Does adultery really break the marriage bond?

[Guest]

And when Paul and Christ fully acknowledge that many men and women CANNOT endure celibacy ?
Youre not being realistic about this at all but using something Paul presented as desirable and trying to pass it off as an absolute.

Paul certainly said celibacy was desirable. But he also commanded it for believers who were divorced. Paul commanded the believing woman who left her believing husband not to remarry but be reconciled. That's my situation. The assumption must be that her husband was still available. So in effect he was commanded not to remarry either.

Do their sexual passions just dissappear? Of course not. Yet Paul required one, probably both, to remain celibate. Why? The alternative was adultery.

I have a friend who is not a pretty man. He also has a physical disability. And he would love to get married. He is in his late 40s. The likelyhood of that happening is slim.

He also burns with sexual passion. No one would relax the Lord's commands regarding fornication to justify the use of a prostitute.

But this is what i think you are doing FOC with respect to adultery - relaxing the commands re adultery because we have sexual urges. I think that argument is fatally flawed.

There are consequences for sin on both the innocent and the guilty party. Celibacy is one of those.

I dont make the rules. I am just trying to keep them.

[Guest]

Andrew, the Greek word "mā" (Strong's 3361) never means "let not"; it means simply "not" (or in some contexts "no"). The "let" part in Matt 19:6 is found within the verb itself, due to the fact that the verb is the third person imperative. In English, the only way to express the third person imperative or the first person imperative is through the use of the word "let". When a preacher says, "Let us pray", it is the first person imperative.

[Guest]

Thanks for the clarification Paidion. So the verb would be in the Indicative Mood if it were to be translated 'cannot'?

[Guest]

I know that many of your translations will read "divorces" in the verse quoted above. But the Greek word "apoluō" means "to separate from".

I didn't think there was a Greek word for the verb 'divorce'. There is one for the noun 'writing of divorcement' (apostasion). What Greek word would be used to describe divorce?

It seems that the same word is used Mt 1.19 where Joseph was going to put away Mary. You would consider that a 'true divorce'? If so, how does it differ from Mat 19.9 etc?

Thanks
Andrew

[Priestly1]

hi,

When asked about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage Christ was clear. But when the Disciples understood His position they asked "how can any man wish to become married!?" Christ replied, "For some this teaching is too hard to accept."

Except for the case of sexual promiscuity during the betrothal (Porneia), there is no divorce. Sexual promiscuity during the marriage (Mochiea) can and should be forgiven if possible at all possible.

Christ's own mother was found to be pregnant during the betrothal period, and not by her future husband either. She could have been stoned for it, but Joseph decided to break off the engagement (Divorce) quietly and send her off to family in another area. The Law was quiet clear as to what to do if a bride was discovered not to be a virgin before or during consummation of the Marriage.

the Prophet was told to marry a Jewish woman who was known to practicing sexually promiscuity.....but He knew this before the Betrothal and Marriage. As did God when He betrothed the evil and stiff necked generation of Jacob to be the Israel of God. He allowed Israel to walk away and yet he sought Her out, as did the Prophet His wife, and restored Her in His Love. Christ is the Groom of the Israel of God......He forgave us all our sins and died for us.....if we say even now we have no sin we are liars and the Truth is not in us.

Husbands should be prepared to Love their Betrothed or Wives just as Christ loves His Israel the Church. Christ would not divorce us for infidelity or put us away quietly because of discovering us to be with sin.

In Judaism, when a husband "fell out of love" he could for any reason get a divorce decree and send her packing. She could remarry, but she and her knew husband would be technically in an adulterous relationship if her divorce was based upon whim and not Porneia. Once your Married it is for Better or for Worse...........Love can and should forgive and reconciliation can be established. I tried this twice, and was unsuccessful in my second attempt on her part. Both times I endured adultery.........and if I knew she was a sexually promiscious woman during the engagement I would have had cause to reject her. If you cannot be honest in the beginning nor faithful in little matters you will not be faithful in greater matters...like Marriage.


This issue of Divorce for Adultery is a tough Notion to swallow......but Christ stated it, the Prophet lived it and as the Israel of God we receive it.


Rev. Ken

[Homer]

Hi Ken,

You wrote:

Except for the case of sexual promiscuity during the betrothal (Porneia), there is no divorce. Sexual promiscuity during the marriage (Mochiea) can and should be forgiven if possible at all possible.

Isn't porneia a broader term for all sexual immorality, which could include adultery? Could a wife divorce her husband if he began a child porn business by taking pictures and selling them although he had no direct sexual contact with the children? Would that not be porneia?

[Ian]

I looked this verse up in the IVP New Bible Commentary, which didn`t really answer the question here, but what it did say is this:
""the Jews thought of adultery as a sin by a woman against her husband or by one man against another; Jesus taught that a man may commit adultery against a woman".
Is this accurate? Were the Jews so out of their tree as to have taken such a sexist view as the above?

I realise this is an old post with a 2-year gap between some answers. Indeed is id1384 still alive? He did after all join this forum in 1969!!!

[Homer]

Hi Ian,

You asked:

"the Jews thought of adultery as a sin by a woman against her husband or by one man against another; Jesus taught that a man may commit adultery against a woman".
Is this accurate? Were the Jews so out of their tree as to have taken such a sexist view as the above?

The view you inquire about was the way the Law of Moses was understood and practiced, to the best of my knowledge. Thus, a married man could have multiple wives, numerous concubines, and other sexual encounters without it being adultery as long as he did not get involved with another mans wife. In fact it was his duty, according to the LOM, to father children by a widowed sister-in-law. The married woman commited adultry if she had relations with any man other than her husband. Jesus restored marriage to God's original intent.

God bless, Homer

[Ian]

Thank you Homer.
I never really knew all this (perhaps because it never mattered to me before).
No wonder God was so indignant with them.

[kaufmannphillips]

Ian wrote:
No wonder God was so indignant with them.

For what?