily to press criminal charges against my own wife in order to have her arrested and thrown in jail in that she lied to Police Officers about me and lied or perjured herself repeatedly (she actually told more than 60 lies in just her opening statement...I was writing them down and then just gave up) under oath in a court of law. Of course, my own biggest concern was that my wife lied after having placed her right hand upon a Bible and sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...so help me GOD". IOW, her lies to men/women aside, she was ultimately guilty of lying before God Himself. Beyond this, both leading up to my court appearance that day and long after the same (IOW, up until the present), my wife has continually spread lies about me to basically everybody whom I know:

Pastors
Congregants
Family members (on both sides)
Friends
Neighbors
Counselors
Co-workers of mine
Strangers...yes, even strangers

Why am I telling you all of this?

Well, I'm telling you all of this because if there was ever a man who might be looking for an "exception clause" or a justifiable reason for "putting away" or divorce in God's sight, then that man could easily be ME.

I'm still married, however...for the exact reasons that I've been outlining in my posts here and others and I can honestly say that my own relationship with God has grown by leaps and bounds in the midst of my ongoing ordeal. There's an old expression which says, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen", but God Himself will oftentimes bring "fiery trials" into our lives by which He seeks to purify us in the same manner in which gold is purified IN THE FIRE.

Anyhow, I just thought that I'd let you all know the same so that you might not think that I have ulterior motives behind my posts or that I'm somehow here to lay heavy burdens upon others. Believe me, my own burden would be UNBEARABLE...if not for the grace of God which is more than sufficient for me...AND OTHERS, TOO.

SeaBass · Dec 21, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

Hi, SeaBass.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question, but I totally disagree with your response.

IOW, I fully believe that we CAN KNOW what is in another person's heart and I also believe that Jesus plainly taught the same as recorded in passages of scripture such as the following ones:

Matthew chapter 12

[33] Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
[34] O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
[35] A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
[36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
[37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Again:

Matthew chapter 15

[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

According to Jesus Christ, both adulteries and fornications "proceed" or "come forth from the heart", thereby making it obvious to those who observe the same what is truly in the hearts of the perpetrators of such offenses. Yes, we can "know a tree by its fruit". Again, seeing how Jesus said that lust in the heart constitutes adultery, can a husband or wife rightfully divorce their spouse in God's sight simply because they have committed the same offense? Let's not kid ourselves here, btw. IOW, we've all seen men and women drooling over members of the opposite sex who weren't their spouses, thereby exposing what is in their hearts, so in such instances, is this legal ground for divorce in God's sight according to the beliefs/interpretations of some of you in relation to Jesus' used of the word "fornication" in "the exception clause" allegedly including the sin of adultery?

Again, to me, even the thought of such is simply ludicrous.

Anyhow, later on, I'll address, from scripture, what I believe "the exception clause" to really be all about.

I agree a tree is known by it's fruit but fruit is something external, like a work, that can been seen not something within the heart.

1 Cor 2:11 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."

Here Paul is saying one man does not know what another man is thinking unless that man reveals it to him. Likewise man cannot know what's in the mind of God unless God reveals it to man. So man has limited knowledge of what's in another man's heart/mind but God is not limited, 1 Sam 16:7; Rom 8:27; Lk 16:15, etc in knowing what is in man's heart.

If you have a wife and she looks at another man and smiles (whether you/her know that other man or not), do you know what's in her heart?

AVoice · Dec 21, 2014

Jabberjaw said:

When Paul was speaking to the single he warned about committing fornication. To avoid fornication it is good to get married. You have it wrong concerning your definitions. Even a dictionary will show adultery is the SPECIFIC sin that violates a marriage. The word fornication can be used to include adultery in certain contexts but it also has a common premarital definition. For example:
"Jane and John, both 15, were caught fornicating".
By their young ages it is correctly assumed neither are married to anyone. They are both single. The single word in English to describe the premarital sexual sin is fornication. If someone were to try to say Jane and John committed adultery they would be laughed at since the word adultery is completely inappropriate for the sex committed between two single persons.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 21, 2014

SeaBass said:

Again, Jesus said that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matthew 12:34). As such, when either a married man or a married woman is seen leering at someone who is not their spouse and overheard saying something like, "Wow, she's/he's hot!" or something even more revealing than that, then one need not guess what is truly in their heart:

ADULTERY.

Jabberjaw · Dec 21, 2014

AVoice said:

When Paul was speaking to the single he warned about committing fornication. To avoid fornication it is good to get married. You have it wrong concerning your definitions. Even a dictionary will show adultery is the SPECIFIC sin that violates a marriage. The word fornication can be used to include adultery in certain contexts but it also has a common premarital definition. For example:
"Jane and John, both 15, were caught fornicating".
By their young ages it is correctly assumed neither are married to anyone. They are both single. The single word in English to describe the premarital sexual sin is fornication. If someone were to try to say Jane and John committed adultery they would be laughed at since the word adultery is completely inappropriate for the sex committed between two single persons.

Where do you fine "Jane and John, both 15, were caught fornicating" in biblical use? or any example like it?

Nick01 · Dec 21, 2014

Is this discussion still going on?

Look, the problems with the OP still exist. AVoice, your critique of my parallel doesn't hold up. The mere fact that the removal of the exception clause doesn't affect the grammatical consistency of the sentence proves precisely nothing (clauses function like this in English all the time). Your alteration of my example and your backstory is unjustified in at least one important respect - clause A does not specify whether or not the yelling had a specific purpose for someone else's benefit, any more than the opening clause in Matthew prima facie indicates such. Your backstory is illegitimate, and, it should be obvious, has no bearing on whether or not the construction itself makes grammatical and logical sense on its own terms, which is your primary argument.

Partial allowances to total expressions happen ALL THE TIME in English, though part of your argumentation seems to imply and rely on the misapprehension that they don't.

For instance, would you agree that "I love all vegetables, except for carrots" is a common and sensical construction in English, even though cut up into parts, semantically it is entirely contradictory and incoherent?

Finally, you keep arguing that fornication/porneia can exclusively mean pre-marital sex, but your definition and argument here is at least a little anachronistic. Can you find me one example at least vaguely contemporary to the gospels, in Greek, where porneia exclusively indicates pre marital adultery? People have done whole lexical studies on this question, so the data will not be hard for you to find.

JaumeJ · Dec 22, 2014

It seems guilt is being displayed by some in this thread. One need not justify nor condemn any past deeds as long as he has the grace given freely by Jesus Christ. If one desires mercy and not sacrifice,, he wil understand breaking the least of the law is breaking all of the law, just as breaking what may be percieved as the greatest of the laws is the same.

Oft time when one is struggling with any particular sin, he will attempt to justify or condemn it without continually accepting the grace of Jesus Christ.

Regarding the subject of this thread, the teaching of Jesus Christ is clear. Keep in mind, He is the Word, thus disregarding His Word in the Old Testament or New Testament is equally erroneous. Let us live to praise Him always, amen.

AVoice · Dec 22, 2014

Nick01 said:

Welcome back,
I have put a great deal of work on this thread communicating and answering your questions. Perhaps all that work is not in vain after all.

First of all let us look again at your parallel:

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
E) except if their lives are in danger,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.

Now let us see what it was a parallel of:

Matt 5:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
E) saving for the cause of fornication [read as adultery]
2) causeth her to commit adultery:
3) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Your parallel was a parallel of the sentence in Matt 5:31,32.
Line A of Matt 5:31 has a built in background story. The fact that Jesus is referring to Dt 24:1 identifies the specific kind of divorce he is referring to, the normal post marital divorce we are all familiar with in modern times. People opposed to the divorce in betrothal explanation jump on that fact as if it helps them refute the divorce in betrothal explanation. They say, "see, Jesus is plainly referring to the normal post marital divorce, so it is impossible for the allowance provided for by the exception clause to be referring to any other kind of divorce".
So for me to ask for clarification of what kind of yelling your parallel is referring to is in respect to making your parallel fit as best as possible.

You provided your own background story for what kind of yelling was being done:

You are admitting that the kind of yelling referred to in line A is the kind that makes someone guilty; the kind that is wrong. Your exception clause of line E has jumped away to refer to an entirely different kind of yelling: the kind of yelling which is good and something a responsible and mature person will do. It does not result in guilt.
So your parallel failed its purpose, which was to have an exception clause that can provide partial allowance for what the specific topic of discussion is about as established in line A. You provided information in your background story to establish exactly what kind of yelling was being done and it turns out your exception clause did not provide partial allowance for that kind of yelling.

But congratulations; your parallel did not contradict itself; it has an acceptable flow of coherency, just like Matt 5:31,32 WHEN the exception clause is understood to pertain to that other kind of divorce done premaritally, in which case, as in your parallel, it provides NO permission to do what line A establishes to be the topic of discussion and it jumps away to a side point. I am really thankful for your participation in this discussion. Please let us continue. One way that this will be more effective is to present your points in question form, in which case I am obligated to answer in a straightforward way and in return I would expect you to respond accordingly.

AVoice · Dec 22, 2014

Nick01 said:

Of course they happen all the time. But it depends on the sentence format. Sometimes the sentence format forbids it as is the case in the parallel you have provided, which is after the sentence format of Matt 5:31,32. That particular sentence format forbids that its exception clause can provide partial allowance for the topic under discussion as established by line A.

Nick01 said:

That particular sentence format is very different than the kind we are discussing. As an entire sentence it is not contradictory and coherent. Your parallel was not contradictory or incoherent when looked at in its complete state. The same as Matt 5:31,32 when the exception clause is understood to be jumping off to identify an entirely different kind of divorce. [The exception clause in your parallel jumped away to identify an entirely different kind of yelling].

Nick01 said:

Jesus identified the couple who God had joined together, those who had left and cleaved. The betrothed couple does not fit that description. While there is nothing wrong with using the word adultery with regard to her sexua sin while betrothed, strictly speaking she is still single after Jesus' definition of who has been joined in marriage and which "let not man put asunder. Like it or not the couple, though labeled as husband and wife are still both single.
The word fornication DOES in fact apply to the single in some cases. The word is flexible as it can also apply to adultery. The meanings overlap to a point. Another pair of NT words "thieves" and "extortioners" have similar overlapping characteristics.
All extortion is a form of theft, but not all theft is extortion. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery.

1 Cor 7:

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.[SUP]2 [/SUP]Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

He is speaking to the single. For a single man to not touch a woman is good because it may lead to fornication with her. (If she is also single it is completely incorrect for the word adultery to be used). The context is obviously about sexual need and the solution is to get married.

Consider the 4 places in the NT BESIDES in Matt 5 and 19 where adultery is listed alongside fornication identifying a clear difference in meaning:

Matt 15:
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mark 7:
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Gal 5:
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

1Cor 6:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

The word whoredom, like fornication, has the same kind of relationship with the word adultery as we see in these verses:

Heb 13:
4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Hos 4:
[SUP]13 [/SUP]They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.

Lev 19:
29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

AVoice · Dec 22, 2014

JesusistheChrist said:

Having already given much scriptural documentation for my own beliefs, let me now get personal. IOW, let me now share how said beliefs have affected and continue to affect my own life.

Look, by human reasoning alone, my own marriage is basically A DISASTER...but not necessarily in God's sight or from God's perspective. How much of A DISASTER by human reasoning alone? Well, among other things, my own wife filed totally false charges against me with the Police a few years ago (about 4 years ago) and I actually needed to appear in court to defend myself against the same. Having been totally innocent of the charges which she levelled against me, I refused to hide behind a lawyer in court that day, even though I could have potentially lost the right to see my own three children whom I love more than I love my own life ever again, but I did consult with two different lawyers before appearing in court to defend myself that day. Without going into any details, the presiding judge heard 27 cases that day with my case being the 27th or the last. All 26 defendants whose cases were heard before mine that day were found to be guilty, even though most of them had lawyers there representing them, and I was the only defendant that day who was found to be innocent (and I was innocent). In fact, after my case was heard, the judge herself counselled me to divorce my wife after realizing what a truly evil woman my wife actually is. Similarly, one of the lawyers whom I had spoken with was pushing me heavily to press criminal charges against my own wife in order to have her arrested and thrown in jail in that she lied to Police Officers about me and lied or perjured herself repeatedly (she actually told more than 60 lies in just her opening statement...I was writing them down and then just gave up) under oath in a court of law. Of course, my own biggest concern was that my wife lied after having placed her right hand upon a Bible and sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...so help me GOD". IOW, her lies to men/women aside, she was ultimately guilty of lying before God Himself. Beyond this, both leading up to my court appearance that day and long after the same (IOW, up until the present), my wife has continually spread lies about me to basically everybody whom I know:

Pastors
Congregants
Family members (on both sides)
Friends
Neighbors
Counselors
Co-workers of mine
Strangers...yes, even strangers

Why am I telling you all of this?

Well, I'm telling you all of this because if there was ever a man who might be looking for an "exception clause" or a justifiable reason for "putting away" or divorce in God's sight, then that man could easily be ME.

I'm still married, however...for the exact reasons that I've been outlining in my posts here and others and I can honestly say that my own relationship with God has grown by leaps and bounds in the midst of my ongoing ordeal. There's an old expression which says, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen", but God Himself will oftentimes bring "fiery trials" into our lives by which He seeks to purify us in the same manner in which gold is purified IN THE FIRE.

Anyhow, I just thought that I'd let you all know the same so that you might not think that I have ulterior motives behind my posts or that I'm somehow here to lay heavy burdens upon others. Believe me, my own burden would be UNBEARABLE...if not for the grace of God which is more than sufficient for me...AND OTHERS, TOO.

Great testimony, thanks for sharing it.
See, there are those who are standing for truth, despite the hardships it causes in their own lives.
Taking up our cross is required to be a Christian. Some have that particular cross where they refuse to deny Christ by denying what he said about the marriage bond; that it is until death parts.
Endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 22, 2014

AVoice said:

Hi, AVoice.

I've been a Christian for a little bit more than 26 years now and I have personally encountered thousands of professing Christians during that timeframe. To me, the most troubling, frightening and potentially damning (and I won't be swayed away from such a belief with all of the related warnings in scripture, nor will I retract this part of my comment in the future) commonality amongst many (the vast majority) of the same is this idea that:

"God wants ME to be happy."

Seriously, I've heard that uttered from the lips of more professing Christians over the years than I would care to remember and always as some sort of justification for sin. The type of "happiness" that God calls us unto is the "blessedness" ("blessed" could rightly be translated as "happy" and it is in some versions) that Jesus spoke of in His sermon on the mount and such "blessedness" or "happiness" centers around such things as being "poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3), "mourning" (Matthew 5:4), "meekness" (Matthew 5:5), "hungering and thirsting after righteousness" (Matthew 5:6), being "merciful" (Matthew 5:7), having "pureness of heart" (Matthew 5:8), being "peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) and being "persecuted for righteousness' sake" (Matthew 5:10). Somehow I doubt that most professing Christians today equate the same with "happiness". No, rather, and quite frankly, it seems to me (based upon my own observations) that most professing Christians today equate "happiness" with SELFISHNESS. Again, we're either living to bring honor and glory unto Christ or we're living FOR OURSELVES. When it comes to the marriage COVENANT...

Malachi chapter 2

[13] And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
[14] Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
[15] And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
[16] For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

...again, the husband typifies Christ in the COVENANT relationship and the wife typifies the church in the COVENANT relationship. As such, for any husband to be quick to desire to "put away" his wife is for him to teach THE WORLD that Christ greatly desires to "put away" the church, His bride. Similarly, for any wife to be quick to desire to "put away" her husband is for her to teach THE WORLD that the church greatly desires to "put away" Christ, the Bridegroom...and, sad to say, I personally believe that much of the professing church has already "put away" Christ in that it regularly disobeys His commands/teachings in relation to a host of different topics. In any case, "the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that HE HATETH PUTTING AWAY"...and so should we.

Anyhow, I personally believe (with good scriptural justification for the same) that God is a lot more interested in my "HOLINESS" than He is interested in my "happiness"...especially in the manner in which many professing Christians nowadays define "happiness".

Well, like I said, I'm actually a better man today as a direct result of what I've had to endure thus far. If nothing else (and there's definitely more than this), I have a much deeper understanding and appreciation of the scriptures which speak of God pleading with His people to return to Him than I ever did before. IOW, my own desire for my own wife to get right with God often makes me think of how desperately God wants those who claim to be IN COVENANT with Him to return to Him in reality.

Anyhow, that's enough about me.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Romans chapter 1

[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Nick01 · Dec 22, 2014

AVoice said:

You've misunderstood my backstory. The person who says it is not right is the person who is arguing for the exception clause. Everyone else interprets it to mean that the act of yelling itself is always legitimate. In other words, the 'you have heard it said' is referring to the subject or normative belief in that context - that all yelling is legitimated or "necessary" according to previous teaching if it is done at someone who is riding on a road.

This is analogous to the scenario in Matthew. One (though not the only) prevailing attitude at the time was that all divorce was legitimate if issued by certificate. There was otherwise no such thing as a morally abhorrent divorce. Jesus, however, questions that, and argues that divorce in most cases is actually wrong, regardless of the issuing of a certificate.

No. Not all yelling in A is illegitimate - clearly, yelling in order to preserve the safety of the person being yelled at, while still semantically under the purview of A, is excluded. The exception clause, also a subset of 'yelling', is also part of the subject under discussion.

As above.

Nick01 · Dec 22, 2014

You haven't yet demonstrated yet why the exception clause itself (if read as being of the same topic as A) causes the sentence to become incoherent. You will agree that carrots pertain directly to the subject matter of vegetables, so then why is that not contradictory when you argue Matthew 5 on the traditional reading is? Specific grammatical arguments would be appreciated at this point, because you haven't convinced me you're not cherry picking.

At the very least, you'll have to concede that the fact the sentence in Matthew 5 is still coherent grammatically when the exception clause is removed proves absolutely nothing for your argument that it cannot be essential exception. This is because, in exactly the same way, I can remove the clause about not liking carrots from the sentence about vegetables, and still have a grammatically coherent sentence as well (albiet one with a vastly different meaning).

Can you be more specific. Where abouts are you referring to? And are you entirely sure that adultery can only be used of people who are literally married? Can someone commit adultery who is not themselves married?

But this doesn't prove that porneia can be used to ONLY refer to pre-marital betrothal unfaithfulness, which is what is required for your argument. in 1 Cor, it could just as easily also be referring to people who are not betrothed at all, or people who are unmarried having relations with someone else's spouse (notice the emphasis on own wife and own husband - this kind of porneia, while only having one married participant, would still easily count as adultery as well as porneia under the OT law).

As you have just pointed out yourself, though (which makes it odd you're arguing this now), the meanings of these terms often overlap, as broader terms and then more technical terms. In this case, porneia is the more general, referring to a wider set of sexual sins, while adultery typically refers to convenental unfaithfulness. Adultery will often come about because or as a form of porneia.

The fact that the two are listed next to each other doesn't really demonstrate anything more about their relationship than the idea of evil thoughts being listen with any other sin! They may mean different things, but do they overlap? Of course they do! Is it possible to commit murder without an evil thought? How distinct can we really say they are?

In fact, it's worth pointing out that often in these lists, more general concepts follow smaller, more specific or individual ones. Matthew 15:19, as you have pointed out, is one of the chief examples.

v.20 sums up all items mentioned in v.19, plus any similar things that weren't.

Murders, adulteries, fornications, false witness, blasphemies are all extensions and versions of evil thoughts.

Blasphemies (or in the more generally used sense, slander or deliberately untruthful description) is a more general sense of false witness, which is typically directed at a specific person and their reputation. Otherwise identical.

Fornication, includes adultery, but also other sexual impropriety.

The lists tend to show overlap, and plainly are not that interested in listing different and separate concepts.

The word whoredom, like fornication, has the same kind of relationship with the word adultery as we see in these verses:

Click to expand...

Interesting that Hebrews seems to favour my argument more than yours - here you have an example of porneia being used in the context of a marriage, alongside adultery, in an otherwise interchangeable format (whoredom and fornication are the same thing here - if appearing in an English Bible translation, they are both basically always translating porneia)

But note, as well, Jeremiah 3:6-9:

6 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot[eporneusan] there. 7 I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw that for all the adulteries[emoicato] of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. 9 Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees.

If you look at these verses in the LXX, you'll quickly note that the english harlot here corresponds to porneia, and the use of adultery corresponds to moicheio. Both words are used to describe the same actions by the same agents in the same relationships.

Ezekiel 16, Hosea 2, Jeremiah 13 are a couple of similar examples. The evidence would argue there is indeed and overlap, but rarely any separate technical usage for either of these terms (in fact, Hosea 2:4 basically uses them interchangeably as a poetic prophetic flourish)

JesusistheChrist · Dec 23, 2014

Nick01 said:

Hi, Nick01.

No offense, but I'm quite confident that you're misunderstanding the intent of the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews in the passage of scripture cited above. IOW, he wasn't speaking of whoredom/fornication "in the context of a marriage" at all, but simply differentiating between which sexual activities are permissable in God's sight and which sexual activities are NOT permissable in God's sight. For starters, this same writer had previously alluded to "them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness" (Hebrews 3:17) and some of those who both "sinned" and "fell" were those who had committed FORNICATION or those who had engaged in sexual intercourse "OUTSIDE the context of a marriage". If need be, then I'll be happy to cite such examples. Contrariwise, in relation to that which is permissable, he wrote of "the undefiled bed" within the confines of a "marriage" or "in the context of a marriage". IOW, it is perfectly permissable in God's sight for a married couple to engage in sexual intercourse with each other. Again, CONVERSELY, it is NOT permissable for two individuals to FORNICATE or to engage in sexual intercourse "OUTSIDE the context of a marriage", NOR is it permissable for either party "in the context of a marriage" to engage in sexual intercourse with anybody except for their spouse. IOW, BOTH fornication and adultery (they are two different things) are sinful, even as other portions of scripture say the same and equally differentiate between the two in that they are NOT one and the selfsame thing:

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 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." (Matthew 5:27-32)

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matthew 15:18-20)

"And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:1-12)

I mean, c'mon, Nick...are we REALLY supposed to believe that GOD THE FATHER doesn't know the actual meaning of words? I mean, didn't JESUS CHRIST say the following:

"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." (John 14:24)

???

Yes, He did say the same and the words which He spoke did not originate with Him, but rather He was speaking that which He had received FROM HIS FATHER. Do you suppose, Nick, that GOD THE FATHER doesn't know the difference between "fornication" and "adultery"? Seriously, some of the comments that I'm reading here are scary.

Similarly, are we REALLY supposed to believe that JESUS CHRIST, the One Who is "the Word", doesn't know what words mean?

Seriously, if "fornication" ("porneia") includes adultery ("moicheia"), then why did JESUS CHRIST use TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORDS in Matthew 15:19 to describe "adulteries" ("moicheia" in the underlying Greek) and "fornications" ("porneia" in the underlying Greek)? IOW, if "porneia" ("fornications") truly does include "moicheia" ("adulteries"), then why the need to repeat Himself? Why didn't Jesus ONLY mention the sin of "porneia" ("fornications") in that the same allegedly includes "moicheia" ("adulteries") as well? Was Jesus stuttering, perhaps? IT"S LUDICROUS. JESUS CHRIST used TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORDS in all of these passages of scripture BECAUSE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Also, I cannot help but notice that nobody has yet addressed the passages which I previously cited from Deuteronomy chapter 22 and Matthew chapter 1 (in relation to Jesus' Own birth) which give a precedence for this "fornication" which Jesus spoke of in "the exception clause" to refer SPECIFICALLY to PRE-MARITAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Are we to ignore such precedences...possibly to our own peril or to the potential perils of others who might be within our own spheres of influence? I mean, c'mon, this stuff is in our Bibles for a reason.

Anyhow, like Jesus, Paul, too, used TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORDS to describe TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS when he wrote/dictated the following:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21)

Again, if "fornication" ("porneia") truly does include "adultery" ("moicheia") as both you and others here have alleged, then why did the Apostle Paul use TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORDS here? Again, was Paul stuttering, too? I mean, why didn't Paul just say that "fornication" ("porneia") is a "work of the flesh" which unless genuinely repented of will cause people to "NOT inherit the kingdom of God" if it truly includes the sin of "adultery" ("moicheia"). Again, IT'S LUDICROUS.

Well, anyhow, I'll address your Jeremiah quote in a future post and hopefully this will all make more sense after I do.

Nick01 · Dec 23, 2014

Hi Jesus in Christ. Thanks for your reply. No offence taken

I'll keep my reply brief-ish, because I think most of it will turn on how you assess the OT evidence, particularly in light of the LXX.

First, to your assessment of Hebrews. I agree that the writer is contrasting moral behaviour with immoral behaviour. But it does not follow that this is somehow not in the context of marriage, as I'm sure we both agree marriage is the only acceptable state for sexual relations. And the writer is clearly contrasting acceptable conduct, with unacceptable conduct. However, he is far from making a simple comparison between sex in marriage, and sex out of marriage.

There is nothing from the passage that demonstrates the concepts can't overlap. Patently, adultery can occur in marriage, so the comparison is on its face simple not "someone who is married and having sex" with "someone who is not married and having sex". To conclude that somehow porneia is a concept that cannot be applied to marriage from this text alone is spurious, unless you import a word study from outside the text. Either way, the text itself cannot prove what AVoice wants it to prove.

Instead, the fact that the two are listed here in contrast to keeping the marriage bed pure presents a positive case (but not the only one) for my rather simple argument - porneia is a term used of marital conduct as well as non marital conduct. I do not argue they are identical (although they overlap, as AVoice has said), but I don't need to. The position AVoice adopts (and the one I assume you do as well), requires him to be able to argue that it is not only possible, but in the biblical corpus near certain, that porneia is essentially used as a technical term for betrothal adultery.

If you wish to cite further examples from Hebrews, as you've suggested, feel free, although I'm about 90% certain the word does not appear in Hebrews again, except in relation to Rahab.

And I should think it is perfectly possible to defile a marriage bed.

As for the rest of the post, I've previously dealt with the Matthew 15 list. The fact that adultery and fornication are listed together says nothing about the two being entirely separate terms, certainly no more than the fact that he also lists blasphemies and false witness together, or that he lists evil and wickedness, or pride and foolishness, together in Mark 7. Do you wish to argue Jesus means them to be entirely distinct terms as well? Read my previous post if you like. My point is simply that they are overlapping terms. Again, so we're absolutely clear, I do not believe adultery and fornication mean the exact same thing, although they can be used in reference to describe the same subject, whether act or person.

In other words, one can be an adulteress (moicheio) and a fornicator (pornous) by the same act, for one can commit adultery by fornication.

So yes, I do think God knows what words he's saying. I don't see how what I'm arguing suggests he doesn't. I think Jesus' words were entirely comprehensible to those he spoke to. Do you suggest otherwise?

I similarly don't find it odd at all that Paul uses two different words. I find it more odd that you somehow thing he should not. Your point might carry some weight if I were arguing that the two terms are entirely synonymous, and have no semantic distinction. But, at risk of repeating myself (ba doom, tish!), that's not what anyone in this thread is arguing.

Your appeals to the 'ludicrous' nature of what I'm arguing (which, I'll remind everyone, is actually the usual reading of the passage, and was understood as such by the early Christians) are almost deserving of the description themselves. How's about we keep the hyperbole and emotive arguments out of it from here on in, yes?

JesusistheChrist · Dec 23, 2014

Hi, Nick01.

I'll have to get to your Jeremiah quote and your most recent response a little bit later on today (I'm presently juggling a few different things), but, for now, once again, I cannot help but notice how you (and others have done the same) failed to address what I said and asked here:

JesusistheChrist said:

Have you no comments in relation to the same?

If you do, then I'd certainly be interested in reading the same.

Thanks.

JesusistheChrist · Dec 23, 2014

P.S.

Before I log off for just a bit, I'd like to say that I hope that we're all beginning to realize (if we haven't truly realized the same beforehand) how seriously God takes and deals with the sins of fornication and adultery. IOW, seeing how we all live in a world in which we're constantly bombarded with all sorts of sexual images, whether through TV, movies, billboards, magazine covers at the grocery store checkout line or in how many women/men dress and present themselves before us, we can easily lose sight, if we don't stay rooted and grounded in God's Word and in fellowship with Him, of how sinful these sins actually are. Anyhow, I just felt the need to mention the same.

"Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him: But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God." (Ecclesiastes 8:11-13)

AVoice · Dec 23, 2014

Nick01 said:

Nick, Let us both go very slow and write very carefully.
Here is your parallel that you have agreed to use to make your points:

A) You have heard it said, "When riding your bike, yell very loudly at people on the street"
B) But I say to you,
1) anyone who yells loudly at people on the street,
E) except if their lives are in danger,
2) will cause those people unnecessary anguish,
3) and whoever joins in the yelling causes unnecessary anguish.

Line A is where we see the “you have heard it said”. So obviously you are referring to line A when you write the following:
In other words, the 'you have heard it said' is referring to the subject or normative belief in that context - that all yelling is legitimated
So this appears to plainly say that line A is referring to all yelling, the irresponsible kind, done by rowdy youth to aggravate people as would be expected from a juvenile gang, as well as the responsible kind, such as yelling to warn someone of danger. Please explain how I am misunderstanding you if you say I am misunderstanding you. Is this not what you are saying by your statement I have put in blue font?

But then you say this:

No. Not all yelling in A is illegitimate - clearly, yelling in order to preserve the safety of the person being yelled at, while still semantically under the purview of A, is excluded.
This is confusing: Not all yelling in A is illegitimate, means Line A includes the good as well as the bad: but later in the same sentence the good kind done to preserve safety is excluded.

Let’s slow down here. Am I correct to understand that your phrase, while still semantically under the purview of A, means that when a person begins to read the sentence, the person may reasonably think that line A may refer to all kinds of yelling, both the responsible kind as well as the irresponsible kind. But when the person reading comes to the exception clause he then realizes by the fuller context that the author intended line A to exclude the responsible kind?

That is how I read it as well. The same kind of thing happens in the parallels in the OP. So overall, the conclusion, by the fuller context, is that the author intended that line A to exclude the responsible kind, while the exception clause provides for that kind. In other words, what they had heard, declaring the doing of a particular action to be OK, was in reality wrong, while the exception clause provides allowance to do an entirely different kind of yelling, which is right.

The background story of Matt 5:31,32 is from Dt 24:1. That background story identifies what kind of divorcing is being discussed. Your background story identified what kind of yelling was being done, it did not include the kind done to preserve life.
You have admitted above that the background story in your parallel (when reading the parallel in its complete context and thus the authors intended overall meaning) excludes line A from referring to the kind of yelling done to preserve life.

I am in complete agreement. Your exception clause did not provide partial allowance to do the particular action which line A refers to as being the specific topic of the sentence. The overall meaning of the sentence means line A excludes the kind of yelling done to preserve life. The exception clause jumps off to that specific and different kind of yelling; done to preserve life.

1) Your parallel vindicates the ‘divorce in betrothal’ explanation because your exception clause does NOT provide partial allowance to do the action that line A establishes to be the action being discussed.
2) Your parallel vindicates the ‘divorce in betrothal’ explanation because your exception clause jumps off to a different kind of yelling than what line A is speaking about.

That is how the divorce in betrothal explanation works: it does not provide partial allowance and it jumps off to an entirely different kind of divorce than what line A establishes to be the topic of discussion.

It may appear that a potential solution for the shortcoming of your parallel is to change your background story. The other potential possible solution is to try to change what is caused in line 2.

Let’s not give up on trying to make a parallel that vindicates the ‘divorce for adultery’ explanation.

a challenge for those who believe Jesus allows divorce after adultery

JesusistheChrist

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

SeaBass

Banned

AVoice

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

Jabberjaw

Senior Member

Nick01

Senior Member

JaumeJ

Senior Member

AVoice

Guest

AVoice

Guest

AVoice

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

Nick01

Senior Member

Nick01

Senior Member

JesusistheChrist

Guest

Nick01

Senior Member

JesusistheChrist

Guest

JesusistheChrist

Guest

AVoice

Guest